A. The NSC opposes the Chuckanut Mountains Park District, as is presently conceived.

A. The NSC opposes the CMPD because the boundaries were drawn arbitrarily by its proponents in order to give voters in Bellingham effective control over the entire park district, despite the fact that over 40% of the land lies within Skagit County.  As presently conceived, residents of Skagit County located within the proposed district will only be assured of one vote out of five commissioners.  The boundaries of any park district should be limited to discreet geographic areas with approximately the same population density so that densely populated areas are not able to impose their will on relatively unpopulated areas.    The NSC submits that if a proposed park district spans two or more counties, it should not be approved unless a majority of the residents in each county within the proposed district approve it.

Further, the five park commissioners will have the power of “eminent domain”—that is the power to take the private property of an individual resident against his or her will. The NSC believes in cooperative efforts between public and private parties, and that confrontation between private land owners and the commissioners of the proposed park district is not the proper approach to expanding existing parks. Private property owners also have an important role to play in protecting the Chuckanut Mountains against overuse and over development.

Development in much of the proposed park district is already adequately controlled by existing zoning laws and comprehensive land use policies. Most areas within the Skagit County portion of the proposed Park District are already subject to minimum lot sizes of 20 acres or more. To the extent that additional public park land is needed in the Chuckanut Mountains region, the NSC believes that selected portions of state lands managed by the DNR should be considered for conversion to permanent parkland.

The NSC also believes that all those who utilize public parks should help pay for them through use of either general tax revenues and/or the collection of park user fees. It is highly inequitable to tax residents of the proposed park district to support its activities when the parks that are created will be open to all. Under the proposed Chuckanut Mountains Park District, the commissioners will have the authority to tax residents of the district at the rate of $.75/thousand dollars of assessed valuation each year. To make matters worse, the State of Washington has just enacted an amendment to RCW 35.61.210 (to go into effect July 22, 2007) that will authorize the park commissioners to levy additional taxes on park district residents (over and above the $.75/thousand of assessed value ceiling) if such taxes are approved as part of a special election conducted by the commissioners. Members of the NSC believe that residents of the proposed park district are already taxed enough, and that this amounts to “taxation without representation” for many residents of Skagit and Whatcom Counties living within the proposed district.

A.  The NSC believes that the compromise, while far from perfect, represents a reasonable balance of competing interests, and that any efforts by the proposed Park District commissioners to “undo” that compromise are counterproductive. The NSC does support the possible conversion of additional state owned land on Blanchard Mountain to park land, but on the assumption that “replacement” timberland” can be purchased to ensure continued support for those districts that depend on timber sales revenues.

A. The proponents of the proposed park district have not yet produced a plan as to how they would use the powers granted to the commissioners under state law. The lack of such a plan will lead to confusion as to which agencies have jurisdiction over the lands included within the district, potential duplication of efforts, and the waste of scarce public resources. Moreover, by encouraging the creation and use of additional parklands before adequate services are provided, the proponents of the Park District will actually increase the risks of damage to such lands, rather than preserving them for future generations. The Chuckanut Mountains represent a fragile eco-system that must be protected from both over development and overuse. Due to the lack of a comprehensive plan, the proposed park district threatens the area with increased fire risks and growing threats to public safety.

A.  No, it does not.

A. There are nine criteria set out in RCW 36.93.180 that must be considered by the members of the Boundary Review Board. They are:

(a) preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities;

(b) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to, bodies of water, highways and land contours;

(c) creation and preservation of logical service areas;

(d) prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;

(e) discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas;

(f) dissolution of inactive special purpose districts;

(g) adjustment of impractical boundaries; incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and

(h) protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority.

Although many of the foregoing criteria have little or no relevance to the creation of the proposed park district (due to the fact that state law primarily addresses the criteria that should be considered by the Boundary Review Board for annexation of unincorporated areas into municipalities, i.e. areas on the skirts of a city), there are several that clearly do apply to the proposed Park District.

With respect to (a) (use of “natural neighborhoods” and existing communities for boundaries), the NSC believes that the proposed park district fails this test due to the fact that the boundaries of the district extend well beyond “natural neighborhoods” and existing communities. The law authorizes the creation of “metropolitan park districts.” The proposed park district extends well beyond the Bellingham metropolitan area. As presently proposed, it extends all the way from Maple Street in Bellingham to Bow Hill Road in Skagit County (an area of about 66.5 square miles), and covers large areas that have no connection whatsoever to Bellingham. There is no precedent for the use of the law governing “metropolitan” park districts to create a park district covering a large portion of two separate counties. Such a proposal goes well beyond the intent of the State Legislature to authorize the creation of discreet “metropolitan” park districts located within a “natural neighborhood.” As such, the proposal represents little more than a poorly disguised “grab” for control of large portions of Skagit and Whatcom Counties by those who live in Bellingham. The NSC has no objection to a park district limited to Bellingham and its immediate surroundings in Whatcom County, and believes that this is all that is authorized by state law.

With respect to (b) (use of physical boundaries such as highways and bodies of water), the proposed district boundaries does utilize some highways and water bodies as boundaries, but the proponents have provided no logical explanation for the specific highways that have been selected, especially those used for the north and south boundaries.

With respect to (c) (creation and preservation of logical service areas), the proposed district ignores existing fire districts, state parks, and other service areas, and will create a new overarching service area that has little or no relationship to existing or logical services areas. This will create widespread confusion as to who has jurisdiction and “control” over vital public services, and will lead to duplication of efforts, wasted resources, and possibly delayed response times during emergencies.

With respect to (d) (prevention of irregular boundaries), the park district excludes certain areas, with no explanation—such as the property owned by the Taylor Shellfish Farm along Chuckanut Drive, thereby creating an irregular boundary with no logical reasons for the exclusion. Similarly, although Samish Island was originally included in the “park district study area” it was ultimately excluded—largely for political reasons and the fact that it would give the Skagit County portion of the district a more substantial population base, and hence greater voting power.

Criteria (e), (f) and (g) have little relevance to the creation of the proposed park district.

Criterion (h) (protection of agricultural and rural lands) is clearly violated by the proposed park district.  Skagit County has already adopted a comprehensive plan for the Skagit portion of the proposed district which supports the preservation of existing agricultural and forest lands.  To the extent that these lands are taken by the proposed park district, their removal would violate the existing Skagit County comprehensive plan and remove valuable agricultural and forest lands from productive use.

A. Yes, the Conservancy believes that the proposed district violates the Growth Management Act and will also require an environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Policy Act.

A. Interested citizens can contact info@northsoundconservancy.org regarding membership in the North Sound Conservancy.  Concerned citizens are urged to participate in any upcoming Whatcom Boundary Review Board (BRB) meetings or hearings.