Notes from
Friends
Friends of 
 Member Survey Results By Judy Dudley, Director We sent a 2-page
    survey on issues that will come up in the Comp Plan update process to our
    ~150 members in May, 2004 and received replies from 45 of you.  Thanks for your participation, words of
    encouragement, and for the unexpected extra donations. A strong majority (70%)
    of you, our members, want us to focus our efforts upon the County’s Comp
    Plan.  Note:  The cities are all
    required to update their Comp Plans by the end of 2005 as well.   The following list shows the survey respondents’ priorities
    in descending rank order.  Answers in
    bold received substantially more
    “votes” than the other issues. 1        
    Farmland Preservation 2        
    Critical Areas Protections 3        
    Keep UGA Boundaries compact 4        
    Forestland Preservation  5        
    Make Planning Decisions
    Fair and Predictable 6        
    Increased Urban
    Densities 7        
    Improve Public
    Participation/Process 8        
    Transit/Transportation 9        
    Improve livability
    in towns/cities 10     
    Economic
    development You want us to stay in business once the Comp
    Plan is adopted, mostly doing monitoring & enforcement/watch-dog
    work.  There was not a lot of support
    shown for having a large education program. Sprawl problems and resource protection concerns
    identified by you were consistent with the answers given for setting
    priorities:  farmland encroachment;
    floodplain development; ugly sprawl; habitat; open space; and wildlife were
    the most frequent responses.
 
   
 
   
   
   
  
   
 
   
   
   
 
   
   
     
  
     
   
   
  
| 
   Inside This Issue  | 
 |||
| 
   1  | 
  
   County Encourages Sprawl  | 
 ||
| 
   1  | 
  
   Survey Results  | 
 ||
| 
   3  | 
  
   Planned Giving  | 
 ||
| 
   3  | 
  
   Comp Plan Steering Committee  | 
 ||
| 
   3  | 
  
   Smart Growth Fosters Job Growth  | 
 ||
| 
   4  | 
  
   Bits & Pieces  | 
 ||
| 
   5  | 
  
   Good News from the Hearings Board  | 
 ||
| 
   5  | 
  
   
   Continued on page 3  | 
 ||
  new development in rural zones and the Bay View
     residential UGA until the TDR program is a reality, until the aggregation
     of substandard lots in resource lands is accomplished, and the 20/80
     population distribution goal is reached.¨ Table 1.  POPULATION  PROJECTIONS & DISTRIBUTIONS Population             Unincorp-    Incorp-     Total           Source                                 orated          
     orated 1995                        36,674          
     56,426       93,100             1 2000                        44,506          
     58,473     102,979             2 2003                        45,830      
         60,870     106,700             2 2000-03
     increase    1,324              2,397         3,721 8-year
     growth          9,156           4,444       13,600 2005
     Projection       39,116          75,519     114,635            1 2010
     Projection     41,503           
     84,007     125,510            1 2015 Projection     43,593         94,107     137,700               1 Sources:  1 = 1997 Skagit Co Comp Plan, Table 4 2 = Argus April 21, 2004 
     (data cited in the Argus
     article were from the U.S. Census, and the WA state Office of Financial
     Management)   So Long, and Thanks Joan Drinkwin and Ellen Gray have both
     recently resigned from the FOSC Board. 
     Joan served FOSC for nearly 3 years while simultaneously serving on
     the Mount Vernon Planning Commission, a connection which helped us to
     better understand the City’s issues. 
     Ellen Gray joined the FOSC Board 2 years ago immediately after
     resigning her staff position with the organization.  As staff for 1000 Friends of WA she was
     able to bring to us good information about what growth management
     advocates in other parts of the state are doing.  For the past year Ellen also served as
     our legal representative on numerous issues. The departure of these two
     women has left a big hole in our Board and they will be missed.  Our Director, Judy Dudley, will be
     leaving in July.  In the 2 years
     that she has worked for us she has helped to grow our membership,
     strengthen our operations, put us on a more sound financial footing, and
     has participated in the successful closure of several legal appeals.  THANK YOU for your service Joan, Ellen
     and Judy!
  
 
    
  
    
    
    
    
    
    
   
    
  
    
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
    
  
   
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
    
  
   
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
    
 
   
  Planned Giving By Sherri Stites Giving is one of life’s great satisfactions,
     especially when you know that your gifts help to improve the lives of
     others.  There are ways to give to
     your favorite charities that you may not have considered.  You may want to consider making a gift
     at death. The will is the most commonly used method of
     making charitable gifts at death. 
     Other opportunities exist, however, which may be used in
     combination with a will or as stand-alone vehicles. A charitable remainder unitrust or annuity trust
     allows a giver to receive income each year for life and make a substantial
     charitable gift at death.  If
     desired the trust may be created in a will to go into effect at the
     giver’s death.  The income, in that
     case, would be distributed to a survivor as specified by the giver in the
     trust agreement. Charitable income of estate tax deductions (depending
     upon whether the trust is inter vivos or testamentary) result in the year
     the trust is established.  Other
     life income plans, such as gift annuities or pooled income funds, may be
     available. Common Questions Regarding Wills
     and Bequests 1.       
     Aren’t charitable bequests made mainly by
     wealthy persons or by those with no close relatives? Not always. 
     Many gifts by will are made by persons who first provide for their
     loved ones and of their assets to charitable interests that
     have been an important part of their lives. Even a small portion of a
     typical estate can be a very meaningful gift when received. 2.       
     How do people usually make such bequests? Many simply designate a percentage of their
     estate to go to the charitable organization of their choice.  Others name specific property or a
     specific dollar amount.  Still
     others name one or more charities as final beneficiaries to receive
     whatever remains in the estate after other heirs are provided for. 3.       
     Should I notify a charitable organization that I
     have included it in my will? This can be a good idea.  It can affect long-range planning, often
     in vital ways.  We are always
     grateful to learn of a planned bequest. 4.       
     Is there any danger that my bequest may not be
     received as planned? Yes.  It
     sometimes happens due to using an incorrect or unofficial name in your
     will, for example, especially since many charities have similar
     names.  Be sure to obtain and use
     the correct legal name and address. 
     ¨ ATTENTION
     Growth Management Advocates! The  The steering committee
     will be comprised of involved citizens who are willing to reach out to a
     network of citizens, organizations, special-interest groups, local civic
     clubs, and interested members of the general public. The County has
     indicated an interest in having the committee represent the public at
     large, and “interest areas” such as natural resource lands industries,
     real estate and construction, environmental conservation, rural issues,
     growth management, property rights, housing, urban and city issues, and
     tribal issues. Anyone with
     expertise, experience, or interest in any of the areas being addressed and
     is willing to communicate with and represent the interests of the
     community is invited to submit a letter of interest and statement of
     qualifications by Monday, June 28,
     2004 to: Board of County
     Commissioners For more information, contact: Guy McNally, Associate Planner
  
 
    
  
    
    
    
    
   
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
    
  
   
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
     GMA Update Steering Committee
     County Administrative Building, Room 202
     700 South Second Street
     Mount Vernon, WA 98273
     336-9410  ¨
    
 
   
  Bits
     & Pieces THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU             Sara Holahan and Brian Wetcher for organizing the
     2004 Free Tree give-away.  And thank
     you to DNR for donating surplus
     trees for this event.  Many
     delighted neighbors showed up on a windy Saturday in April to get their
     seedlings.  Some of the left-over
     trees were donated to the Street Tree program in Anacortes .             Joan Drinkwin for hosting the FOSC
     Rummage Sale.  Thank you to our
     members who donated items for sale.             To all of the ARTISTS who participated in our
     exhibition in honor of spring.  We
     met many new friends and netted about $500 for our organization.  Volunteers interested in helping out
     with, or exhibiting at, future art shows may contact our office.  Special thanks to Debbie Aldrich for organizing the exhibit.             Lee Mann for donating the stunning
     Trumpeter Swan photo for our raffle. 
     We made $700 on the raffle, thanks to our Board members who
     persevered with ticket sales. 
     Congratulations to Joan Drinkwin for buying so many tickets that
     one of them was the lucky winner.             Sally Dixon and Glenn H. for helping us overcome
     so many technical difficulties with our computer upgrade this
     winter/spring.             Lyle and Barbara Craner for
     preparing and filing our tax return. *********************************************************** We experienced severe “technical problems” at our office earlier
     this year.  We know that some phone
     and email messages were lost.  We
     know that at times there were long lags before we could reply to some
     messages.  We’re sorry.  We think all the problems have now been
     fixed.  If you tried to contact us
     between January and April and didn’t get a reply, please try again. ************************************************************ The Anacortes City Council voted to send a proposed Comp Plan
     amendment on Cottage Housing to the Planning Commission for review and
     hearing.  FOSC member Linda Sanford
     has been instrumental in helping to move this issue forward in Anacortes.     ***********************************************************            
  
 
    
  
    
    
    
   
    
  
    
    
    
  
    
    
      
   
      
    
    
 
   
 Good News from the Hearings Board by June Kite As the result of a legal appeal initiated by
    FOSC, 4-years ago the cities and county adopted a system of inter-local
    agreements requiring the County to adopt and implement the cities’
    development regulations within the cities’ respective UGAs.  This system was to comply with the
    requirements for urban development, efficient timing and phasing of
    infrastructure, and transformance of governance.             The Growth
    Management Hearings Board (GMHB) was not convinced that the system would
    work, but gave the local governments the opportunity to show that the
    County would adopt city development regulations in a timely manner.  FOSC subsequently argued that the inter-local
    agreement scheme did not ensure compliance with GMA.               In recent
    months Sedro-Woolley has gone to the GMHB to argue that the County has not
    cooperated or enforced their inter-local agreement.  Last week the GMHB has issued a
    Compliance Hearing Order which stated: “Conclusion:  The County has failed to adopt
    development regulations within the municipal UGA’s generally, and the Sedro
    Woolley UGA in particular, which comply with GMA requirements for
    transformance of Governance and efficient phasing of urban infrastructure
    within the UGAs…. It is obvious after considering all of the arguments
    presented that FOSC was right”. This consolidated case has a complex history and
    the Compliance Order outlines the history and compliance issues, both for
    County-wide UGAs and  Sedro-Woolley  specifically.  There are
    twenty three (23) points of “Findings of Fact” outlined in the
    ComplianceOrder.  Fact #10:  It was pointed out that the
    County’s variance procedures (for which a variance from sanitary sewer and
    full street infrastructure is sought) results in the hearing examiner
    deciding on a case-by-case basis who will pay for urban infrastructure (i.e.
    developers or tax-payers) and when they will pay for it.  The GMHB has stated in previous decisions
    that the County’s current approach, which facilitates low-density
    subdivisions within the UGA without provisions for basic infrastructure,
    fails to comply with GMA.  Proposals
    already at the County’s permit counter would have a negative impact if the interim
    protections are allowed to lapse.             The good news
    in the Compliance Order is that – “The
    County shall adopt development regulations in compliance with the GMA .
    . . the County shall continuously
    keep in place protections that prevent non-rural levels of development in
    the unincorporated UGA.   A timeline has been imposed for complying with
    the order.  It includes:   August 3, 2004 – Compliance deadline for adoption
    of measures to prevent non-rural levels of development during the
    compliance period              December 15, 2004 –
    Compliance deadline for adoption of regulations providing for transformance
    of governance and effective phasing of infrastructure in UGA’s. FOSC hopes the county will quit fighting
    this issue and comply with the GMHB’s orders.  Please contact the Commissioners and ask
    them to do so. ¨