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. ¨