A local government agency that helps local landowners conserve and improve natural resources says it’ll have to start laying off staff and cut services if the Clark County council doesn’t approve a proposed set of new fees.
At its Tuesday morning meeting, the Clark County council will hold a hearing on a proposed new fee structure to fund the Clark Conservation District. If approved, the county would charge property owners $5 per parcel of land and another fee of 10 cents per acre. The district expects that if they’re enacted, an owner of 20 acres of agricultural land would pay no more than $7 annually.
District Manager Denise Smee said the district was formed in 1942 in response to the Dust Bowl to help farmers conserve soil. The district is now completely dependent on what she said are dwindling state and federal grants to support its operations, services and three full-time staff positions.
Those services include helping farmers or landowners get grants to maintain soil, install vegetative buffers near streams, restore wetlands or comply with regulations. With Clark County losing farmland to growth, she said its services are becoming more important.
“When you have a high density of people, there are more people using the land,” she said.
Accepting the district’s services, which are available to landowners in unincorporated Clark County and Vancouver, is voluntary. Smee didn’t have specific numbers on demand for the district’s services but said it is unable to fully serve 50 to 75 people each year due to a lack of resources.
Smee said the district’s 2017 budget is about $350,000. Most of the budget comes from a state grant intended to help landowners remove culverts and other structures that keep fish from reaching upstream habitat. Smee said the grant is restrictive in how it can be used, otherwise the district has about $130,000 in other grants that can be used for other projects, operations and staff salaries.
She said a large grant the district has relied on from the state Department of Ecology has been decreasing. She also said the department has changed the grant’s requirements, resulting in most Clark County landowners becoming ineligible. The district now expects to lose it as a primary funding source.
Without a new source of revenue, the district will start laying people off in 2018, Smee said. Eventually, the district may be down to one part-time staff position, she said.
“That’s part of the problem with one part-time person is you need the technical skills, and most of the people that have those skills don’t want to work part-time,” she said.
Under state law, conservation districts can file a proposed budget and system of fees with the county legislative authority, which is required to hold a public hearing. The legislative authority (in this case, the Clark County council) can adopt or modify the fees if it finds that the public interest will be served by the fees and that imposing them won’t exceed any benefits the district provides.
The proposed fees, which the council will consider on Tuesday, would be collected along with property taxes. Smee said the fees would fund a budget of about $830,000 a year and could be used to leverage grants.
Council Chair Marc Boldt, who comes from an agricultural background and has used the district’s services himself, said he is in favor of the new fees. He said he’s also concerned about the loss of farmland and landowners having to comply with regulations. He said many landowners would prefer to see a vehicle from the district, which has no regulatory authority, come down their driveway than a county vehicle,
“It’s really the conservation district that’s the only place out there to help you,” he said.
Other members of the council said they’re still reviewing the situation. Councilor Eileen Quiring, who represents the most rural district, said in a text that she’s been impressed with what the district has accomplished but is still reviewing the matter.
“It’s been my hope that they would continue their work with those funds and grants and not have to burden Clark County households with additional taxes that would not benefit (all of) them directly,” she said.
Councilor Jeanne Stewart said in a text that she is also still reviewing the matter. Councilor Julie Olson said in a text that she is researching other options.
Boldt said there are 18 counties that assess fees to support their conservation district. He said it’s too late to put the fees on next year’s property tax bills. There is also the issue of figuring out how to exempt churches and nonprofits from the fee, he said.
At the council’s Wednesday board meeting, Emily Sheldrick, deputy prosecutor, said county staff, including the Treasurer’s Office, had expressed concern that they hadn’t had enough time to examine the feasibility of the charges, particularly regarding exempt properties. She said collecting the fees might cost more than the money they would bring in.
“My feeling is that this may not be exactly ready to go next week,” she said.
