HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council May 21 2002 LAND ACQUISITION1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Whatcom County Council/ Bellingham City Council Joint Meeting
May 21, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Whatcom County Council
Chair L. Ward Nelson and Bellingham City Council President Barbara Ryan in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Sharon Roy, Whatcom County None
Barbara Brenner, Whatcom County
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Whatcom County
Sam Crawford, Whatcom County
Seth Fleetwood, Whatcom County
Dan McShane, Whatcom County
Bob Ryan, City of Bellingham
Gene Knutson, City of Bellingham
John Watts, City of Bellingham
Grant Deger, City of Bellingham
Terry Bornemann, City of Bellingham
Louise Bjornson, City of Bellingham
1. WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS THE COUNTY ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WHATCOM LAND TRUST TO ACQUIRE THE
OLSEN ESTATE /TURNER - JAEGER PROPERTY USING CONSERVATION
FUTURE FUNDS (AB2002 -203)
Roger DeSpain, Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department Director,
stated this is a unique opportunity. Both City and County can purchase this
property to protect the watershed. It offers opportunities for individuals to use the
property. It demonstrates that there is a real need for watching what happens
around the watershed. A collective partnership between the two is grand. The
Land Trust, a nonprofit citizen's volunteer group, has brought this to their attention.
He introduced the parties involved.
Barbara Ryan stated that the City Council Committee of the Whole discussed
this, but they have not taken a vote.
Bjornson moved for the City Council to approve.
Knutsen seconded the motion.
McShane stated the County Council Natural Resources Committee
recommends approval unanimously. He so moved.
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated he wanted to amend the conservation easement. If the
amendment receives a favorable vote, the Land Trust would take the amendment
to the conservation easement to the owners to see if it is agreeable to them. The
Land Trust may also want to decide if it is agreeable.
Nelson stated this would not go to the owners at this point. The conservation
easement agreement is with the Land Trust itself.
Brenner asked if the decision would be made by the two councils or in
conjunction with the Land Trust.
Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, stated the amendment would be to the
conservation easement. The councils can approve that amendment. The Land
Trust has already approved the conservation easement as it is written. If there is a
change to the conservation easement, the councils would take it to the board of the
Land Trust for their approval. The conservation easement is a contract between the
Land Trust and the two councils.
Barbara Ryan stated the City Council hasn't had an opportunity to see any
details of the conservation easement. She preferred to not deal with that part, but
deal only with the sale. They can work out the details of the conservation
easement.
Crawford stated that the conservation easement is a contingency on whether
or not they approve the sale.
Barbara Ryan stated the City Council understands that this meeting is to
approve the sale and the management of the property by the Land Trust. The City
Council has had no opportunity yet to deal with the details of that management.
Brenner stated this is a package. If they approve the sale without amending
it, they are approving the conservation easement as it is. There won't be another
opportunity to amend it.
Crawford stated he would propose an amendment to the conservation
easement for the County Council's approval. If the majority of the City Council
members choose to approve the agreement to purchase without looking at the
details, that is up to them.
Crawford moved to amend page two of the Olsen Estate Conservation
Easement, section 4, subsection 2(a)(iv), "...is closed with trees at least 1-59 60
years old; thereafter...." The commercial forestry plan for the Olsen Estate, which
is on a separate document that is not in the Council's packet, states that the
"...higher quality older wood that will be found in 150 -year old Douglas fir is 40
percent higher than the price of standards domestic logs." While this may be true,
there remains a question as to the practicality of this harvest concept, especially as
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
harvest techniques, market demands, and management plans change over
extended periods of time. While the development of a very old second growth
forest may seem lucrative, locking this property into that status with no harvest
flexibility is not prudent. When considering the concerns of public ownership and
the need for environmental adaptation over long periods of time, setting a harvest
standard of 60 years, minimum, which is the outside limit of current commercial
practice, will be a more reasonable, practical, and realistic timeframe in which to
consider healthy forest and watershed management options.
McShane spoke against the motion. The property has been harvested. The
proposed approach is a good forest management technique. The idea is that there
will still be commercially harvestable timber before 150 years go by. There would
be commercial thinning, but there would not be commercial harvesting just purely
for harvesting. The United State Forest Service (USFS) and the State Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) now use this approach. It's a well thought out plan. It
fits more with how they would want to have a land that the County and the City are
purchasing with Conservation Futures fund dollars. It still allows for a timber
harvest. If the community owns this forest, they shouldn't clear cut every 60
years, or else they would go into the timber business themselves.
Crawford stated the conservation agreement prohibits clear cutting.
McShane stated that is all the more reason to go for a harvest plan where
they have a mature forest and they are selective logging ten percent. They will be
able to go in and select some trees, and they will have a healthier and more
sustainable forest.
Barbara Ryan stated that since the City Council has not seen the
conservation easement, she would like the City Council to have a caucus in a
separate room briefly to discuss the issue.
Bob Ryan stated the City Council has not seen the conservation easement,
and he is not ready to vote on anything he has not read.
Jack proposed that the County Council approve the purchase as it is
presented or amended, and the City Council could approve conditioned on their
subsequent approval of the conservation easement. The option for purchase
expires in late June. It will be harder to get people together. Get as much done
today as they can, and come back to pick up the details.
Bornemann stated that suggestion works well for him. When the
presentation was given to the City Council, they were given the general conditions
of the conservation easement. They were prepared to move forward with the sale
some time ago.
Watts stated it is possible that the conservation easement may be okay. He
suggested this happen in two parts. The first part is the purchase of the property.
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The second part is determining the use of the property. If one is going to be
contingent on the other, then it will be difficult to vote on it tonight.
Barbara Ryan stated that Mr. Jack's suggestion is that the City Council vote
only on the purchase, and the final agreement would be contingent on the City
Council's acceptance of the conservation agreement.
Watts stated that is okay with him conceptually. He hasn't read it yet. Jack
stated that if they did not approve the conservation easement, they would not
approve the purchase. If they don't approve the second step, then the first step is
nullified. They are making a conditional commitment that is conditioned upon the
approval of the conservation easement.
Barbara Ryan stated they could move ahead if that is agreeable to the City
Council members.
The City Council concurred.
Crawford stated he would be willing to vote for the purchase under those
same conditions. The question is at what point they debate the conservation
agreement.
Nelson stated the conservation easement has a lot to do with whether or not
they want to purchase the property.
Brenner spoke in support of Councilmember Crawford's amendment. The
agreement clearly says there will be no clear cutting of dominant trees. The canopy
of a forest closes at between 50 and 70 years. She wouldn't want to log a tree that
is 150 years old. Done correctly, logging in the watershed can be beneficial. It
hasn't always been done correctly. This is a compromise, but it doesn't
compromise the integrity of the watershed or the quality of the water. It allows for
revenues to be generated, and no residential development would be allowed in the
meantime.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that any revenue from commercial forestry
operations would go back into the stewardship and management of the Olsen
Estate property. They might not need a 60 -year cutting. Maybe a 150 -year cutting
or the ten percent cutting would be good enough for maintenance.
Jack stated the conservation easement only says what can be done, not what
will be done. He doesn't support the proposed amendment. A compromise is 100
years. At 60 years, it is a commercial logging operation. Sixty years is what is
needed by a for - profit organization that is in the business of logging and needs to
generate an annual income. That's not appropriate if the primary purpose is to
protect the watershed.
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated there would be commercial harvesting, according to the plan
between now and 150 years. He guessed there would be two or three commercial
harvests to obtain the type of stand that they are trying to obtain. The U.S. Forest
Service is doing this now. Their goal is to have 150 -year old mature stands, and
will cut the trees at a lesser rate in the future. In order to obtain those mature
trees and encourage the growth, they have to go in and remove trees commercially
to open up the canopy a bit to cause maximum forest production. That will
maximized the amount of wood that will be produced, versus the current approach
of taking it at sixty years. This is being run to maximize wood production. That is
how the U.S. Forest Service and DNR are approaching it. They need to get some
light into the woods to get those trees to grow. If this property is not thinned, all
the trees will be the same size and will begin to choke each other in about 30
years. There are two approaches. One approach is to cut them all down and start
over with marginal profits. The other approach is to get it growing, and then doing
another cut in 30 years. They are typically doing three commercial cuts before
getting to that 150 -year point. At 150 years, the idea would be to do a small, but
very profitable, harvest of the very good, straight trees. That wood will be rare and
very profitable.
Nelson stated he contacted DNR. DNR was concerned about the thinning
proposal because it would require multiple entries with a significant cost. One of
the concerns in the watershed is with multiple entry points. This is still an area that
has quite a bit of traffic in Sudden Valley and along Lake Louise Road. Thinning will
certainly have to occur. This property is an un- maintained tree farm. It will need
some expenditures. He is concerned about the 150 years. He was the one who
originally proposed a compromise of 100 years. The DNR requirements are 40 to
70 years. He asked where the timeframe of 60 years came from.
Crawford stated he understood it came from the DNR. He didn't hear about
70 years. He heard a timeframe of 40 to 60 years. The intent of this is not for
logging purposes. This is an excellent opportunity to provide a recreational mixed -
use area. It needs some forest management. He looked at forest management
plans that are currently in effect that harvest in 40 to 60 years. He proposed 60
years, and to provide maximum flexibility for their predecessors to manage this
area effectively.
Brenner stated they have a limited amount of money. It will not get any
bigger. There hasn't ever been a purchase she hasn't supported. Most of them
have the kind of agreement so they get the best bang for their buck. She disagrees
with an editorial she read that they are getting this for a song. She learned that an
offer was made on the property for $500,000. The City /County offer is over
$800,000. This is already logged and land zoned forestry. This is the kind of land
that they don't have a big problem with in the watershed. They are going to have
to make some really hard decisions about generating revenues and making
revenues available for the other purchases in the watershed and farmlands. She is
very concerned that this will cost them more than the sale price if they are not
going to allow any revenue to be created from this. The thinning has to happen in
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
the maintenance of the property. Volunteers can't work there themselves or do the
logging. She understood that the majority of the thinning happens during the first
quarter of the life of the trees. It's going to happen before the trees become
marketable. This property has been neglected, and it will require maintenance. To
balance it, they need to know that they are really going to have revenues for it.
There will not be any real revenue generated if they restrict it to 150 years.
Crawford stated Councilmember Nelson would support a change to 100
years, and Mr. Jack said that is workable.
Brenner stated that is better than 150 years.
Crawford amended his amendment of the Olsen Estate Conservation
Easement, section 4, subsection 2(a)(iv), "...is closed with trees at least 4-59 100
years old; thereafter...." He asked if the Whatcom Land Trust Board would approve
that change. Jack stated he believed that would be an acceptable amendment.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in favor.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated Mr. Crawford had a good
idea. It would be prudent for the County Council to join the City and respect that
they also condition the approval of the purchase on a closer look at the
conservation easement.
Nelson stated the conservation easement has been before the County's
Natural Resource Committee, and there has been extensive discussion about this
already.
McShane asked if there is something the County Council should be concerned
about, other than the timber harvest issue.
Grant stated there is an obligation for the grantee to perform an analysis and
baseline data gathering, but there is no provision for who would pay for that
analysis. Jack stated the grantee is the Land Trust.
Grant stated the agreement doesn't say who will pay. Jack stated that is an
obligation of the Land Trust, not the County or City.
Grant asked who would be assigned the grantee's interest if the Land Trust
ceases to exist. If the grantee ceases to exist, there should be some language that
the grantors jointly make the assignment to an equivalent agency.
Nelson asked if the Council would be able to form a new agency. Grant
stated it would not.
Jack stated there is language that refers to what happens if the Land Trust
ceases to exist. Since the Land Trust has a property interest in the land through a
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
conservation easement, the language says that the Land Trust would assign its
interest to an organization with a like interest if the Land Trust ceases to exist.
That is standard language that appears in every conservation easement that the
Land Trust has signed with British Petroleum, Trillium, Crown Pacific, the Clark
family, and every other conservation agreement. Every Land Trust and Nature
Conservancy in the United States has that language. It is required of any
conservation easement for which tax credits are claimed by the internal revenue
service.
Grant stated it still doesn't answer the question of who chooses the
assignment. It is a minor issue.
Fleetwood moved for the County Council to approve the purchase as
presented, conditioned on approval of the conservation easement.
McShane stated his motion was to approve the purchase and the
conservation easement as presented. It seems clear that the grantee would assign
their interest if they no longer exist. The County has had similar agreements with
the Land Trust in the past. Jack stated that same language has appeared in eight
or ten conservation easements on land owned by the County. That language is in
every one of them, and it has been approved by the Prosecutor's Office every time.
Brenner stated the Prosecutor wants them to make their language consistent
with the City. She asked if that is the reason they are doing this. Grant stated that
is one reason. He has concerns that the conservation has not been reviewed.
Brenner stated the County Council has reviewed it. Grant stated they don't
have to have review. He's suggested that it might be prudent to do so.
Jack stated the Prosecutor's Office reviewed the conservation easement.
Grant stated it doesn't appear on the record that they have. There would
typically be a signature if that legal review had occurred. There isn't a signature.
McShane asked if there is something that Mr. Grant wants to take a closer
look at. Grant stated he looked at the agreement earlier tonight, and he noticed
those two concerns he mentioned. They are all very minor issues. He'd like some
time to review it more carefully.
McShane amended his motion to approve the purchase with the condition
that they will review the conservation easement with the Prosecutor's Office.
Nelson spoke against the motion. There was a purchase proposal brought to
these people by Nielsen Brothers, how are foresters in the watershed. They were
looking at it from the perspective of the property's value based on conversion.
Their offer was substantially lower. He doesn't have any information about the
appraisal. It is a poor decision to take forestlands out of commercial activity, and it
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
sets a tremendous precedence for the community and the watershed, when they
are trying to prevent conversion harvest plans. What they are saying is that a
person can cut down the timber, and come forward to the County and City, which
will then buy the land.
Brenner stated she has had a hard time with this. This is the very first time
in her years on the County Council that she is considering downzoning to protect
the watershed. It goes against her nature, but she is considering. For the County
to spend a half million County dollars and a half million City dollars on recently
logged, forestry zoned land, they are talking about the potential build out of ten
homes. They could even reduce that build out by changing the rural forestry zone
to allow one house per 40 or 60 acres. There are other ways to get at it. This
doesn't have any prime timber on it. It is already logged. They are left with
property that doesn't have a lot of value left. The Land Trust does a great job. She
likes how the Land Trust manages property. The County has a limited amount of
money to do things in the watershed. They are going to spend a lot of money on
something that won't prevent much development. At some time, they have to
prioritize. She can't support it. They are not getting this property for a song. It is
land that has already been logged, and can't be logged again for another 40 or 60
years. At some point, they are going to run out of Conservation Futures money.
There are many projects coming forward. There are areas of the watershed that
are critically important and that have more dense zoning. They should think very
hard about this. It will open the floodgates for people who will log the land, and
then come to the County with an offer for sale.
Crawford spoke in favor of the motion. He has already expressed his
concerns. He wants to create a vehicle for the City Council to have the opportunity
to purchase this land. They are creating that vehicle. The citizens of the City of
Bellingham are paying for this twice, because they also contribute to the
Conservation Futures fund. The City Council has placed this as a high priority.
Lake Whatcom protection is his number one priority for environmental concerns in
Whatcom County. This purchase gives them a great opportunity for protection. He
cautioned that they look at what has been a poorly managed timber harvest area,
and that they manage it in a way in the future that will make it a more viable area
in terms of timber growth and overall watershed and land management.
Roy stated Mr. Desler mentioned the status of the Conservation Futures fund.
The money issue concerns her because they do have a lot of things they want to
do.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Conservation Futures fund
currently has about $2.2 million. It accumulates money into the fund at a rate of
about $75,000 per month. It would take about six months to recoup the money
spent.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 8
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Deger asked for a specific dollar amount that this would ultimately cost. Jack
2 stated the City passed a bill that places a surcharge on the water bill for the specific
3 purpose of buying land in the watershed. He supposed that would go on until the
4 City Council stops it. The Conservation Futures money has more diverse demands
5 on it. One of the areas that people think the Conservation Futures money should
6 serve is watershed protection. Where it stops is a matter of public policy. There is
7 a strong feeling in the community that few things are as important as the quality of
8 drinking water. There is a sense that they should continue to place restrictions on
9 land in the watershed until they feel comfortable that has been achieved.
10
11 Deger asked whether this is something that a community of this size could
12 handle.
13
14 Mark Asmundson, City of Bellingham Mayor, stated the question is very
15 pertinent. There are key properties that are related to the criteria adopted by the
16 City Council and County Council. Mr. Jack was correct when he said that the
17 decision about when enough has been purchased is up to the councils.
18
19 When the City adopted the monthly fee on the water bill, the goal was not
20 simply to generate a fund for the purchase of land, but to pursue multiple ways to
21 conserve and preserve the quality of the water in the watershed. A land purchase
22 is not the only objective of that fund. It is a fee that can be subject to review every
23 time the City Council meets. He anticipates that this is the initial surge of property
24 acquisition by the City using this fund, and that there will be a bit of a step back
25 while they accumulate additional funds to achieve all the purchases they intend. At
26 that point in time, the City Council will be in a position to work with the County
27 Council in the context of the Lake Whatcom Management Program of both councils
28 to look at developing a multi -year strategy for land preservation. He hopes to have
29 a jointly adopted program that focuses on land preservation activities in the
30 watershed that will have objective parameters that are a result of their efforts to
31 work together. They don't know how many acres they need to buy, and they don't
32 know how much money they need to spend.
33
34 This is the early stage of implementation of a joint program for land
35 acquisition and preservation in the watershed. Citizens of the City of Bellingham
36 pay forty -two percent of the Conservation Futures fund money that is collected by
37 the County.
38
39 Brenner stated the city's residents are County constituents also. With City
40 and County money together, there is still a finite amount of money that will be
41 collected eventually. The Lake Whatcom watershed is the highest priority. They
42 are all trying to protect water quality. They are spending one - fourth of what is in
43 the fund on something that hasn't got the potential to be developed. Logging
44 restrictions are much tougher than what they were. Restrictions in the watershed
45 are now or will soon be even more restrictive, long before this can be logged. A lot
46 of the concerns about past bad logging practices have been addressed, and the
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
watershed would be protected. This zoning is the kind of thing they want to allow
in the watershed.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, commended both councils for their
commitment and dedication to the Lake Whatcom watershed. Both councils have
been very helpful and have persevered. This is the golden opportunity to do the
best thing they've ever done for the Lake Whatcom watershed. They have an
opportunity to purchase 360 acres in a critical area of the watershed for
approximately $800,000. They may be able to get a better buy, but not a better
value. It would be nice to demonstrate to all constituents that the County and City
care about the watershed. He would like all members to consider the need to show
unification. He would like a unanimous vote, even though some of the
councilmembers have expressed their lack of support. This is a very crucial time.
It is an opportunity to show everyone that they are serious about protecting Lake
Whatcom.
Nelson stated he has supported the Land Trust in many purchases that have
been difficult for councilmembers. Many of them have made those difficult
decisions. Everyone on this council cares for the watershed. The County
councilmembers and City council members want to protect the watershed, and do it
in a fiscal, responsible manner.
The motion by County Councilmember McShane to approve the purchase
with the condition that the County Council will review the conservation easement
with the Prosecutor's Office carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Brenner opposed.
Bjornson restated the motion to approve the purchase, with the City Council
concurrence to approve the purchase contingent upon the final agreement of the
terms and conditions of the conservation easement being accepted by the City
Council, carried unanimously.
Knutson restated his second of the motion.
The City Council motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 18 , 2002.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Special Whatcom Joint County /City Council - LAND ACQUISITION, 5/21/2002, Page 11