HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 22 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
Planning and Development Committee
July 22, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Member Laurie
Caskey- Schreiber in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Seth Fleetwood
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
PROGRAM — FUNDING ROUND I APPLICATIONS (AB2003 -198A)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated that as soon as they find out the funding
situation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), they will know more.
Whatcom County will get much less than they hoped. There are reasons to move
ahead with purchasing the three properties. There is only one Council meeting in
August. He wants to ensure that they can get at least one appraisal done this
summer. The appraiser has an opening in October.
The Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Committee encouraged him to go
back through the target areas since they've found out there is not enough
speculative market value over the farmland value to get the farmers through the
door. Rural land is what's left.
McShane asked if the value is so speculative that the development right
doesn't have much value at all if the land hasn't been zoned for more than one
house per 80 acres. Olason stated that is what the appraiser is saying, in the
agriculture zone. If someone is adjacent to Lynden, there is more value. There is
one application, the Mouw property, that is adjacent to Lynden. The question will
be how the Mouw appraisal will come out. They did a survey to get an idea of the
range of values.
The Gorsegner property, which rated number two, is the one the USDA rated
as the highest property that Whatcom County submitted. It is rated fifth out of 29
farms overall that made application. He doesn't know if there will be enough money
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, 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
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.
to fund that farm. They have almost run out of money, and will hopefully find
additional funds. They felt confident that there may be some money available.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it sounds like it will take time before they find out if
there are additional federal funds. She is hesitant about putting the program on
hold. Olason stated it won't take months. The County has until September 30 to
get a completed agreement with the federal government. If they don't appropriate
the money, it goes back into the fund and gets lost. It could happen the end of this
week or the end of this month.
Brenner stated the federal contribution is not a total match. She asked if that
would make the rules more flexible. The farmers would rather get paid in
installments. Olason stated that if the County takes payment from the federal
government, it has to be done according to USDA rules, which is in one lump
payment. The County could consider installment payment options for the other two
properties. When staff got together with the PDR committee, the committee
members were concerned that the County doesn't stall too long on moving forward.
Round two is open right now. He's only received one call regarding round two.
Everyone is waiting to see how this round goes. The committee recommended
taking all three applications and starting the program off strong. Then look at
funding issues as they relate to Conservation Futures funds.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the PDR Committee looked at implementing
payment options. Olason stated he has information (on file) on costs. He met with
the Finance Division and Treasurer's Office about doing this. The costs in his
handout are based on a survey that estimated the cost range from high to low. He
chose the high numbers for the cost estimates on this handout. These numbers
could be adjusted once they receive the appraisals.
The cost estimates for all three properties total $1.8 million. Additionally,
there are appraisal fees the County would have to pay. There is also the contract
with the Whatcom Land Trust. That money will go into an account for the long -term
legal monitoring and enforcement for the conservation easement. It is a one -time
cost, estimated at six percent of the first $100,000 and four percent of the
remaining value.
Brenner asked if there is any chance they can renegotiate the contract
amount for the Whatcom Land Trust. That number looks very high. She asked if
that cost can come out of the Conservation Futures fund. Olason stated it could.
This one -time contract payment is for many years of annual monitoring with
enforcement responsibility that the County won't have. They will have to go out
every year to make sure the easement hasn't been violated. The easement's
overall intent is to maintain the land so it's viable for agricultural use in perpetuity.
Brenner stated a percentage doesn't feel accurate. She asked if they could
renegotiate.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, 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.
Roy stated this is a one -time payment for the Whatcom Land Trust to manage
this property forever. When you look at it that way, it doesn't look like that much
money.
McShane stated the County is lucky that the Land Trust is doing this. Their
board is also taking a gamble. Olason stated a study was done that showed the
average cost for handling a violation being between $30,000 and $60,000. There is
a dispute resolution process in the easement.
Brenner stated the amount seems reasonable if they have to pay for a
lawsuit.
Olason stated there might be some other fees in the closing and escrow
process. They would also have to be accounted for. He provided a handout that
identifies the installment option (on file) as an alternative to a lump sum payment.
The Gorsegner property won't be eligible for the installment option. It will be just
for Mouw and Holz.
The handout shows the different estimates for three different levels of
interest. The installment payments don't require the headaches that bonding
requires. When they discussed bonds, they looked at general obligation bonds and
revenue specific bonds. Brad Bennett generated the remaining pages of the
handout.
Brenner stated the payments over a certain amount of years would not
deplete the Conservation Futures fund as quickly.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is correct, but it will cost the County to do that.
Olason stated they could also weigh the land appreciation value. Time is
money. Snohomish County is bonded and uses its Conservation Futures fund to pay
for the bond. Different counties have done this. They could roll the installment
payment monies into the bond after the fact. Considering the fact that they will
have a lot of fees with bonding, the simple interest option may be a better deal.
Bonds have a lot more limitations.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the PDR Oversight Committee, Finance Committee,
or Executive have expressed a recommendation. Olason stated the original PDR
Committee included it as an option to work on. The PDR Oversight Committee is
fine with it. The question for the County is whether it is worth it for the extra
interest costs.
Brenner asked what Brad Bennett's recommendation was. Olason stated Brad
Bennett didn't think it would be that big of an issue. They would track it as a
liability against the Conservation Futures fund. There would be allocated liabilities
against the annual fund amount.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, 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
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 there will be a County debt policy that will come before the
County Council at some point in the future. There has been some discussion about
bonding in that context.
Olason stated it is an open space issue. There will be other Parks, PDR, and
other requests. There was some talk about having an overall plan for the County.
The more active the programs are, the bigger the issue will be.
McShane stated they need flexibility in the debt policies to take advantage of
opportunities. Olason stated Snohomish County came out with $22 million from its
bond. They wanted to move forward with a large list of items.
Fleetwood asked the percentage of their overall program that money was able
to buy. Olason stated he would find out. They purchased more than agricultural
land.
Troy Holbrook, Program Coordinator, stated Snohomish County has an
established Conservation Futures program with a screening process and oversight
committee. They take in applications once per year, as do many other counties, go
through a screening process, rank them, and fund them according to their ability.
Seven years ago, the Snohomish County Council decided to fund all the projects,
which required the County to bond. The projects ranged from parkland to open
space. They are two years away from paying off that bond and making new
acquisitions.
Fleetwood asked if that was an annual deal. Holbrook stated they would wait
until the bonds are paid off and more funds accumulate into their Conservation
Futures fund.
Brenner asked how much there is in Whatcom County's Conservation Futures
fund now. Holbrook stated there is approximately $2.2 million now. They receive
approximately $750,000 annually.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County has a choice in interest rates. Olason
stated they would go with the market rate. An attorney will write up an installment
purchase agreement they can use. The market was previously at about one and a
half percent. It's not at three percent now. That may be an incentive for people to
get it paid off in five years instead of ten years. They won't have to pay five
percent.
Fleetwood asked about the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. He
asked how long it has been in place. Olason stated it has been at least three or four
years.
Fleetwood asked if they can get a sense of the trend of how much they are
paying Washington State. Olason stated the number of states taking advantage of
the Act went up to 44 from 33. More states are participating. The Farm Bill allows
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, 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.
for up to a certain amount annually to go into these programs. The amount they
authorized was reduced, and there were more participants.
The ranking criteria that USDA used for adjacency to other protected
properties is biased against a new program that isn't adjacent to anything. When
they target areas, every time they move to a new area, they are not going to have
anyone adjacent to anyone else. That will continue to be a problem. The ranking is
fairly competitive, so it's a big issue.
Fleetwood asked what they mean when they say they must demonstrate a
commitment to the program. They can obviously demonstrate commitment by
funding the whole thing. He asked the importance of funding everything, and if it
will increase the likelihood that they are eligible for money in the future. Olason
stated he didn't know. He would think they would try to encourage more programs,
but they chose to stick with known commodities. For Whatcom County's program,
the question is whether they are going to have a program that is based too solely
on the USDA funding. The successful programs are primarily funded through local
and state governments. Skagit County has a successful program in a way, but they
might not be able to continue if the USDA funds dry up.
Fleetwood asked how they differentiate in their decisions next year from this
year, assuming all the conditions are the same for round two. He asked when they
would decide that they would put the Conservation Futures funds to a park instead
of to this. Olason stated that goes back to a discussion of needing an overall,
countywide approach to open space. This is one program. They are going to have
to make those decisions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the timing is crucial for these applications because
the areas are already zoned for development. These people have been waiting a
long time. This is different from how they might go about it in the future. That's
the impetus for acting now. It would encourage the agricultural community and let
them know that this program is important to the County and that the County wants
to keep as much acreage as possible in agriculture.
Brenner stated she supports buying the three properties. She would like to
wait and see if they get extra money from the USDA. Olason stated he would take
any extra money he can get.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council that staff proceed with
the appraisals on the Holz and Mouw properties so the County can go ahead with
the three Round I purchases. Unfortunately, committing to farmland open space is
not free. They need to think beyond just the current program if they are really
going to be committed to this.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Brenner stated she supported the motion.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, 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
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 she also supported the motion.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/22/2003, Page 6