HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council April 26 20051
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
April 26, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 9:30
a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Absent:
Sam Crawford
1. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THE
BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM IN THE LAKE WHATCOM
WATERSHED (ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED INCLUDE: PROCESS,
JUSTIFICATION FOR LIFTING THE MORATORIUM, BENCHMARKS, AND
PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS) (AB2005 -072B)
Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, stated he submitted information (on
file) in response to Councilmembers McShane and Fleetwood. One of the things
they've identified as part of the moratorium response is developing a
comprehensive stormwater program. His information provides a model ordinance
prepared by the Puget Sound Action Team. One of the most urgent things to do is
to examine the technical standards for review of flow control.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that typically, staff first inventories what
uses are in the watershed. When moving forward on regulations without good
information, they may go after something that isn't worth going after. First,
determine what is out there and how much of a problem it is, especially given the
different geographic areas.
The proposed new critical areas ordinance requires farm plans and a checklist
for low- intensity farms. That may be enough regulation for the watershed. Look at
that as an interim approach to see how well it works. Problems with individual
property owners could be sent to the Conservation District for assistance.
In this part of the country, year -round animal keeping is dependent on the
site without over - winter housing. The cost of land in the watershed is enough that
there won't be commercial agriculture. There are too many regulations already.
They may see increased numbers of horses that are more of a recreational use.
Horses can become a real problem. Thresholds may be a better method to create
more requirements. In other words, Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.80.805(1) is
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
a table of information on animal units in the county on smaller parcels. The list
could be referenced at 50 percent for the watershed. If in excess of those numbers
listed, one must have a Conservation District - approved farm plan. Look at the
individual site rather than a blanket regulation for properties that are all very
different. If agriculture is really an issue, then inventory the area. The County
could prohibit livestock in areas with a certain slope. The process of working with
people on this issue would be very time consuming and expensive. The question is
who will go out and make that effort and whether the effort is worth it.
McShane asked if hobby farms are required to have a farm plan under the
current critical areas ordinance. Olason stated he didn't think they are.
McShane asked if the new critical areas ordinance will require a farm plan for
hobby farms. Olason stated there is a threshold for low- impact agricultural
operations that allows one animal unit per acre. One isn't exempt from the
standards. Look at the standards referenced. There is a prescribed raising
practice. The requirement will give the County the authority to do follow -up
enforcement for those who are a problem.
McShane asked if the proposed critical areas ordinance allows one animal
unit per acre or less, and less than that is exempt from the critical areas ordinance.
Olason stated all are required to comply with the requirement in section one for low
impact operations. If a property is in the wrong spot, the use may not be a low
impact operation. This ordinance will require staff to have a good working
relationship with the Conservation District, and the Conservation District must have
resources to deal with these things.
McShane asked how many hobby farms exist countywide. Olason stated
they don't know, but there are hundreds. The critical areas ordinance will have
more teeth. They are trying to get voluntary compliance.
Nelson asked for an actual idea of what is out there. There used to be a few
dairy farms in the watershed. None are left on Squalicum Lake Road. There are
some horse farms and a llama farm. He agreed that it's not an issue they want to
tackle. Not that many agricultural practices are out there. There may only be
hobby practices. The ground soils aren't conducive to raising anything. The critical
areas ordinance is the road to take. The ground limitations are naturally limiting.
Olason stated no one is making money on the activity. It really is a hobby. People
may decide to get rid of the animals rather than pay the price to do it right.
Nelson asked what is the current proposal.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the current proposal is to eliminate agricultural use
from being a permitted use.
Nelson stated he is opposed to that proposal. He asked about the 50 percent
rule. Olason stated one option is listed in his memo, item 3b. There is a proposed
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
regulation for specified animal units per acre, based on usable area on the
property. One couldn't count a driveway or house area as an area for livestock.
The standard is applied to properties ten acres or less. The code could say that a
hobby farm operation with 50 percent or more of the amounts listed in WCC
20.80.805(1) would be required to get a farm plan. Someone from the
Conservation District will have to go to the site, charge a per hour fee, and work
with a person who may not like it.
Nelson asked the pollutant load they're worrying about.
McShane stated the problem is phosphorus in the amount of 45 pounds per
animal unit per year.
Roy asked if the critical areas ordinance will not require farm plans for hobby
farms. Olason stated there is a threshold for low impact agricultural operations
that have less than one animal unit per acre. To determine if there are any critical
areas, there is a checklist to go through. One must also follow prescribed
specifications regarding pasture management and buffer management.
Roy stated a benefit of the farm plan is support for monitoring this would be
from the Conservation District. This may have a minor impact on the community.
She asked if that will help the County monitor what is going on if the County
requires a farm plan at 50 percent of this standard. Olason stated someone has to
pay the Conservation District, who has always relied on unstable funding. If there
was stable local funds, or if the cost was partially paid by the owner, the
Conservation District would have an ability to do this work. Getting the money
from an unwilling owner might not be easy. They are getting deep into people's
business.
Roy asked what happens if it is a permitted use. Olason stated the staff
would defer to the critical areas ordinance and thresholds. Someone with more
than one animal unit per acre would have to self- assess the operation. The
problem is that the issue is about voluntary compliance or complaint -based
enforcement. If someone is out of line, the County can say the person didn't do a
good job of self- assessing and has to have a farm plan. The County would have to
treat it like an enforcement. With that process, there would be standards that don't
exist currently. The threshold in the watershed could easily be lower by referencing
50 percent or less of the animal units in WCC 20.80.805(1)
Caskey- Schreiber asked for an example of how many animal units would be
allowed in the 50 percent rule for five acres. Olason stated five acres could allow 2
1/2 horses, depending on the amount of site available for pasture. Beef cows are
one animal unit per acre. Dairy cows are 1.4 animal units per acre.
McShane stated a concern is existing hobby farms that are grandfathered in.
Everyone agrees that the ground in the watershed is lousy farmland, which
indicates that the use shouldn't be allowed. Existing geese and animals cycle the
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
phosphorus that already exists in the watershed because they live there and eat the
phosphorus. However, hobby farms import phosphorus into the watershed. A
typical cow and calf bring in 45 to 70 pounds of phosphorus per year.
They don't know how effective the new critical areas ordinance rules will be.
He's not optimistic that they will do a good job with hobby farms around the county
in the first place. From a farmland perspective, there is no cost to converting land
in the watershed to pasture. However, people in the future who live in the
watershed aren't interested in cost - benefit analysis. They want to enjoy a lifestyle
with water.
This debate occurred when they talked about Lake Samish. Property owners
weren't interested in reducing density. Those who advocated for reducing density
also had horses and cows. It is a huge source of phosphorus they should not
ignore. Any other drinking water watershed would ban farming as a use. It's time
to amend a mistake that allowed farming of any type in the watershed. Make it
clear.
Nelson stated there is good farmland in the watershed, it's just not large
enough. Agriculture practices do have impacts. Geese also bring in phosphorus
into the watershed. They can't say phosphorus is brought into the watershed only
from manmade sources. The watershed is a public source that was historically used
for more than just drinking water. Do all they can to protect the source. They can
do that with the limited amount of existing agricultural practices.
Olason stated a big part of John Gillies' point was about dairy farms in the
county importing material. Dairy farms buy a lot of hay from Eastern Washington.
However, typical hobby farms buy hay locally. Dairies feed five times as much as
beef cows. Hobby farm operators typically don't want to buy anything they don't
have to. Therefore, they mostly pasture and put up some local hay to feed back to
the cows. Don't compare that statistic from Mr. Gillies to low input hobby farms.
There could be more input with horses that like higher - quality hay. The input
depends on what is in the management practice. That goes back to having an
appropriate farm plan.
Nelson stated many hobby farms in the watershed get hay locally, from
within the watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated typically, hay is local and alfalfa is from Eastern
Washington. It's unlikely the five -acre tracts in the watershed will be able to
survive on that pasture alone, or they may encourage conversion of forestland to
pasture.
McShane stated it's not a big issue now. His concern is for the future. They
are not going to take away people's dreams of having a hobby farm because there
aren't many. However, one person has a small veal operation on Olsen Creek. It's
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
a hobby farm. That's why he chose the low number of phosphorus pounds. Of
course there will be a range of imported material.
Olason stated another question is the source of runoff travel. There is a lot
of source material that rides other material into the lake. Whether or not a farm is
good or bad is the true question. The other question is the time the Council wants
to spend making a farm a good farm.
McShane stated he will bring this forward for a vote eventually. Farming in
the watershed is not a good idea. They are setting the County up to deal with more
enforcement issues. Don't add to that burden.
Brenner stated they should allow horticulture in the watershed with the
stipulation that the operation doesn't use phosphorus. Someone could make a
good living growing plants suitable for the watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any portion of the watershed that can
have exceptions to the rules.
Nelson stated that is what the critical areas ordinance is for.
Caskey- Schreiber stated one resident of the watershed is required to move
all his fences for five steer cattle on 15 acres. There is some kind of enforcement
of hobby farms happening now. Olason stated the issue is site - specific. He
understands Councilmember McShane's concerns, having seen other watersheds
that have intensive hobby farm uses. It's a headache for a local jurisdiction to deal
with in terms of water quality. The question is whether it is a big problem
compared to nearshore development.
Brenner asked if they can remove agriculture as a permitted use, but with
exceptions allowing the use for certain reasons. It would be like an administrative
approval process. The owner would be required to make sure the use is
appropriate. Olason stated the minimum threshold would be to require a farm plan
for any use.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the idea, but John Gillies' said it would be
the worst -case scenario because they don't have the money to do that work.
Olason stated it could be a self -paid program. It gets down to who at the County
would do the work to decide if there needs to be a farm plan. It would take four
staff people to determine whether a landowner needs a farm plan. They would
have to have an amnesty program for people to register that they've been there.
Fleetwood asked if the Council has voted to delete this use.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council has.
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood stated the idea is to allow the use as an administrative approval
use with the condition that the there be a farm plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason stated a permitted use process requires notifying the neighbors, who
could appeal it to the Hearing Examiner.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Olason believes this would be a nightmare for
staff. Olason stated it would be.
Fleetwood stated he's hearing that the practical effect would be so
deminimus that it would have close to no application, and that's why Mr. Olason
proposed to do an inventory. Now, they are speculating. The Council has spent an
hour in this moratorium response effort talking about this issue of minimal import.
Move on. He will support it as an administrative approval use.
Nelson moved to reinstate WCC 20.71.051 with the added condition that
the use have a farm plan if it exceeds 50 percent of the stocking rates in the table
of WCC 20.80.805(1).
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is information from other watersheds about
the percentage. Olason stated there isn't.
McShane stated there are examples in King County.
Olason stated it would be great to encourage small lot forestry. Maybe the
farm plan will require enough money that people will think twice before buying the
property.
Motion carried 4 -2 with McShane and Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Troy Holbrook Senior Planner, stated he would provide the transfer of
development right (TDR) program status update. Now, there are 322 certified
TDR's, and about 200 are available for transfer for additional density. Of those
development rights, 122 have restrictive covenants. About 31 of the development
rights were used to increase density in receiving areas. About 30 or so are being
certified as sending areas right now. Several receiving projects are in the works
right now. The program is attractive enough with the three -to -one ratio and the
development standards. Property owners are interested in the program. In the
Bakerview area, the County did a provisional rezone to the urban residential, 24
units per acre (UR -24) zone. About 50 or 60 TDR's that are being transferred now
for additional density. The program is continuing to pick up momentum as they
establish receiving areas.
The Bellingham subarea will help the TDR program by providing additional
receiving areas. Now, receiving areas are only in the urban residential, mixed use
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(UR -MX) zone areas in the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), most of which are
built out. They need to work on new receiving areas in the UGA. They also need to
put receiving areas within the city limits of Bellingham.
Brenner stated the County could require cities to receive a certain percentage
of the TDR's in the city limits. There is no incentive for the Cities to put receiving
areas in the city limits now. Development is moving farther out from the city limits.
People don't want to be in the UGA because it becomes a dumping ground.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County is giving up opportunities to develop
receiving areas by not requiring them in upzones. For instance, the 18 acres in
Cherry Point could have a requirement to purchase TDR's from farmland or the
watershed. In Sumas, the County has processed 43 acres from agriculture to
industrial. That should have required TDR receiving areas. Holbrook stated there is
a TDR component to UGA expansions and upzones, with certain exceptions. The
Sumas rezone was one of the exceptions. It was a nonconforming use. It was a
government- initiated rezone. Some of the Comprehensive Plan amendments will
require TDR's this year.
Roy asked if they are working on requiring TDR's in the cities. Holbrook
stated there are different levels to work on that issue. One issue is with the staff
level. Also, County codes don't apply to the Cities. The County can work on the
subarea plan in conjunction with the City of Bellingham. Included in the subarea
plan is an implementation package to revisit zoning regulations that will implement
the subarea plan. As part of the implementation package, they will need to update
the interlocal agreement, the method by which to address TDR's in the city.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should increase the required number of
development rights. Holbrook stated staff can look at that. The County has a
component for residential rezones, but is lacking with commercial and industrial
rezones.
McShane asked the market value of a development right in the watershed.
Holbrook stated the going price so far is between $4,000 and $6,000 per TDR.
McShane stated the developers are, in effect, buying three lots, with a value
of $12,000 to $18,000. He asked how that value equates to the value of the
development rights received. The number seems low enough that it may not be
very attractive. A seller may find it attractive if in a area that is difficult to develop.
However, a lot in Geneva or Hillsdale, with ready access to utilities, could be easy
to sell for $60,000. Holbrook stated there are many variables when converting the
value of TDR's. It's hard to compare. It depends on whether or not a property is
easy to develop, is landlocked, has utilities, and the type of development. A study
was done two years ago that quantifies the values a bit. It also has different
formulas to look at.
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated the County is facing significant costs in areas subject to the
national pollution discharge and elimination system (NPDES) permit. In those
areas, TDR's may be more valuable, and the conversion rate may need to go up.
He asked how many individual lots in the middle of a neighborhood have been
transferred. Holbrook stated few exist in areas such as Geneva and Hillsdale.
McShane stated those areas will cost the most to work on.
Holbrook stated that as he does analysis of those areas for the subarea plan,
he will look at exactly the value for those vacant lots and how to adjust that
formula.
Fleetwood asked if the Council has given Mr. Holbrook direction on something
to work on. Holbrook stated it has not, as it relates to the moratorium. He's just
providing an update on the status of the program.
Brenner stated she liked the idea of valuing different TDR's differently.
Holbrook stated the County is not valuing TDR's now because it is a private market
where costs are negotiated. There are some ways to affect it without getting
involved in the private transaction.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if some jurisdictions do TDR banking. Holbrook
stated there are a few in the country. There are different ways to do that. There is
a mechanism for setting up a TDR bank, but they haven't pursued it yet. The
market is starting to take care of itself.
Nelson asked the cost of one -acre lot in a zone with 20 -units per acre.
Holbrook stated he doesn't have an idea. In the UR -24 zone, the minimum density
is ten units per acre, but the developer can go up to 24 units with the TDR. One
problem is that the values were established too high. The property owner asked for
too much money. Each is different depending on the property. Property zoned UR-
24 would be valued less if most of the property is wet. He's not sure what the
prices are right now.
Nelson stated they have to look at both sides. If he has acreage where he
can transfer development rights, he will add that to his selling price. The developer
must make sure there is room for enough units to get the investment back. If the
price of a TDR is too high, it's not worth investing in them. They need more
information on the price of receiving units, and whether it is with or without critical
areas. Holbrook stated he will provide that information.
Brenner stated that if the moratorium continues, an idea is to include
language to except clusters as long as the overall density remains at five acres or
less.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated he
agreed with trying to figure out how to make it work. However, don't make it
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
overly complex, which this language does. Don't do anything in haste that creates
another rush to the counter or confuses people during the interim period. Be very
cautious.
Roy asked if a twenty -acre parcel can put one house on each of the five
acres, but would be prohibited from clustering the houses on lots smaller than five
acres. Hart stated that is correct, during this interim ordinance.
Roy stated that is contradictory to the policy to encourage clustering. Hart
stated staff is working on this contradiction for the final ordinance. To do anything
in the interim makes too many changes for staff and the citizens.
Roy stated these are the kinds of things the Council can tweak during the
interim ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this ordinance is temporary. They should include
Councilmember Brenner's language in the permanent ordinance.
McShane stated the Council does need to do additional work on the cluster
rules.
Pederson stated the specific cluster requirements for WCC 20.71 are
scheduled in the Planning and Development Committee today.
Brenner stated it's nice to not complicate things for staff, but allowing some
clustering is better than nothing. It may not affect that many properties during the
interim. Use the same cluster regulations that already exist. It won't be a big
change because it may only affect a few properties.
Fleetwood stated a question last week was about the number of lots they're
talking about that could be subject to this moratorium. Pederson stated the
geographic information system (GIS) staff have not been able to get an accurate
estimate yet.
Hart stated one question was how to find incentives for low impact
development. Generally, local governments haven't any economic development
incentives to do low impact development. What governments have is the idea that
a developer can build an additional home or two with low impact development
practices and a smaller drainage basin.
On the other side of the incentive equation is the homeowner over the long
term. Another question is the incentives available for the homeowner to do long-
term maintenance. The City of Olympia says it hasn't gotten to that, and feels that
the City will do a lot of the maintenance. Through the rate structure of a
stormwater utility district, the City of Olympia has provided a break in the rates to
the local landowner. With more time, he will be able to provide more ideas.
Another incentive for developers is the ability to advertise the available open space
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
in a development, making the development more attractive. The developers
incorporate critical area protection and trails, which makes the development more
marketable. So far, no one has attempted to provide an economic incentive
through the tax structure.
Brenner stated Brennan Schumacher said they're running into a real
frustration with getting permits. If there is a way for the County to specify low
impact development standards in an ordinance, the process would be more
streamlined. A homeowner incentive to do maintenance could be the stormwater
district rate reduction. Give homeowners a break on their charges if they maintain
their systems. Hart stated staff is looking at streamlining review right now. They
would build in any other incentives they can into the permit system.
Brenner asked staff to contact Brennan Schumacher.
Nelson stated the issue of development can be done through development
standards. That's being done. They still need to find a funding mechanism for
retrofitting. That would address issues regionally. The last issue is existing
development sites. An incentive can be given via the open space /open space tax
designation.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Nelson asked the type of criteria to put in place similar to open
space /agriculture and open space /forestry. Having a district would add another
layer of government that may be too cumbersome. Hart stated the idea of using
tax policy to initiate public good on a lot -by -lot basis is cutting edge.
Keith Willnauer, County Assessor, stated a property tax incentive to assist
the watershed is not unusual and may be appropriate, depending on the
mechanism. The first issue is the Council's opportunity to take local control over
the application and administration of open space /open space property tax
exemption, particularly how the ordinance is construction. The Council can define
what is important with a great deal of local control and flexibility within the public
benefit rating structure.
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5620 relates to priority
consideration of buffers in open space plan benefit rating systems. It is about the
amount of benefit they want to apply. It gives priority consideration to wetland and
stream buffer activity if the local jurisdiction hasn't done that already.
A typical homeowner in the watershed could have a residential home
improvement exemption, which is a three -year exemption. The most dramatic
example of an improvement would be if someone upgrades a septic system.
Brenner asked if the exemption is from the total property tax. Willnauer
stated it is a tax exemption from the increased value of the improvement. It would
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
reduce the assessed value by the value of the improvement. Property tax is a very
effective way to use motivations for some of these things.
Nelson asked the type of exemptions one can get for an open space /open
space exemption. Willnauer stated it depends on the public benefit rating structure
applied to the property. At this point, the tax reductions aren't very dramatic, so
there isn't a lot of participation. It's a mechanism to apply to those things that are
important, and to apply exemptions to relatively important things.
Nelson asked if the taxing structure can be applied to a particular physical
area, or if it must be countywide. Willnauer stated it can apply to a specific area.
Brenner stated the open space /open space tax designation is only on the
land, not the house. Willnauer stated that is correct.
Nelson stated the point of his idea is to encourage more open spaces.
Brenner stated another idea is that people would pay a certain charge into a
stormwater special district until they can prove they've paid for certain
improvements.
Nelson stated that's why they have to look at incentives. Now, stormwater
rates are up to $90 per year, based on a home assessed at $300,000. Any
reduction to that rate due to improvements wouldn't be much.
Brenner stated it's more of a moral issue.
Roy stated look at all options. Look at these things countywide, not just for
Lake Whatcom. There are other sensitive watersheds in the area. Reducing
property taxes carries a very emotional reaction. There is a psychological benefit to
work this through the property tax incentive.
McShane asked if an open space tax designation passes the tax burden to
other taxpayers. Willnauer stated it does. Fewer taxes are collected from the
exemption, so the tax amount is spread to the other property owners.
McShane stated those outside the watershed could have increased taxes due
to the exemptions. Willnauer stated that is correct for any exemption, depending
on the community benefits.
Brenner stated the benefit is for the residents who drink the water, not the
rest of the county who have their own problems in different watersheds. The rest
of the county should not shoulder any burden for the Lake Whatcom watershed,
except a nominal burden. The people who drink the water and benefit from that
water should pay the difference.
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated the entire county uses the open space requirements. Lake
Whatcom is a public resource for the entire county.
Willnauer stated another mechanism is a statute to create a property tax
exemption for improvements to benefit fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and
water quantity. This is in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 84.36.255. It is
directed toward best management practices. Unfortunately, this statute needs to
be administrated by the Conservation District. It was put in place to support dairy
farms, but it applies broadly to those things that help water quantity, water quality,
and fish and wildlife habitat. This is the vehicle to answer septic design and system
applications. It's an application that can be easily administrative, given the fact
they already have detailed tracking of septic system improvements, upgrades, and
maintenance through the Health Department. It would encourage property owners
to manage their septic systems appropriately if there were a property tax incentive.
It could extend to other residential improvement design features as a best
management practice for a residential home site.
Fleetwood stated the issue of property tax credits and their relationship to
what they're doing should be discussed in committee sometime soon.
Nelson stated they need to get clear on the legal ramifications. It brings
forward ideas for useable criteria for measurement standards. The current
ordinance for open space requires specific criteria to qualify. Look at the more
specific criteria of geologic development, native plantings, stormwater detention,
and home designs. Encourage people to do that with the tax incentives. He will
get information from Mr. Willnauer on the dollar savings. Willnauer stated he is
available for that discussion.
Hart stated staff has direction from the Council to work with Mr. Willnauer on
criteria.
McShane stated he liked using criteria also for a future sub - district for
stormwater. Getting guidance will help. The Public Works Department should be
involved also, with a focus on phosphorus.
Pederson stated that in light of the interim seasonal land clearing ordinance,
they have not heard if the Council wants to discuss it further.
Nelson stated look at rainfall in certain time frames. He's not as concerned
about clearing later in the season.
Fleetwood stated he assumed that a permanent ordinance would go through
the process so the Council would discuss a permanent ordinance.
McShane stated staff should put it through the Planning Commission.
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated they should go through the steps as if the Council will consider it
as a permanent ordinance. Also, the criteria should consider fecal coliform,
countywide. Apply this to marine watersheds also. Hart stated staff needs to do
that anyway.
Nelson stated they need to apply this countywide, but the Council voted
against it.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on May 24 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council- Moratorium Response, 4/26/2005, Page 13