Citing costs to taxpayers and redundancies in service, the Clark County Council has for a second time voted down fees that a local conservation service said it needs to stay viable.
At its Tuesday meeting, the council voted 4-1 to not support a measure that would charge most Clark County property owners $5 per parcel to support the Clark Conservation District over a 10-year period. Landowners with property designated as forestland would pay $2.96 annually under the proposal. The Clark Conservation District anticipated the fees would generate a net $700,000 that it would use to leverage grants for a total budget of around $1 million.
The quasi-government agency, one of 45 in the state, was created during the Dust Bowl era. It provides help to farmers and other property owners on conservation projects and regulatory issues, as well as technical assistance and other services.
Last year, the district unsuccessfully approached the council with a similar proposal that it said was needed to keep its doors open after grants that had previously sustained it dried up.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Zorah Oppenheimer, the district’s interim manager, explained the district had seen an increase in demand for its services as the county’s population has grown. She also pointed to a report issued earlier this year that found the district is well run and a benefit to Clark County. But despite Oppenheimer’s efforts and an outpouring of public support, the council again voted down the fees.
“I think we’re going to reconvene with my board and figure out our next steps,” said Oppenheimer after the meeting.
Before voting down the fees, councilors praised the district and noted the importance of local agriculture. But councilors questioned the broader benefits of the district, suggested there were other sources of funding and there are overlapping services provided by other government entities and nonprofits.
“I think the question here isn’t whether we support the district,” said Councilor Julie Olson. She added, “This council is going to have a lot of hard decisions to make.”
She referenced the county’s upcoming budget, which is expected to face a shortfall. She also said that she was reluctant to saddle taxpayers with another fee on top of other “asks” the county would make with regards to mental health, law enforcement and its outdated jail. She questioned if the district had exhausted all its other funding options.
Oppenheimer explained that the district’s largest source of grant funding from the state Department of Ecology decreased due to a change in its regulations. She also explained that because the district isn’t eligible for many other grants because it’s not a nonprofit.
Councilors John Blom and Eileen Quiring also raised questions about how many people the district had benefited and its record keeping. Quiring referenced the county report that found that between 2007 and 2017, the district had provided financial assistance to just 70 projects, technical assistance for 160 projects and worked with 25 nonprofits and 42 public entities.
Oppenheimer said that the numbers didn’t reflect all the help they’ve given to residents. She said that the district had probably helped a thousand people each year during the five years she’s been there. John Baugher, vice chair of the board, said that the district hasn’t quantified all the people who have contacted the district for help or have walked in the office. He said there’s room for improvement for the district’s record keeping.
The only vote for the fees was Council Chair Marc Boldt, no party preference and only non-Republican on the council. During the hearing, multiple individuals mentioned how the district helps Clark County meet its obligations under the state’s Growth Management Act to preserve environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands.
“I believe we will look at this with our (comprehensive) growth plan and see it’s one of the biggest mistakes we’ve ever made,” said Boldt, a former farmer, echoing their remarks.
Public comment
The Clark County Council heard about two hours of public comment that was nearly uniformly in support of funding the district.
Jamie Howsley, a local land-use attorney representing the district, presented the council with a letter supporting the fees. The letter was also signed by David McDonald, an attorney for local environmental group Friends of Clark County. Howsley said the joint letter was notable given how the two have been on opposing sides in land-use litigation.
Last week, Friends of Clark County also sent the council a petition with over a thousand signatures in support of the district.
“It would be a significant loss to the county for the district to close its doors, a loss for farmers, foresters, rural and urban property owners who want to do the right thing for our water and land,” Sue Marshall, the board president of Friends of Clark County, told the council.
The council heard from local conservation groups who supported the fees, including the local chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Columbia Land Trust, the Watershed Alliance of Southwest Washington, Clark County Food System Council, the Urban Greenspaces Institute and the Washington Association of Conservation Districts. Stu Trefry, southwest regional manager with the Washington State Conservation Commission, also spoke in favor of the district.
The council also heard from local property owners who told the council stories of how the district provided them support with their farms, helped replace a culvert or sold them native plants.
Robert Schroeder, a retiree who lives on an acre outside of Battle Ground, recalled how the district sold him native plants for a hedgerow that helped manage the wetlands near his property.
“I’m also willing to give up one Starbucks hot chocolate a year to pay this $5,” he said.
Stev Dieringer, a resident of Felida, spoke against the fees, noting recent property tax hikes to fund education. Susan Rasmussen and Carol Levanen, of property rights group Clark County Citizens United, also spoke against the district saying it would be used to support more regulations on property owners.
