Resolution 3528 - Laserfiche WebLink

Thus in each local jurisdiction, the mix of service delivery and funding for services is unique. SEPA does not change this basic relationship. There is nothing in the Statute or the WACs which prohibits the lead agency from undertaking a review of the benefits which will be generated from a proposed action as well as the potential impacts. • WAC 197-11-448, Relationship of EIS to Other Considerations, discusses in subsection (3) the types of information not required to be discussed in the EIS, including "social policy analysis (such as fiscal and welfare policies...)" (emphasis added). While an analysis such as the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA)is not required, clearly the Responsible Official properly exercised his discretion in electing to rely on the FIA for consideration of certain employment related offsite impacts, and means of mitigation, where other means of determining the nature, location, timing and other characteristics of such impacts were not available or reliable. • If a project will generate sufficient revenues to compensate local governments for the impacts real or perceived, then there is an obligation to disclose this information. Moreover, the Fiscal Impact approach "permits a broad assessment of impacts on specific service functions using a comprehensive and consistent data base covering the numerous jurisdictions within the impact area" (DEIS pg 169). This approach also helps distinguish between those functions and responsibilities which are more properly the responsibility of the State as opposed to those of local governments. • The FIA does not ignore the service side of the equation; on the contrary, it accounts for expenditures on a per capita basis. The question of discretion in the allocation of dollars is essentially a political one made at the local or state legislative/budget level. Mitigation measures imposed under SEPA are not intended, and in fact are prohibited, from being employed to make up existing deficiencies in revenues or service levels. Mitigation under SEPA cannot be imposed as a tax. • The proposal will generate substantial revenues to state and local governments. What is more, the population increases which will result from the project will further generate revenue as well as consume services. Government service programs, including growth management fees, the parks mitigation fees of the County, the school mitigation fees of the County, and other such fees are based almost exclusively on residential construction and not commercial construction. There are reasons for this; impacts are primarily generated where people live as opposed to where they work, and commercial and industrial developments tend to generate a surplus of revenue. Presumably, primary and, secondary Boeing employees either live in a local community or will do so in the near future. They will either rent or purchase an existing or new home or they already rent or are purchasing a home. In any event, they are paying taxes and consuming government services at their place of residence. • That Boeing has agreed to participate in an impact assistance program does not involve a shift in responsibility from Boeing to the public taxpayer. Rather, it reflects a reality that the State of Washington is realizing a large share of the revenues which will be 64