Conservation Futures Fund proponents offer flawed arguments for passage of new tax

by Sue Forde, Editor, Citizen Review Online

Clallam County, WA - Dec. 7, 2001 - The battle lines are being drawn once again in Clallam County: this time over a proposed new property tax for the purpose of "saving" farmland.

County Commissioner Steve Tharinger (D) has proposed that a Conservation Futures Fund be established, charging taxpayers across the entire county for the purpose of preserving open space for the production of food.  This in a county sustained primarily by timber production, not farming.  Critical areas have also been included in the ordinance, to be protected, despite the fact that the county has one of the most restrictive critical areas ordinances in the state.

Clallam County voters, in 1995, strongly opposed an almost identical ordinance by an 84.3% vote.  This one is different, touts the proponents, in that the ordinance doesn't incorporate an automatic bond issue like the previous one did.  The county, however, has already made it abundantly clear that they intend to issue a bond, which will place the county in debt at a time when there is a recession nationwide.  (Clallam County is presently debt-free.) 

County Commissioner Mike Chapman (R) would like to see the county remain debt-free.  He says he has listened to the voters, and is adamantly opposed to any new taxes.  He will likely be overruled in a 2-1 vote, since Tharinger is joined by Commissioner Mike Doherty (D).  Doherty will stand for re-election in 2002.

Tharinger and Doherty are circumventing the wishes of the voters of Clallam County by pushing through an ordinance that was previously defeated.  By placing it on the "fast track" - putting it into effect before January 1, 2002, they are also ignoring the intent of Initiative 747, also passed strongly by the voters, which would require that any tax in excess of a 1% increase would have to go to the voters for approval.

The proponents for the Conservation Futures Fund have issued a "fact statement", which follows.  This writer has taken the opportunity to comment on the statement, and those comments are noted in red.

Statement follows:

Conservation Futures Fund -- An Opportunity to Invest in Our Quality of Life (prepared by the “committee” promoting the Conservation Futures Fund)

(with Comments by Sue Forde, editor of the Citizen Review Online in red.)

What is the Conservation Futures Fund?

      The Conservation Futures Fund (CFF) is a program created by the Washington State Legislature (RCW 84.34) that allows counties to create a special fund that can be used to protect and conserve prime farmland and other critical resource lands.  (Note the “allows”, not “mandates”.  There is no reason our county should be involved in this program.)

Why Do We Need a Program to Protect and Conserve Farmland in Clallam County?

      Since 1950 the amount of farmland in Clallam County has fallen from over 76,000 acres to approximately 20,000 acres--that's a loss of 74% of our farmland, and equates to an average of 1,100 acres of farmland lost each year over the past 50 years.  This rate far exceeds regional, state or national averages for lost farmland.  Farmland in our county not only provides a safe, secure source of fresh, local food (an important factor in today's insecure and risky times), (excuse me, but how many farms in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley produce “fresh, local food”?  I see lots of lavender farms, but very little in the way of food production of any worth.  Even Sunny Farms get most of its food from Othello, WA.  This area is based on timber production, not farming!)  but farmland also contributes greatly to our quality of life in Clallam County. (Comment:  Since 1950??  What about from 1980?  Also, I’d like to see a definition of “farmland”, as this fund appears to cover larger amounts of acreage, and neglects the 2 1/2 – 5 acre “hobby” farms.  With recent technology, much in the way of food can be grown on these smaller parcels of land. And just how does farmland contribute “greatly to our quality of life”?  Being a rural area contributes, but as mentioned earlier, most of the economy was previously based on timber, not farming.  And timberland accounts for a huge amount of land off-limits to development already.  Futhermore, the county already owns thousands of acres of timberland.  If they want to “conserve” farmland, let them liquidate some of their timberland and/or sell off the timber to purchase the conservation easements, etc., instead of taxing the people.)

How Does Farmland Contribute to Quality of Life for Clallam County Citizens?

      There are many direct and indirect benefits that farms and farmland contribute to the vitality of our local economy, the livability of our communities, and the health and integrity of our local environment.  These include:

·         Beautiful, diverse landscapes and views--important for residents as well as in attracting tourists and tourism dollars to our area (The views of the mountains and water are not going to change, no matter what takes place in the valley.)

·         Watershed protection--to maintain water quality, improve salmon habitat, protect against flooding, and more, farms are much better for our watersheds than sprawling development (There’s already plenty of regulation on the books to “protect” the watershed.  To place this in the equation is nothing less than deceit.)

·         Creation of wildlife habitat--farms provide shelter, food and space for wildlife to survive in our county  (I’ve seen plenty of deer and other wildlife around the subdivisions; deer frequently walk across the Walmart parking lot and onto Koenig’s lot.  One of the most rapid growth in the Sequim Valley is Happy Valley, where people, elk, coyotes, eagles and hawks co-exist peacefully. The “planners” are at it again; they want to manage the people, since they can’t manage the environment.)

·         Rural character--one of the things that many people love about this county is our rural culture and way of life (e.g., quiet, peace, neighborliness, low traffic and congestion, etc.) (The existing zoning will maintain the rural character, without additional taxes to maintain big tracts of land from ever having houses.)

·         Economic diversification and tax benefits--agriculture provides over 400 jobs in Clallam County, and contributes millions to our local economy. (What about protecting the jobs for the people who lost them because of the loss of the timber industry for protection of the spotted owl and other so-called “endangered” species.  There was no concern for these people.  They didn’t have the option or “protection” to maintain their timber jobs; instead, they were offered the “opportunity” of being “retrained” to be a massage therapist, a police office, or drug & alcohol counselor.)   For every dollar of taxes paid on farmland, the related costs for public services is only 36 cents, for every dollar of taxes paid on residential property the related costs for public services averages $1.15.  The bottom line: maintaining farms provides a net benefit to our local tax base  (Property placed in any kind of preservation program will not produce tax revenue like property with homes on it.  The local economy will NOT benefit from keeping huge amounts of land from being subdivided.  Further, as more land is removed from the tax base, the taxes for the remaining property owner will skyrocket.  And what about our children?  How will they ever be able to buy land here where they’ve grown up, when so much of it is being “protected” from them??  At present, only 10% of Clallam County is available for development.  The rest (90%) is already protected!)

·         Preserving options for future generations--do we want to pave over all of our valuable farmland when our children and grandchildren may very well want and need those farmland resources in the future? (Having lived in one of the most productive areas of the U.S., the coastal valley called the Gold Coast along the California, one notes that the population density in that narrow strip of fertile coastal farmland is sprinkled with houses, and none of it has been “paved over”.  It continues to be viable farming land because a strawberry crop will produce $40,000 an acre, which makes it more valuable than residential property.  If the North Olympic Peninsula farmland were viable as farmland, such as dairy or row crops, don’t you think that people would come here and use that potential productivity for gain?  Conversely, there are no developers lined up to buy this property that the planners deceitfully propose that developers will “pave over” Sequim Dungeness Valley farmland.  The fact is, Mrs. Eberle has been trying to sell her 50 acre farm to anyone who would buy it, and has received no viable offers.  Lavendar seems to be the crop of the day, not the food that the planners would have you believe is being produced.  Lavender is edible, but not something I’d want for dinner every night.)

This is not an exhaustive list of the benefits that farms and farmland provide for the citizens of Clallam County, but it does point out that the value of farmland to our communities is not totally reflected by its selling price in real estate markets.

How Does the CFF Program Conserve and Protect Farmland and Other Resource Lands?

      The CFF is used as a funding source to purchase development rights from landowners.  Landowners who choose to participate in this program are paid the difference between what their land is worth as farmland and what their land is worth for development. (“Choose to participate”: It’s easy for someone who has been threatened with fines for “noncompliance with this code or that (eg the Critical Areas Code), to “volunteer” an easement to the county to have the threats go away.) For instance, let's say that a landowner who has a 40-acre farm containing 8 developable 5-acre lots wants to participate in the CFF program.  Let's say he chose to sell 7 of his "development rights," and retain one building site on his 40 acres.  He/she would be paid the market value for the seven 5-acre building sites (for the purposes of this example let's use $50,000 per lot, or $350,000), minus the value of the 35 acres as farmland (let's use $3,000 per acre, or $105,000).  In this hypothetical example the landowner would be paid $245,000, and then a permanent conservation easement would be placed on the 40 acre parcel that would prevent the land from being developed in the future, other than the one retained building site.  (Note: the dollar figures used in this example are for illustration purposes only--in real cases the actual values of development rights and farmland for each site participating in the CFF program would be determined based on appraisals and other objective criteria). (Why should taxpayers across the entire county subsidize one owner of a parcel so it can never be used in the future?  Just doesn’t make sense to me!)

Doesn't this Program Simply Take Property Rights from Landowners?

      Not at all.  In fact, the CFF program actually increases the potential rights and options that the landowner has.  Participation in this program is totally voluntary. (The illusion created by the planners that a voluntary is quickly becomes a “force” when older owners of farm property can no longer sell the property they will quickly turn to the county to sell them their development rights for cash when there are no other buyers.  It is human nature.  The only buyer is the county for development rights.  On the surface, it looks voluntary.  On the surface, federal income tax is voluntary.  Where’s the volunterism in the tax imposed on the entire county to generate revenue for “voluntary” sellers?  This is faulty reasoning.)  If a landowner chooses not to participate, nothing changes for that person--he/she continues to have the same rights and options as before.  Having the CFF program available simply gives landowners additional options and rights with regard to planning for the future of his/her land and family needs.  When development rights are voluntarily sold via the CFF, no other existing property rights that the landowner has are affected.  The landowner continues to own the land, and can use, sell, rent or lease the land as he/she sees fit. (When is “taking away”, “adding to”?  Once again, the planners would have you believe that minus means plus, that bad means good.  Property includes a “bundle” of rights; any time any of these is diminished, that’s a loss of property “rights”.  When a person is not allowed to use a property as he or she chooses, that is a loss of a right to use the property; therefore, the program does NOT “increase” the potential rights and options a landowner has; it DECREASES them!)

Isn't this Program Really a Subsidy for Farmers and Farmland Owners?

      No.  Landowners who choose to sell development rights via the CFF already have that value vested in their lands.  Without something like the CFF they can sell off building lots from their farm and realize the full development value of their land.  Of course, once they sell off their farm as building lots, then their farmland and all the benefits it provides to our community are lost.  Therefore, most of the benefits created by the CFF program actually go to the citizens and communities in our county, not to the participating landowners.  (How can they sell of building lots when the county won’t allow it through their existing zoning??  What choice does the farmland owner have left to him?)

How Much Will this CFF Program Cost Me?

      As stipulated in RCW 84.34, creation of a Conservation Futures Fund is funded by enacting a special levy of 6.25 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation on real estate in the county.  (FYI:  The tax is on the “assessed” value of your property.  The county is the one doing the “assessing”.  They can raise the value at any time, which will continue to raise all of your taxes, including this one!) This equates to $6.25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, or about $9.37 annually for the owner of a typical home valued at $150,000.  (Just the cost of a latte” has been bantered about.  What about next year, when there’s a need for “overseeing” the parcels to make sure no one is using them in a way that does not comply?  What about all the other “cost of a latte” programs that are in the process of being funded?  How many “lattes” can we afford, especially in a recessionary period of time?)

What is the Total Amount of Money to be Raised with the CFF?

      With a total assessed valuation of real estate in Clallam County of $4 billion, the CFF assessment would raise approximately $250,000 annually.  If that money were used to purchase a revenue bond, it could raise up to $3.2 million to be used toward saving farmland and related critical areas in Clallam County.  (Here’s a kicker:  The county goes into debt, which would NOT be possible if this CFF assessment was not passed.  Debt has to be paid.  Who pays it?  You and me!  Over a 20 year period.  So it’s NOT just a few dollars added to your yearly tax bill! It’s much, much more than that!)

Is There Additional Funding Other than the CFF that Can be Used for Farmland Preservation?

      YES!  The $250,000 annually that would be raised via the CFF is only part of the story.  For every dollar we raise locally via the CFF assessment, we should be able to leverage at least two dollars of funding from the Federal Farmland Protection Program (FPP), various state programs, and other private organizations and foundations.  Thus, the $9-$10 paid annually by the average homeowner to support saving our farmlands will be leveraged with around $20 of additional external funding that we can use in our county to save our precious farmlands (i.e., we can turn our $250,000 annually into $750,000 or more).  HOWEVER, if we do not create a local CFF program we are not even eligible to apply for these external funds.  Without local matching funds, these other agencies cannot and will not provide funding to Clallam County for farmland preservation. (Excuse me – this is not FREE money, as the proponents would have you believe!  The state (and federal) money comes from YOU – Your Tax Dollars!  Again, there is more tax here than meets the eye!  Taxes, taxes, taxes!!  How much are you willing to pay?  Isn’t that why I-747 passed with such a great margin?)

Why Do We Need to Have this Program Now?

      As mentioned above, we have already lost over 70% of our farmland.  (Why is there a loss of farmland?  The product here was milk, butter, ice cream, dairy products.  The public doesn’t consume dairy products the way it used to.  Farming is not viable for these products.  This fact, along with the environmental regulations placed on farmers, has made it no longer viable in our area for dairy farms at such a large scale.  Along with GATT and NAFTA, which provides so many products from Mexico and other countries, makes dairy farming unprofitable on its face.  When the Model T made way for the next model, did people try to “save” it?  Farming has changed because of strides in technology.  We no longer need the farmland to produce like we once did.) Every year that passes we lose hundreds of acres of our best farmland to development.  At this very moment there are over 400 acres of prime farmland that Clallam County has designated as "Agricultural Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance" that are on the market and being sold as residential lots.  According to state law, and Clallam County's Comprehensive Plan, these particular farmlands are supposed to have special protection to keep them from being lost to development.  However, at present we have no program to keep these prime farmlands from being sold off for development.  CFF is desperately needed to save as much of our remaining farmland as possible.  Various committees and groups in the county have been discussing, planning, and recommending for over 20 years that immediate action is needed to stem the tide of the loss of farmland in Clallam County.  But, very little has yet been done on this issue.  The time do something significant is NOW, next year may be too late.  If we wait any longer we will lose hundreds, or even thousands, of acres of our best farmland.  The time has come to act on this very important issue.  (Based on the county comprehensive plan, there are certain areas that cannot be subdivided to less than 5 acres, some that can’t be divided to less than 10 acres, and some that can’t be divided less than 20 acres.  This provides for much open space already.  Along with the 90% of the county property owned by the county and timber companies which is not available for subdividing, provides plenty of “protection” already: we don’t need any more.)

What Will it Take to Enact the CFF Program:

      According to RCW 84.34, creation of a Conservation Futures Fund requires a majority vote of a county's Board of Commissioners.  Our Clallam County Commissioners have issued a call for hearing on this issue that is scheduled for December 11, 2001, at 10 am in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in the County Courthouse.  If you would like to have input into this very important policy issue, we urge you to attend this public hearing.  If you can't attend this hearing, we urge you to contact your County Commissioners by sending a letter to: BOCC, P.O. Box 863, Port Angeles, WA  98362-0149, or an e-mail to: commissioners@co.clallam.wa.us

(It is obvious that the reason this has been placed on the "fast track" is to get it through before the end of the year, when I-747 goes into effect.  If it didn't get attention until after the first of the year, it would HAVE to go to a vote of the people.  These two commissioners are making an "end run" around the people - and the people's expressed wishes.)

__________________________________________________________________________________

This Fact Sheet was prepared by the Clallam County Agricultural Advisory Committee--a special committee formed by the Clallam County Commissioners to advise on agricultural matters in Clallam County.  If you have questions about the proposed CFF program, please feel free to contact any of the committee members listed below:

Robert Caldwell--681-0169                        Cathy Lear--417-2361                        Karen Pritchard--417-0535                                 Jack Caldicot--681-8588

Ben Smith--681-2838                        Kerry Perkins--452-1912                        Pete Schroeder--683-7437                                 Nash Huber--683-7089

Robert Clark--683-4431                        Curtis Beus--417-2279                        Andy Meyer--417-2326                                 Steve Johnson--457-5950