HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works April 3 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
April 3, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STAFF
REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.44 — PROCEDURE FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS THAT
BENEFIT OTHERS (AB2001 -098A)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated that in two weeks, he
would bring forward an appeal of an application of the Whatcom County Code for
Academy Road. The County code allows opportunities for developers to build a
road and be reimbursed by others who build along the road. Whatcom County
Code (WCC) section 12.44.050(B) allows people to request a hearing before the
County Council to contest the assessments. That hearing will be in two weeks.
After that, the County Council can approve, modify, or reject the assessments. He
couldn't talk about the particular information regarding Academy Road.
Brenner questioned whether they would do the assessment based on the
cost. She asked how to allocate the cost. Mills stated there are different methods.
It will be tough to make everyone happy.
Brenner asked if the different methods are used at different times, and how
they decide.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, asked how many of these the
County has done.
Mills stated Academy Road is the second one the County has done.
Gibson stated there is not a long history of the County doing this.
Brenner stated the least fair option would be an assessment based on road
frontage. The fairest method would be by parcel size. She asked why they would
do it by road frontage. Mills stated the City of Bellingham has done the latecomers'
agreements for water and sewer extension. They use frontage as a factor, along
with density. The County could look at impact on the road if the road was a
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/3/2001, 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
48
through -road. The development standards ask people to improve their road
standards.
Brenner stated people in the county are concerned about the effect of the
latecomers' agreements. Frontage shouldn't have anything to do with the
assessment. It should really have to do with potential for development.
Gibson stated there is a difference between a dead -end road and a through -
road. As they look at each situation, they would have a different idea of what is
fair. The further away a person lives from civilization, one could argue that there is
more cost involved.
Brenner stated she couldn't understand why they would use frontage to
calculate assessment. It isn't fair. Her concern was about bankrupting people.
Gibson stated frontage has to do with the length of the road, which is related
to the length of the frontage.
Brenner disagreed. These homes are already developed.
Mills stated he would submit a staff report in two weeks regarding Academy
Road. He would propose to discuss the staff report generally in the Public Works
Committee to solicit questions to be answered that evening.
Brenner stated she was concerned about people being charged per foot
rather than for the use.
Gibson stated people might not have frontage, but may use the road because
they have an easement to access property behind frontage property.
Brenner stated everyone should pay the same for a road they are going to
use, especially for a through -road.
Mills stated he only wanted to make the committee aware of the upcoming
hearing. After the hearing, the Council can decide to alter the assessment method,
per WCC 12.44.060(B). Some of the options for calculating assessment are listed
in WCC 12.44.050(D).
McShane stated the Council has the ability to change the code on how
assessment is calculated.
Gibson stated that if the Council doesn't like the assessment method the
Public Works Department chose, the Council could choose another assessment
method.
Brenner asked for examples of when they would use the different methods of
assessment. Mills stated that they could base assessment on the possible number
of lots that could be built upon.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/3/2001, 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
Another method is based on the length of the roadway used, for a dead -end
road. The person closer to the beginning of the road uses less of the road, and
should pay a smaller proportion for the road. It uses distance from the start of the
improvement.
Gibson stated that another method is called the zone and termini method,
which is a blend of methods that include an assessment amount for being in a
certain zone, plus another amount depending on the terminus. It is a blend of the
two.
Mike Donahue, Traffic Development Engineering Manager, stated the zone
and termini method is laid out in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that
creates zones off of a length of a road. The termini are measurements from the
end of the road to the center of each zone. Each property would be in a zone. It is
used mainly for water and sewer.
Mills stated they could base assessment on square footage of the lot also.
They have to also choose an applicable area for lots that would benefit from the
road and that would be included. They have to say that, at some point, lots beyond
that area don't benefit. The two things that could be appealed are the assessment
method or whether they should have been included.
Gibson stated an appellant could have access from another road, and argue
that he or she should not be included. If one has not developed the property, he or
she pays the fee when getting a development permit.
Brenner asked why a person who appeals would have applied for a
latecomer' agreement. Gibson stated the developer applies for the latecomer fee,
not the owner.
Mills stated the latecomer has a 15 -year statute of limitations.
Gibson stated that is the state statute.
Brenner stated it isn't fair that a person wait until 15 years and one day to do
a development so they don't have to pay the fee.
Gibson stated an idea is to encourage real estate investment, but not too
quickly.
Donahue stated getting any building permit also triggers the fee.
Brenner asked how a utility would use the zone and termini method.
Donahue stated some water lines could go a long distance. They group users
together.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/3/2001, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mills stated that the zones could be formed for users who would have
different costs depending on the lay of the land.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/3/2001, Page 4