HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 20 20031
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 20, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon
Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. OVERVIEW OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S PDR PROGRAM PROGRESS ON
ROUND 1 APPLICATIONS (A62003 -198)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated they last talked in March when they
ranked the applications. He provided a report (on file) that summarized the status.
An experienced agriculture appraiser was asked to develop a methodology for
establishing the agricultural value of a property and the difference between the
agricultural value and the speculative value and to develop a range of values
survey for the existing farms. Some farms were in the rural zone and some were in
the agricultural zone.
They've found that the majority of the farmland is priced at farmland prices.
There isn't any definable speculative value in the purchase prices that they are
seeing. In terms of the program, that has a tremendous impact on how they
address agriculturally zoned property in the target areas.
Of the round one applications from the agricultural zone, only one had an
additional development density. The rest were under 80 acres that already had a
house. Those properties really had no additional value. At best the appraiser could
come up with $200 to $300, which would be insulting if they offered that. The
people weren't thrilled with the results, including staff. It makes it difficult to
acquire easements on those properties. According to State and federal rules, any
speculative value would have to be shown as common and happened regularly. On
the positive side, the County doesn't have those records because the agricultural
land hasn't had a history of being converted, with the exception of the urban
growth areas when they were established.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, Page 1
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.
Roy asked statistics showing the rapid decrease of agricultural land in the
last ten years mesh with the appraiser's report. Olason stated the acreages that
are identified in those statistics are from a census that is filled out by farmers. In
many cases, the farmers that are in the rural areas are dropping off the census
because they are no longer farming. There is a little bit of fluff in those numbers.
Not all those acres are under pavement, they are just not reporting any production.
They are not necessarily being subdivided. The rural five -acre zoning is where they
are taking the biggest hits. There is going to be a big impact from that in terms of
what is available.
Regarding the agricultural zone, additional development rights are
contingent upon a parcel over 80 acres with only one house on it. Only 13 percent
of the agriculturally zoned land meets that criterion. In other counties, farmers got
paid for existing development rights. With using speculative value, they hoped to
have enough speculative value to make it worthwhile to sell those development
rights, but that didn't happen.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many applications were in areas not zoned
agriculture. Olason stated there were only two applications that totaled 115 acres.
He explained the values of each of the three applications. The City has said it will
not expand its urban growth areas into these areas for a while, but anyone can put
in a petition at any time. That makes it tough for an appraiser to determine the
value.
For the County, there is a value in preserving the property that is more than
the actual value of the property, when it converts. If annexed and converted, they
could go from two houses on the property to 600 houses. If they can't buy the
rights because the property is 40 acres with one house, and there are no existing
development rights, then it becomes a bigger issue. That's where they have a
problem.
Roy stated that just because the city requests the expansion doesn't mean
the County has to grant it. Olason stated that is correct. It is a potential.
He described the Gorsegner property. It could have seven additional
development rights. There are complications to developing it, such as a
requirement for clustering. That is considered during the appraisal.
He described the Holz property, which is next to the Gorsegner property.
There are a number of existing five -acre exempt lots that were done several years
back. That pushes the value up a lot. This was the number one ranked property
because it is larger and has the most potential for conversion.
Fleetwood asked when they would discuss buffers. Olason stated it should
be taken up when they deal with annexation agreements.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, 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.
Fleetwood asked the main attributes of prime soils. Olason stated the
texture, quality, depth, and drainage are the main attributes. These are soils that
are easy to work and productive. The more variety of crops grown, the more prime
they are. For example, if Lynden pushes its urban growth areas into an
agricultural area, they are going to want to trade soils for like soils. They are going
to have to find a soil with similar characteristics.
Brenner asked why the value for agriculturally zoned land without additional
development rights might be $200 to $300 per acre more than pure agricultural
price. Olason stated the farm prices were overvalued for farm use. They wanted
to find out how much overvalued they were. They are trying to determine the
additional value beyond what a typical farmer would pay, given a willing buyer and
willing seller. However, it didn't turn out to be true. Two hundred to three hundred
dollars will not entice anyone to talk to him. That's very little, in terms of the total
value.
Brenner asked if the cluster lot sales could go to $100,000 per lot. Olason
stated he hasn't explained that yet.
Olason stated all the properties have signed letters of intent. He has
confirmed that the application for farmland funds safely arrived in Spokane.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Mouw property is a highly ranked contender.
Olason stated it is. The Holz property is ranked number one. The USDA may rank
the three properties differently. They will decide which of the three they'll fund.
They might fund all three, but he doubts it.
Brenner asked why the USDA will re -rank them. Olason stated the USDA
wants to make sure all the things are dealt with that Congress wanted.
Brenner asked if the County's process is that different. Olason stated it is
not. He would be surprised if it is changed much, unless they want more acreage
per dollar.
When they talk about clustering, they often get a less than favorable
response from people who are required to cluster. Often, they say they are losing
value because no one wants a cluster lot. However, that's not true. They've found
in areas zoned rural that a cluster lot can be a very attractive purchase for people
who don't want to deal with five acres, but who want to be in a rural area. The
requirement allows for some use of the remainder property. The cluster prices are
close to what a five -acre parcel goes for. The fact is, 20 to 30 acres could be left
over that could be sold for a farm use.
Brenner asked how quickly cluster lots sell and how many are on the market.
Some people will pay the price, but they could be just sitting. Olason stated that
could be true. A benefit of the remainder property is that it provides a lot of area
adjacent to the development. Some of the clusters may be less attractive because
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, 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.
they are not a development in the sense that Silverado is. The other thing is, there
is the residual land that sells. This all ties into the price they'll see on the
properties for this issue.
Regular five -acre parcels range in sale price from $3,100 per acre to $9,000
per acre. The average is $4,800 per acre. He wondered why some five -acre lots
sell for $100,000 and some clusters sell for $50,000 to $80,000. He hasn't found
the answer to that yet. Those prices aren't really any different than the agricultural
prices. He doesn't think the people have recognized the value in the property.
Roy asked if the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) lots sell more
proportionally than those in the cluster subdivisions. Olason stated undeveloped
R5A lots generally aren't selling for a great price. There have only been 18 sales in
the last year or two. However, many of the properties that are being converted are
being converted in partnership with someone who knows how to do that. They are
seeing them sell as clusters instead of large -lot sales.
The property assessed the highest is the Holz property. It has existing five -
acre lots, going for $80,000 to $110,000.
Brenner stated it is one - quarter to one -third higher than the smaller acreage
properties. Olason stated it might be more complicated to do a cluster. The
County can't pay above the appraised value. If the applicant has other information,
he or she may provide an independent appraisal. The County is asking for 50
percent of the appraised value, totaling almost $900,000 for all three properties.
He'll find out the answer within about 30 days.
Brenner stated she is concerned that they don't look at the Conservation
Futures fund money. That's what that was going to be for. Now it seems like they
are going away from that intent.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that she would like to spend more of the
Conservation Futures fund money on farmland.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they have an opportunity to commit $900,000 to
protecting farmland, if the County receives the matching funds.
Fleetwood stated the people who campaigned for the Conservation Futures
fund intended that the funds be used for a number of things, not solely farmland
and open space.
Brenner stated they haven't used any on farmland. It's all been used on
parks and forestland. That was supposed to be one of the allowed uses.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, 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
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.
Olason stated that when they started this process, he thought they'd get $7
million to $8 million. That was based on USDA projections. They are not going to
get that. Washington State is going to get $1.5 million. It seems more states are
participating. There will be another opportunity next year. It might be better then.
If they don't get any funding for some reason, then they will have to determine
which property they want to fund, and how they want to fund it. If they do get
funded, they'll have until September 30 to write and sign a cooperator agreement
between the owner, County, USDA, and Land Trust. They've started working on
the language already. They could move forward with a purchase this fall. He's
asked that the appraiser reserve time during the first week or two in August to
appraise the property that is the top priority.
Fleetwood stated it's not likely that they will fund all that they requested.
They are going to have to think about how else they will come up with the money.
Olason stated they would pick the farm and pay the price for it. They will either
fund the cost of the farm at the requested price, or not contribute anything.
Fleetwood asked how much money the County has available from the
Conservation Futures fund to purchase the rights, if the USDA doesn't provide any
or few funds. Olason stated there is $2.5 million at the end of April, depending on
what else is being spent. At the minimum, it would be nice to do at least one farm,
since they've spent two and a half years on this. When they look at future years,
they might want to look at committing a certain amount to a bond amount that
would be paid annually by a percentage of the Conservation Futures fund. They'd
have a larger amount to use.
Brenner stated she is open to consider funding all the farms with the
Conservation Futures fund because that fund has not been spent on farmland at all,
to this point.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they should not say that publicly. If the USDA
hears that the County can afford to buy them on its own, then it may alter things.
She spoke to the USDA representative, who was anxious for Whatcom County to
get in on the process. Some of the other counties who have participated in this
have already gotten some money.
Olason stated he would be very surprised if Whatcom County didn't get any
money. It is the biggest agricultural county in Western Washington. Whatcom
County is important to USDA's programs.
Brenner stated Whatcom County is under the most pressure to convert,
given its location. Olason stated the R5A zones are where that will happen most.
Round two will start June 2nd. His goal is to give people more time to think
about it, and then give the County more time to rank the applications. He wants to
be early this year.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, 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.
Brenner asked if there is a way to do another kind of negotiation where the
farmer could be paid over time instead of in a lump sum. Olason stated they
couldn't, if they participate with the federal government. Or, the County could, for
the portion that doesn't come from the federal government. They'd have to work
out something. That might make the program more appealing.
They are doing more than trying to buy farmland. They are working with the
Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Committee to rework the ranking criteria.
The guidelines document will come before the County Council from time to time
with updates.
They have to start working on the proposal for how they do this program,
after round two. The PDR suggested a re- evaluation of the program after round
two. It will have to look at things like bonding and purchase and resale.
Brenner stated she doesn't like the County being a landowner for the farmer.
Leave it on the tax roles. The County has liabilities when it owns the land. Olason
stated it would be preferable to resell it.
Roy stated the committee and Mr. Olason have done a wonderful job on this
issue. It is an important issue to the Council. She appreciates it.
Olason stated the Conservation District is funding a staff person to work with
the County on this. It is important how all these things work together. The
committee is very thoughtful, sharp, and asks a lot of questions.
Fleetwood asked for the reasons why they continue to lose agricultural land.
He asked if they would see that downward trend start to flatten out. Olason stated
they are seeing the farms on the margins disappear. The farmers are quitting or
selling as they get older and things become more uncertain. He suggested they
look at the Farm Service Agency, which keeps acreage counts that mirror the open
space /agricultural tax status. That's the number to look at.
OTHER BUSINESS
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated he just came
from a joint staff meeting on the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program
with the City of Bellingham. They are continuing to define how to use TDR's,
specifically transferring density out of the Lake Whatcom watershed into the City or
urban growth areas. There is a possible joint meeting on June 10th with the City
and County. He invited the councilmembers to attend.
Also, an important author and thinker on sustainability from the Northwest
will be in town on June 11th with an organization called the Northwest
Environmental Watch at the boathouse at Squalicum Harbor. Anyone is invited to
go listen to his organization discuss density. He discussed the planning tools
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, 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
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.
available on the website for the Northwest Environmental Watch. They need to
have an effective communication strategy as they talk about urban growth area
issues, including picking the population target and how they want to grow.
Roy asked about the staff position for the TDR /PDR programs. Hart stated
that position has been filled. The person was a senior planner from Oak Harbor.
He took a major pay cut to take this position because of the quality of life of this
area, and because the County is doing innovative stuff.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2003, Page 7