 |
 |
|
Open spaces
Adhering to a popular environmental program saved Classic CC more than $23,000.
Most golf courses involved with the Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program will end up saving enough money to pay for the annual membership. Many courses save up to several thousand dollars by creating no-mow zones, taking a hard look at what pesticides are necessary, and so on. But at Classic Country Club in Spanaway, Wash., we save more than $23,000 each year by implementing Audubon programs, and the savings will grow as the land value increases.
A government for the people
We were very fortunate that our state legislature helped to ultimately create the ordinance that saves us this money. It is a good example of how government policy actually benefited a golf course. Usually in our industry we look at government policy as nothing more than restrictions, expenses — simply there to make our lives difficult. I truly believe this is a case where a positive result was created; a golf course that is sensitive to protecting the local environment is rewarded financially. Pierce County, Wash., can serve as a role model for other local governments that want to create policies to encourage property owners to protect valuable groundwater resources.
More than 20 years ago, the groundwork was laid by the Washington state legislature that led to the creation of the nonpoint source pollution rule. In the Watershed Characterization, the nonpoint rule is described in this way: “The state of Washington authorizes local governments and state agencies to establish planning processes leading to the implementation of watershed action plans for the purpose of reducing nonpoint pollution.” The Chambers-Clover Creek watershed was considered a priority area because of the “degree of degradation, the potential of preservation, and the beneficial uses in need of protection.” This watershed is characterized by soils that drain very well, which leads to a higher probability of pollutants moving quickly into ground and surface water.
In 1993 a committee of 13 was created by the Pierce County Council and funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Centennial Clean Water Fund. The Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Management Committee produced two documents the Watershed Characterization, which describes conditions within the watershed, and the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Action Plan. All the meetings were advertised and open to the public. Throughout the process, strong coordination and communication with all stakeholders — those who might have something to gain or lose in the watershed — was emphasized. This included a pool from the private sector, federal, state and local governments. One member of this committee was Pete Echols, a former superintendent at Classic CC. Echols, a 22-year GCSAA member, is now superintendent at Springfield (Ore.) Country Club.
The committee created 56 action plans, which addressed issues ranging from mailing maintenance and education information to homeowners who have septic systems to updating surface mine reclamation requirements. All 56 of these plans were intended to improve nonpoint source pollution within the watershed.
Taxing issues
On July 13, 1999, the Pierce County Council members enacted Ordinance 98-114S Chapter 2.114. This ordinance was a direct descendent of the Watershed Action Plan. It was described in the action plan as “A public benefit rating system [that] would provide an incentive for maintaining open space and habitat areas within urban settings by allowing for property tax reductions.” The underlying purpose of this rating system is to reward properties that “protect and enhance water quality.”
When our golf course was sold to a new owner in November 2001, Chapter 84.34 Revised Code of Washington was brought to my attention. I was curious how it would affect our taxes. It is described in the ordinance as: “providing an opportunity for certain categories of open space lands, agricultural lands, and timber lands to have the tax structure based upon the current use rather than on the traditional fair market value system of highest and best use.”
Great, we had our answer! It’s that easy to get a significant tax reduction. Wrong! Section 2.114.060 I.2.f.c. states, “Golf courses, driving ranges, etc. are not eligible under subsection 2.114.060 I.1.d” Let’s take a look:
d. Private Parks and Private Golf Courses with DevelopedFacilities.
(1) Eligibility Criteria. Public access to the park from a public road is required, except a homeowner-owned and maintained developed subdivision park amenity shall be considered a park allowing access.
(2) Data Sources. Hearing Examiner preliminary and final approvals as found in the hearing case file on file with the Department.
(3) Examples. Tot lots, private neighborhood parks, trails, nature areas, and multi-use fields for soccer or youth league baseball. Areas may include a children’s playground; picnic tables and related accessories’ tennis courts; an outdoor basketball court; and other associated facilities or similar features required by the Hearing Examiner.
We worked around this technicality by convincing the council that our parking lot, putting greens and chipping green are open to the public without a fee.
Getting the points
Our next step was to earn points within the Public Benefit Rating System. The Pierce County planner helped to decide which categories we best qualified for. These categories were based on a high-to-low priority scale with points given to each level.
 |
When we tallied our score, our course had 29 points or 90 percent reduction of land value (excluding buildings), which in turn saved us $23,011.47 in 2003 and will increase each year as the assessed property value increases. These priority areas are self-explanatory, but there are detailed qualifications needed to qualify for each one. Of the three high-priority issues — fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands and wooded areas — there is an obvious link to Audubon International.
Audubon connection
Without our involvement and quest toward becoming a certified Audubon sanctuary, and most important, the documentation of our efforts, I am sure that we would not have qualified for some of the high-point categories in the rating system. Many of the council members resisted the idea of a golf course being an open space. This was mostly due to the common misconception many have of seeing golf courses as a place where many chemicals were used and wildlife habitat is discouraged. But when I educated the council about Audubon International and showed them excerpts submitted for certification approval on some of the things we had done at the golf course to encourage wildlife habitat, their outlook was changed.
I believe this is a testament to how involvement with Audubon International and following the guidelines and standards they set gave us the tools to approach the council with information that swayed their perception of golf courses. However, we are only one case. I can’t help but wonder how many other golf courses across the nation may have had a similar opportunity, but without involvement with Audubon International, did not stand a chance of reaping the benefits that we have.
Ultimately, we must do more than just say that we are environmentally aware. We must provide proof that we have been measuring our own progress and striving to make our golf courses an environmental asset to the community.
Leo Feser Award candidate This article is eligible for the 2005 Leo Feser Award, presented annually since 1977 to the author of the best superintendent-written article published in Golf Course Management magazine during the previous year. Superintendents receive a $300 stipend for articles. Feser Award winners receive an all-expenses-paid trip to the Golf Industry Show, where they are recognized. They also have their names engraved on a plaque permanently displayed at GCSAA headquarters. |
RELATED articles
RECENT issues
 |
 |
February |
January 2005 |