||| FROM JOSEPH J. COHEN |||
An insurance agent once said to me: No one has a lease on life (he was right). All humans expire at some point. In the business world – businesses fail for a variety of reasons. One of which is the relevance of what they offer in the marketplace.
The SJC Land Bank operates at the pleasure of its constituents – with a broad mandate. It enjoys 12-year lifespans renewable by its owners (citizens). A major part of the LB mandate is “stewardship in perpetuity” of the assets (land and waters) that it owns.
For the past three decades the LB has both acquired and stewarded the many properties now in its portfolio. In recent years the stewardship component of LB funds has increased dramatically – approaching 50% (estimate) of annual revenues.
My question and suggestion to the Commissioners:
- If you assess and project ahead 12 years, what level of funds will be required at that time to ensure that stewardship needs of LB assets will be met in perpetuity with high probability?
- And given that assessment – what level of annual contributions to the Stewardship Fund will be required year by year to achieve a fund that, by 2038, will be sufficient to steward Land Bank preserves in perpetuity ?
Of course, at the end of 2038, voters may well decide to continue the program to acquire more lands for another 12 years. But by planning for the event in which renewal of the LB 1% tax doesn’t happen, we can be assured that our lands are taken care of in perpetuity regardless of the outcome.
I support and applaud the many successes the LB has achieved. I publicly support the renewal of the LB 1% excise tax.
My suggestion (request) is that the Commissioners commit to the citizens they will address the questions posed above – and report back with transparency the substance of those efforts.
My belief is that in doing so you will validate that the LB 1% tax is fully needed for the next 12 years – and a substantial portion (perhaps fully 50% or more of the LB revenue) will need to be allocated annually toward the Stewardship Fund. At the end of 12 years the fund balance will be approach $ 50M. Will a $ 50M fund at a 4% distribution rate providing $2,000,000 for stewardship purposes meet the future needs?
We can ill afford to wait 5 – 7 years to find out the answers to these questions. The LB has a mandate to provide stewardship – in my opinion it is the top priority.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Very well analyzed and explained. Thank you Joe. Anyone contemplating retirement should model their own financial planning on similar thoughts.
Excellent point; I look forward to hearing from the Land Bank on this topic.
Retire the San Juan County Land Bank
Enough is Enough!
The ‘Citizens Conservation Land Bank’ was voted into existence in 1990, 34 years ago, with the mandate to “preserve in perpetuity” areas in the county that have environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic or low-intensity recreational value and to protect existing and future sources of potable water. These land acquisitions are funded by a Real Estate Excise Tax, authorized by the voters of San Juan County.
Over the past 31 years, the Land Bank has acquired (ownership) of 5000 acres of land in San Juan County, per the Land Bank’s brochure. The Land Bank has acquired more property than the size of Shaw Island! (Shaw Is. has 4,928 acres, per Wikipedia.org)
Most, if not all of the Land Bank acreage, is exempt from co. property taxes.
This means county property taxes that would have been paid from the acquired ‘Land Bank property’, are now shifted to the rest of the county taxpayers to pay in perpetuity!
Please, vote NO in November for the SJC Land Bank renewal proposition.
Enough is Enough,
Paul Dossett
How much public land is enough is a valid question. That’s a personal decision to make. It’s always good to have facts at hand to make informed decisions. To follow is some data, the latest I could find, that may be helpful for those undecided voters.
In total, San Juan County holds 16.4% of its lands in public ownership (this includes State and County parks, etc.), the lowest ratio of publicly-owned lands in our region. For context, Island County owns 18%, Kitsap County 25%, King County 46%, Skagit 62%, and Whatcom County holds a whopping 68% in public ownership.
After 34 years of acquisitions, our Conservation Land Bank owns holds, for the people of San Juan County, 4.5% of land in the county. These lands are a public asset that belong to all of us in the community. Out of 39 Land Bank preserves, 30 are open to the public.
Over the long term, conserving land rather than developing it lowers property taxes for all of us because, unlike residential uses, forests, farmlands, and open space properties contribute more than they require in public services. A Cost of Community Services Study (COCS) completed in in San Juan County in the early 2000’s concluded what hundreds of similar studies across the nation have shown: “While building more homes increases the County’s total tax collections, the added revenues don’t cover the cost of additional required services… the effect is to increase taxes, or reduce services, for existing taxpayers.”
These types of studies underpin the Open Space Taxation Act which provides tax breaks for beneficial land uses because “it is in the best interest of the state to maintain, preserve, conserve, and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber, and forest crops and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens.”
The net effect to our local property taxes of removing our Land Bank preserves from the tax rolls is minimal, in part because 75% of Land Bank properties that have been purchased were already in low tax programs such as Designated Forest land. For example, prior owners of 1575-acre Turtleback Mountain paid less than $1,000 per year in property taxes. If all Land Bank property were taxed, and the tax rate lowered as a result, the savings to property owners would be approximately $2 per $100,000 in value. View the calculations here: https://sjclandbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Calc-of-the-LB-impact-on-taxes-750K-4-1-24.pdf
There are currently 7,650 undeveloped parcels in the county, with the potential of 2,000 more by subdivision. The Land Bank purchases at most a few properties a year. Many of those are larger properties that could be subdivided for development, however as explained above, new residential development costs all of us in the community.
If voters reauthorize the Conservation Area REET, paid by property buyers, it will extend for another 12 years, from 2026 through 2038. Our Conservation Land Bank will preserve additional land when the right opportunities arise as well as continue to proactively steward our preserves, including planting trees along streams and wetlands for water quality protection, thinning forests to reduce risks of catastrophic wildfires, creating more wildlife habitat and investing in soil amendments for farmland to sequester carbon and improve growing conditions. Presently the Land Bank is spending approximately 50% of REET revenue on stewardship.
More facts and good information can be found at https://www.renewourlandbank.com/
Paul Dosset – Let’s stop passing along old myths and start talking about facts.
FACT: How much of the county’s land does the Land Bank own? About 5,000 acres, yes – out of 110,000. That’s about 4 1/2 % of the county.
FACT: How much of the county’s property tax base does that represent? Less than 1/2 of 1%. That works out to about $2. / $100,000 on your tax bill; $15 or $20 per year…
https://sjclandbank.org/about/faq/ https://www.renewourlandbank.com
So how much is preserving natural land, working farmland, public shorelines, habitat and beauty and having access to nature nearby worth to you?
I love what the Land Bank stands for and has achieved and in particular it’s really amazing to see the new North Beach preserve open. My only suggestion for the land bank is that they put more thought and effort towards creating opportunities to recreate on their preserves. There is so little trail development on turtleback and so much of it is off limit to cycling, which I think is a huge miss given the rise in popularity of mountain biking and the chance to provide for more trail access to visitors and locals alike on the mountain.
Similarly, I would love to see the land bank acquire more land that can be set aside specifically for building recreational facilities such as BMX or pump tracks, or even an aquatic center one day.