Observing Government

Council Attendees: Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Will Fuentes, Matt Little. No Michelle Belkot

Link to materials: Clark County Council Meetings | Clark County

Observer: Jackie Lane

Work Session: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), Proposed Interlocal Agreement, Planning Commission and Agricultural Advisory input.

Objective – no decisions but hope to set date for meeting to decide on preferred alternative.

• TDR interlocal agreements and best practices. PowerPoint Template v1.5
• Cities in attendance
• Consultants with experience with TDR program design, policy, etc.
• Is there growth occurring for which capacity is needed? (technically, not applicable here).
• Stopped for questions at slide 7
• Matt – How would TDRs be used for affordable housing? Can use to maintain existing affordable housing (also landmark preservation) right to develop can be sold and $ used to maintain that housing.
• Wil – is there a minimum/maximum parcel size to transfer from? May not want to constrain.
• Sue asked about value of rights, answered below.
• Defining goals is really important up front.
• Sample timeline for TDR design slide 10. 2 years plus is typical.
• Sending area value. Only worth what someone is willing to pay. Factors include underlying value of the land. Seller willingness/motivation.
• Buyer value. The TDR program design would include criteria where development rights could be used. Slides 15, 16 examples.
• Trying to incent builders to build what we want.
• Matt – can be used to dis-incentivize? Not aware of that done intentionally, but poor design can result in that. You’d use straight zoning not TDRs to do that on purpose.
• Matt – How would a developer know what it would cost? A lot of stakeholder engagement and analysis during design of the program.
• Some jurisdictions tax development rights and/or have transaction fees.
• Glen – is there a method for cost recovery (staff time)? Can have fees.
• Sue – Can a non-profit or other entity to manage parts of the program? Yes, but county has to do recording, tracking, etc.
• Slide 25 has link to examples or WACC 365-198-010 can be referenced.
• Can identify in comp plan without having it designed and implemented yet.
• Using TDRs can be a condition for a re-zone (up-zone) request.
• Governments can also sell rights through property they have. (conservation lands…)
• Matt – stakeholder involvement in development. Counties with most success. Kittitas most comparable with Clark. Engagement piece is really important.
• Glen – In order for someone to be willing to pay for rights, what scarcity has to exist? Leverage existing demand.
• Matt asked if the consultant has reviewed the interlocal agreement? No and not a lawyer, so couldn’t advise. BUT de-designation would have to be done on its own merit.
• Sue – if block of land that is ag-20 that a city wants to bring into the program, with multiple owners. You’d define the area and let them know they are eligible.
• Proposed Interlocal Agreement – Camas, Ridgefield, La Center.
• PowerPoint Presentation
• La Center, Camas, Ridgefield mayors introduced Toyer consultant. (hired by the cities)
• Note: This comment on slide 4 of the original deck is incorrect: With completion of Agricultural Lands Study, process can consider de designation of agricultural lands related to proposed expansions (already required with or without TDR program creation).
• Yes, an ag study is a pre-requisite of de-designation, but only if the ag study supports that, which it did not. Those properties were deemed ag lands of long term significance. The deck was updated between 9:00 and 10:30 am Wednesday morning. The new deck says this as well but less directly.
• Wil – mentions that comp plan is late. Asks if there are opportunities to look at TDRs after comp plan is completed. The response talks about market interest/opportunity to set policy. Consulting is pushing hard that TDR be done now, without saying outright that they want to de-designate ag land in the comp plan and expand La Center, Camas, and Ridgefield UGAs. The details can come later.
• Wil – we don’t have to be specific in defining TDR program now? No. Consultant admits that de-designation does not have anything to do with TDR program.
• Steve Stuart goes through draft Interlocal Agreement (ILA). Draft Interlocal Agreement regarding development of Regional Transfer of Development Rights
• Claims that the ILA can be done within the timeline for the comp plan.
• States that the county will look at the properties they want to annex for de-designation. The cities would agree to put in Urban Holding pending annexation and TDRs.
• Puts a 2 year limit on County developing a TDR program. That may be insufficient (especially in a tight budget time). If not completed in 2 years, then cities could simply annex the properties with no strings attached (2 year clock starts after any appeals on comp plan…).
• If the land is not developed in 10 years (next comp plan?) then county can remove from the UGA.
• Sue asks if land has ever been removed from a UGA? Not in the county, but in other areas of the state.
• Matt – timing of agreement being signed? There would be public hearings (city and county). Effective date after de-designation.
• Glen – how often are there ILAs like this? Seattle started it, now multiple cities involved.
• Glen – upon annexation the county loses control of that land. Yes.
• Planning Commission (PC)
• Chris Cook (legal) The PC did not vote to send a representative to this meeting, there are members of the PC here, but they are speaking for themselves. Ag Commission did vote to send representatives.
• Jack Harroun - Goes through his understanding of TDRs. Mentions Columbia Land Trust. Sue asks what would be the incentive for a developer to participate? The Ridgefield land is dead land until they buy development rights. “we have a limited land supply”.
• Alicia Leduc Montgomery – Mentions the concept of ‘No net loss’. The ILA does not include the concept of ‘no net loss’. Concern about the condition of if county doesn’t complete a TDR program in 2 years the city just gets to annex unconditionally. De-designation of ag lands should include designation of other lands to ag.
• Ron Barca – Ability to designate was intentionally part of the program. Notes the critical role of the county in this.
• Sue asked when the ag land is de-designated? It has to be done as part of this comp plan.
• Matt asked why PC voted to disapprove Meadow Glade coming out of Battle Ground UGA? (It doesn’t sound like they gave it a lot of thought.)
• Ag Commission representatives
• Mo McKenna, Chair. Ag commission has had long conversations about and supports TDR programs, but it is only one tool. Hears that Ag Land are considered a block to development, but Ag Land is an engine for jobs. There is an agricultural industry. They want no de-designation of ag land, versus locking it up hoping there is another use. Ag study identified 60,000 rural acres that could be designated ag, and used as sending for this program. Moratorium on up-zoning pending a TDR program. Talked about creating Ag districts. Today ag use is fragmented. Mentioned water rights issue. Problem of finding similar quality land to what we’re giving up.
• Wil – Clarified timing – Mo responded – create TDR program first then de-designate. What cities propose could exacerbate land speculation problem. Whatcom County has a TDR program that is not used. Like Clark, they have a lot of capacity in their urban areas (so no demand).
• Wil – Asked for elaboration on agricultural districts. Areas where soils are high quality, existing farms, proximity to services, etc., Design the sending areas to concentrate these.
• (missed name) Ag Commission – TDR program and de-designation have been conflated. TDRs aren’t about trading one piece of ag land for another.
• Matt – this is a great opportunity to preserve farmland right now (?). If don’t have the TDR discussion then lose the opportunity to include those acres in a program. Asked about ag districts. Clark Conservation district has done a ton of work on this. Ag Commission has done work on sending areas. Re: de-designation, should be through mitigation, not TDRs. Recommendation from a state committee is 3 to 1 ratio.
• Glen – reminder that the county council lobbies the state and Ag Commission could take advantage of that.
• Ron Barca implies alternative 1 might be right, Matt reminds him that PC voted 7 to 0 against Alt 1, to which Ron said ‘but the council makes the final decision’.
• Sue talks to the timeframe, and worry about being compliant with GMA and years of litigation.
• Manager asks if they are ready to have a public hearing on the preferred alternatives. Sue – we need to move this forward. Matt asks for a work session on the SSRs (Site specific requests) included in the cities UGA requests, Otto to send links. Work Session to be next week. Note: they also included Battle Ground’s request to extend their UGA, which did not include any SSRs.
• Public hearing on preferred alternative to be scheduled. (no date given)