presentation on jackson county's ballot measure to ban gmo crops

7/27/2019 Presentation on Jackson County's ballot measure to ban GMO crops

1/32


2/32

Purpose of Presentation

To provide the Board with projected costs forCounty implementation of GMO Measure No. 15-119, Ordinance to Ban Growing of SomeGenetically-Engineered (defined) Plants.

To describe for the Board some of the unique andpotentially significant enforcement challenges theGMO Measure presents.


3/32

Purpose of Presentation- Qualifiers -

Cost projections necessarily involve estimation ofmultiple enforcement factors including, withoutlimitation, cost variables, frequency ofenforcement actions and difficulty of interpretingand defending the Ordinance.

Cost projections represent staffs best efforts toidentify cost factors associated with enforcementand to estimate costs as accurately as possible.

Because of the significant and complex estimationvariables, I cannot assure ultimate accuracy of thecost projections.


4/32

Purpose of Presentation- NOT Advocacy Material -

Presentation is NOT intended to promoteapproval or rejection of the GMO Measure.

Staff is NOT urging voters to vote in aparticular manner.

Presentation has been approved by State

Elections staff as not promoting or opposingthe GMO Measure and it is in compliance withORS 260.432. ADV 14-026


5/32

Assumptions and

ConsiderationsMany Variables to Consider


6/32

Assumptions/Considerations

The Countys enforcement efforts will becomplicated due to undefined terms and vagueterminology used within the proposed Ordinance.

In order to enforce the proposed Ordinance, theCounty is going to have to make policy/legaljudgments on the various terms that are notdefined, increasing the risk of litigation.


7/32


Example #1, Section 635.10 Jurisdiction statesThe circuit court of the State of Oregon shallhave jurisdiction for all violations of thisOrdinance.

Yet, Section 635.20 of the proposed Ordinancestates, This abatement procedure may bepursued as an alternative to the judicial remediesfor a violation of any of the provisions of thisOrdinance.


8/32


These statements are contradictory and it will beup to the Development Services Department,with the assistance of County Counsel, todetermine the meaning of terms and to developa specific enforcement procedure that is differentthan Code Enforcements current procedures.This will be difficult and costly.


9/32


Example #2, Section 635.04 purports to exempteducational or scientific institutes (e.g. OSUExtension) provided the activities are conductedunder secure, enclosed indoor laboratoryconditions with the utmost precautionsto prevent

release [of genetic material]. . .

Utmost precautions is not defined. Does itrequire reasonable precautions or measures

incorporating the most recent technologicaladvancements, or something else?


10/32


It is not clear that this Ordinance would applyonly to the unincorporated areas of JacksonCounty.

The Jackson County Code Enforcement Division

currently has no jurisdiction withinincorporated cities.

If this will be a county-wide program, it would

be a significant addition of area to cover andwould necessitate the addition of more than afull-time staff person.


11/32


It could create confusion for citizens as JacksonCounty would enforce for a certain type ofviolation within a city limits and the city willenforce for all other violations.

Currently the Code Enforcement Division is, forthe most part, capable of enforcing the CountysCodified Ordinance regulations (identification ofsolid waste, abandoned vehicles, illegal

construction, etc.) without assistance fromoutside agencies or utilizing independentcontractors.


12/32


This will not be the case with enforcement of theproposed Ordinance. Jackson County will requireassistance carrying out the following tasks relatedto enforcement:

Identification and testing of plants. Currentlythere is no place in Oregon that has the abilityto test for genetic modification of plants;


13/32


Abatement. Section 635.11(i) requires theCounty to ensure that the abatement of thegenetically engineered plants is done in amanner that will minimize geneticcontamination or other harm. The County will

need to utilize an independent contractor toensure that this Section of the Ordinance is metas methods will vary depending upon manyfactors including, but not limited to, the growth

cycle at time of violation, type of crop, andseason;


14/32


Identification of Utmost Measuresforeducational or scientific institutes (e.g. OSUExtension), or medical researchers, to qualifyfor the enforcement exemptions set forth inSection 635.04;

Expert witnesses for testimony in Circuit Courtor during Hearings Officer proceedings; and

Utilizing County Counsel more extensively thanis currently the case.


15/32


Abatement Costs: Currently, the County doesnot have an abatement program due, in part, toa lack of funding. Abatement is likely to be veryexpensive and there is no funding within theDevelopment Services budget to pay for it.

Appeals on Notices of Abatement 635.21(c) -Notice of the hearing may also be given toanyone the Hearings Officer determines to be

interested.


16/32


Currently the Hearings Officer does not makea decision on who receives notice. This stepwill add cost to the hearing, adds potentialliability, and is procedurally awkward.


17/32

Other IssuesConsiderations That Affect the Ability to Determine the

Cost of Enforcement


18/32

Medical Marijuana

Growing most potent strains of marijuana is nowa crime again under newly enacted countyordinances on Kauai and the Big Island. If MauiCounty follows suit and passes a proposedordinance modeled on the Kauai law, marijuanagrowers will be subject to stiff new penaltiesthere as well. The changes are due to the recentenactment of anti-GMO legislation by countycouncils. In all three anti-GMO bills, gene

doubling is expressly identified as a form ofgenetic modification subject to the law.

The Hawaii Free Press, 12/8/13.


19/32

Medical Marijuana

The most potent forms of marijuana are modifiedby a primitive genetic modification techniquewhich involves soaking the seeds in colchicines a carcinogenic derivative of crocus bulbs untilthe DNA doubles (or even quadruples), which in

turn doubles or quadruples the production ofTHC. This method produces the highest potencymarijuana varieties and the seeds commonly soldby online vendors.

The Hawaii Free Press, 12/8/13.


20/32

Residential Grass Seed

Scotts Miracle-Gro is a genetically modified grassseed that has been modified to protect it frombeing killed by Roundup, the weed killer.

The Columbus Dispatch , 01/31/14


21/32

*Election Costs Estimate = 40,000

Program Costs

1 FTE Code Inspector 80,000

.1 FTE Office Assistant 7,000

Vehicle (4x4 pickup) 6,500

Direct Materials and Services 15,000Travel and Training 1,000

Hearings Officer 9,400

Contract for Testing/Witness 22,050

County Overhead (chargeback's) 32,366

Departmental Overhead 58,927

**Total program costs = 232,244Hearing Officer Imposed Fines and Fees 12,941

Net program costs = 219,302

Total Projected First Year Cost = 259,302

* Election cost might not be charged out

**Assumes current average rate of compliance

Year One Program Operating Costs

Not Including Abatement


22/32

Abatement Cost and

Recovery ConsiderationsConsiderations That Affect the Ability to Determine the

Cost of Enforcement


23/32

Abatement Cost Considerations

(i)the County shall thereafter take all actionnecessary to ensure that genetically engineeredplants are destroyed or removed from JacksonCounty in a manner that will minimize genetic

contamination or other harm.


24/32

Jackson County is Responsible for the Initial

Cost of Providing for Abatement

While this cost is assumed to be born by theviolator, in the case of the Jackson CountyOrdinance, the Development Services Departmentinitially shallbe responsible to pay for the cost ofabatement.

The Board of Commissioners may make the costa special assessment against the propertyinvolved or a personal obligation of the generator.This language does not appear to give the County

a first priority lien and does not appear toauthorize a tax on the property.


25/32

Recovery of Costs Sections 635.11(j) and 635.23 allow for

recovery of certain costs from violators.

635.11(j) allows recovery of all administrative and abatementcosts if violators are knowingly and willfully responsible for theviolation . . .

635.11(j) also provides that [c]osts of enforcementshall notbe imposed upon any person whose violation is not knowing andwillful.

Definitions of terms (in italics) are not clear.

Cost recovery may be an expensive/difficult process; Noguarantee that violator will actually pay.

Clear that some of the costs will not be recoverable.


26/32

Ability to Recover Abatement

Costs

According to the Jackson County Assessor, largefarms with very good farm land have a realmarket value of about $1,000 an acre. Farm landwith average soil is about $500 an acre.

Remember that this is highest and best use farmland. These acres are outside the UGB and nofuture development is very likely to occur.

Non farm rural land, say a 5 acre, RR-5 zonedpiece of land, has a real market value of around$20,000 an acre.


27/32

Ability to Recover AbatementCosts

Examples of developable land inside city limits includeMedford with a real market value of about $40,000 to$50,000 per acre, and Ashland is about $80,000 andup per acre. The County does not enforce in the citylimits so these are not comparable.

Depending on the circumstances, abatement costswill vary. According to information published bySonoma County in 2005, the California AgriculturalCommissioner estimated cost to remove, dispose,and replace the soil of one acre contaminated byGMOs would be approximately $86,915. Other soil

treatment options include chemical soil fumigationand heat treatment with an approximate cost of$15,000per acre.


28/32


If the aforementioned cost estimates are realistic forJackson County in 2014, and assuming a 20 acreabatement, it could cost the County somewherebetween approximately $300,000 ($15,000 x 20 acres)to $1,738,900 ($86,915 x 20 acres) to abate.

Under the same 20 acre assumption for abatement, thiswould mean the real market value for 20 acres would besomewhere between $10,000 ($500 x 20 acres) and

$20,000 ($1,000 x 20 acres). Even in what would likelybe a best case scenario in terms of value, the case of 20acres of RR-5, the real market value would be around$400,000 ($20,000 x 20 acres).


29/32


This could create a deficit for the County with a lowlikelihood to recover costs in the range ofsomewhere between $290,000 to $1,338,900depending on the circumstances required in a 20

acre abatement activity.

It is likely that if abatement requires high costmitigation activities, then Jackson County could not

recover the cost incurred to abate the property,even with a special assessment resulting in anactual payment, and it may result in land beingforeclosed upon.


30/32


The entire Jackson County Code Enforcementbudget is currently approximately $538,000.


31/32

REMINDER- NOT Advocacy Material -

Presentation is NOT intended to promoteapproval or rejection of the GMO Measure.

Staff is NOT urging voters to vote in a particularmanner.

Presentation has been approved by StateElections staff as not promoting or opposing the

GMO Measure and it is in compliance with ORS260.432. ADV 14-026


32/32Q estions ?

presentation on jackson county's ballot measure to ban gmo crops

Documents