HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works May 1 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
May 1, 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. ACADEMY ROAD LATECOMERS AGREEMENT — ASSESSMENT
REIMBURSEMENT AREA AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (AB2001 -098)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated he submitted a memo
addressing the concerns expressed by the parties making an appeal.
The first person who spoke at the public hearing was Bruce Parker, who was
concerned that he was not adequately notified of the scope and timing of the road
construction. Mills stated that he has talked to Mr. Parker. There were several
meetings at Academy Road with the property owners. When the contractor began
the road project, he met with all those living on the road. However, Mr. Parker
does not live there, and it is possible that construction started without his knowing.
His other concern was that his original driveway access point was further west, or
downhill, than the one that was put in. He looked at the site, and it looks like that
concern is true. There is an old driveway grade that was further downhill. When
Academy Road was reconstructed, a hump in the road was lowered to increase the
site distance. The original driveway was at the top of the hump. The third concern
is that the new driveway is too steep. Mills agreed that the new driveway seems
too steep, and it goes uphill on an 18 percent grade.
Brenner asked the original grade. Mills stated the previous driveway was a
12 or 13 percent grade previously.
Mills stated he talked with Mr. Parker and Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson put forth
most of the money for this project, and said he would agree to a reduction in Mr.
Parker's assessment. Mr. Olson wanted his contractor, Nielsen Bros., to provide a
quote to fix the work. The quote was from $2,750 to relocate the driveway or
$3,500 to fix the driveway that is there. Mr. Parker's assessment is currently
$3,200. At this point in time, Mr. Olson is willing to excuse some of the
assessment, but not necessarily all of it. He doesn't have a recommendation yet on
this issue. There should be a reduction, but he doesn't know how much yet. They
need to talk to Mr. Olson first.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, questioned whether it was Mr.
Olson's intent to absorb that cost himself. Mills stated it was.
Dawson questioned the kind of responsibility the contractor has to contact
Mr. Parker. Mills stated the contractor met with Mr. Parker before putting the new
driveway in, and they talked about where it would go. The driveway wasn't quite
put in at the location they talked about, and not to the grade that was visualized.
Bruce Parker, 2544 Applejack Lane, Bellingham stated he and the contractor
talked at the end of the project. The contractor kept telling him not to worry
because they would put in a new driveway. The new driveway is unusable as it is.
Mills stated the second concern was from the Lake Whatcom Center. They
claimed that the new road does not extend to their properties. The road as
completed goes 120 feet from the western side of the eastern property. It is short
of the eastern property. The original owner of the eastern property contributed
$5,000 to the project, and felt there was a benefit from the road. The Lake
Whatcom Center owns both parcels, and could potentially have one common access
point.
McShane stated these fees would not be paid until someone actually came in
and developed. Mills stated that was correct. The fees would not be collected until
there is a short plat or long plat within 15 years. The owners also pay an
accumulated interest if they wait to develop.
Hoag stated the road goes to the first parcel of the Lake Whatcom Treatment
Center. She asked if the lots are assessed in terms of how much frontage they
have. Mills stated he calculated two different methods. Half of the assessment is
on the forty -lot maximum. The other half of the assessment would be based on
road usage.
Hoag stated that there isn't currently a driveway from the second parcel on
that property. She asked if that should have an impact on the assessment fee that
they would pay, because it doesn't go to the driveway.
Brenner stated that parcel would have the most road usage because it is at
the end of the road. It would balance out.
Hoag stated that parcel definitely benefits from the road. She asked if the
assessment being charged is commensurate with the improvement being made to
the property.
Mills stated that if the road was not a dead -end road, they would base the
assessment strictly on front footage. However, since it is a dead -end road, they
also base the assessment on road usage.
Brenner asked why they would assess the fee based on frontage if it is a
through -road. Mills stated staff might have based the assessment on how much
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
road was built in front of their property. The property owner, when coming off the
property, can go right or left. At different times, the property owner would use the
entire road. Staff may have also considered density or the number of lots.
Mills continued to state that the assessment for the Lake Whatcom
Treatment Center is approximately $8,300 per parcel. That is a good value for the
benefit received. Of that assessment, $5,000 has already been paid.
McShane asked how many homes are on the road now. Mills stated there
are four to six homes now. Some parcel owners have short - platted their
properties.
The third appeal is from HJG /Smith /Sofa. The concern was that more lots
should have been counted in the assessment. The assessment is almost $7,000.
The problem with including more lots is that the road would have to be built to a
higher standard. The current standard allows 400 trips per day, equal to 40 lots.
There is no money now to upgrade the road. Mr. Olson's chances of recouping his
investment would go down because some of the lots are not developable. He tried
to restrict levying assessments to the lots most likely to develop in the next 15
years, so Mr. Olson could get his money back.
Another concern was that HJG should get credit for gravel donated by people
who installed a cellular phone tower and who have an easement lease over HJG's
land. He understood that, at the time of construction of the cell tower, the cell
tower people put a road up there. Somehow, the cell phone people donated gravel
to the road project. The cell tower property was not included in the assessment
because they don't generate daily traffic. It was excluded from the assessment
area. There were no receipts kept on the gravel. It was not donated by HJG, but
by the cell tower people.
HJG's third concern was that they were being assessed a disproportionate
share. They are at the end of the road. There is no way they could have
constructed a driveway to the property, let alone a County road, for the cost of
their assessment. He does not recommend a change to the assessment to HJG
property.
The last appeal is by Mike Rorvig. Mr. Rorvig's concerns are that the County
should allow more than the 40 homes included in the assessment, more property
should be included in the assessment area, and the County should use a front
footage and density assessment method.
Last, another property owner made one contribution that should not have
been included. Mr. Wheat was given a credit for $12,732. Mr. Rorvig feels that the
contribution should not have been included in the project cost or credited toward
Mr. Wheat's assessment.
If the standard was for more than 40 homes, then they would need to
improve and widen the road under the current road standards. That is why staff
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
47
48
stayed with the 40 -lot maximum. Attachment D explains the different methods
staff looked at and why they chose the method they did.
Regarding Mr. Rorvig's fourth concern, Mr. Wheat got a trail permit in 1995,
which required 90 feet of a 36 -inch concrete culvert to be installed. A trail permit
condition said that receipts shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for work
done on a large culvert installation, that may be applied to future RID costs. At the
time, they were still trying to create an RID. That language was in his trail permit.
Mr. Wheat installed 90 feet of this pipe at the time. Mr, Wheat later submitted an
estimate by a contractor on how much money that work would have cost. Initially,
staff looked at that estimate and allowed it, even though it was not really a receipt.
The culvert put in didn't fit in with the final roadway plans. Mr. Olson had to put in
a larger culvert on a lower elevation. Upon further review, and without any receipts
for the work, he recommends that Mr. Wheat's credit of $12,700 be reduced to
$7,200. He has since checked additional costs and found that the cost would
actually have been closer to $8,200, based on projects the County has recently
done and that have had 36 -inch concrete culverts. His final recommendation is to
credit $8,200 to Mr. Wheat's assessment.
Brenner asked about the trail permit requirement to contribute to a future
RID. Mills stated that if someone gets a trail permit, he or she has to agree not to
protest a future RID. It was not a norm to include the clause regarding future
credit in the trail permit.
Brenner questioned whether that clause was a discretionary move on
someone's part. Mills stated that is what it appears to be.
Hoag stated Mr. Wheat's project was done some time ago. She asked why
the assessment needed to reflect current costs instead of costs in the past. Mills
stated the most recent costs he looked at were in 1999 and 2000. He misquoted
the average bid. He is correcting the average bid, which is $90 per foot. He didn't
think costs of the pipe have changed much in three or four years.
Hoag asked why Mr. Wheat is credited if the costs are not a part of the
project. Mills stated it is discretionary to the Council to make that decision. He saw
what had been done by the former County Road Engineer. His assessment is a bit
more of a compromise. It is true that the culvert was not used in the final project.
Brenner asked if Mr. Wheat has to do another culvert because of the project.
Mills stated no.
Hoag asked if the language in the trail permit specifies that the work done
through the trail permit has to pertain to the RID project. Mills stated the trail
permit does not expound upon that condition.
Pat Wheat, 3421 Noah's Way, stated he was notified yesterday that his credit
was going to be reduced. He thought this was a done deal. His project happened a
long time ago. The County supervised the installation of this culvert. The culvert
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
could have been used in the project. He didn't know why the culvert was
destroyed. Wilder Construction did the work for his trail permit. The engineers
designed the installation and supervised the construction.
Brenner asked why he did the culvert at all. Wheat stated he owned the
property for 24 years. He'd been trying to get a building permit on his property.
He was told for 20 years that he would have to bring the road up to that fourth user
standard, which would have cost him $150,000. He applied for and was granted a
building permit, and built his house. He was supposed to get a trail permit as part
of the building permit, but it mistakenly wasn't required. After he built his house,
he told the County he was willing to do some roadwork and be a part of the road
development. The trail permit said he would be reimbursed for the culvert work.
He has been involved in three RID attempts to develop the road. He's spent much
money on lawyers and engineers and doing work on his own that he is not being
reimbursed for. This is not a perfect process. One reason he didn't speak at the
public hearing was because he thought this was a done deal. However, it is not fair
to single him out for his work on the culvert. They need to reopen the public
hearing to get all the issues out. There was work done on private property while
the road was being built, there are multiple accesses into some peoples' property.
It would be nice to have some time to prepare for that. The Council should get
some legal advice on the ordinance (RCW) 35.72.020(3). He questioned whether
the public hearing was closed.
Gibson stated he was under the impression that the hearing was not closed.
If it was closed, it would be a matter of reopening the hearing with notice.
Brenner stated sometimes they would continue it, but not necessarily close
it.
Gibson stated that, according to the clerk and Mr. Mills, that the hearing was
closed.
Brenner stated they might decide to reopen it. They would have to advertise
it, if they did. Whatever they end up doing, they should do the best they can. This
is information she didn't know before, such as multiple accesses to some
properties. She questioned whether multiple access means multiple driveways.
Wheat stated access is culverts and other access.
Brenner questioned whether it was part of what the contractor did. Wheat
stated it was.
Brenner questioned whether they were being charged more. Wheat stated
no. One of the first properties owned by Keith Anderson, is not being assessed
anything for his property, even though he has a big chunk of land that is accessed
off the new road.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
Mills stated Mr. Anderson's property is on the far west end of the road, at the
beginning. Mr. Anderson had a driveway at the beginning that he could access
without having to have this road built.
Brenner asked if the road doesn't change anything for Mr. Anderson. Mills
stated that is what he understood.
Wheat stated that wasn't true.
Brenner stated she wanted to hear more information. This is a change that,
if proposed, affects Mr. Wheat. It seems that they need to reopen the hearing. It
is fair to do that. Gibson stated he agreed. If there is going to be a change made
to the detriment of one of the parties, then that party, if he or she had not
previously appealed, should have an opportunity to respond.
Brenner stated that means reopening the hearing. She asked if the
committee could take in new information now, or wait for the hearing. Gibson
stated he was concerned about receiving information once a hearing has been
closed. To the extent that people are saying what they've said before, or are
asking for a hearing to be reopened, it doesn't compromise the character of what's
happened. If the hearing has been closed, then there is no new information to be
received.
Brenner stated the new testimony given during the committee meeting may
get lost in the shuffle if the hearing is not reopened. This is substantial
information, and she wanted to consider it. It is going to make a big change. She
wanted to reopen the hearing. She questioned whether they should hear the new
information now or wait until the new hearing. Gibson stated that, out of fairness
to the parties who attended the hearing and thought it was closed, the presentation
of new information should be done after there has been adequate notice so
everyone has an opportunity to think through the same information. New
information that is presented should be done in the context of a hearing. Once a
hearing is closed, that cuts off the receipt of information pertaining to what they
are about to decide.
Brenner questioned whether staff created a new change.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that the new information has really come from
the County staff, which creates even more new information in response.
She would allow discussion on anything that has already been discussed, and
is not new information. The committee would also recommend reopening the
hearing to take new information.
Hoag stated committees take in information all the time that is not part of
the public hearing. She asked if there is anything wrong with allowing people to
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
discuss things with the committee, and then set up a public hearing where people
can get these things on the record.
Brenner stated that, even though they closed the public portion of it, the
Council hasn't made its decision. This is specific.
Gibson stated the Council is basing its decision on the information it's
received, up to the time the hearing was closed. Once the hearing was closed, the
Council has received all the information it can in order to make a decision. Having
said that, if the Council is going to reopen the hearing, then anyone can take this
information and put it into the record. If they did not, it would not be there for the
Council's use.
Hoag stated it was odd that this was referred to committee after the hearing
closed. She asked the point of discussing it in committee. Gibson stated the point
of discussing it in committee is to wrestle with the information the Council received
in its hearing, up to the point of hearing closure.
Hoag questioned whether this is a quasi - judicial matter. Gibson stated it is
an appeal. It is an appeal from an administrative decision, so there is a judicial
character of this. It is not strictly legislative. From a practical standpoint, virtually
all of the players are at this meeting, except Don Olson. In terms of who may
emerge from this complaining that he had not been heard, there are not too many
people left. The only party not present is a representative of the Lake Whatcom
Center. He didn't think that anything the committee is talking about would change
the Lake Whatcom Center assessment from what was proposed. Where they get
into trouble is if they start increasing the assessment of other people without them
knowing it, and having an opportunity to be heard.
Brenner asked if the committee could legally take new information at this
time. Gibson stated there is a limited number of people who can complain, if the
committee takes new information. Those people are present. Legally, the
committee is going off -trail in terms of receiving new information.
McShane stated that, so far, the committee has only received the letter from
staff that explains the letters from those who are protesting. Gibson stated that
the only one in a slightly different position is Mr. Wheat, who thought he knew what
the assessment was, and now there is a proposed change by staff.
McShane asked if that letter from staff is new information. Gibson stated it
is. Mr. Wheat is present, so the committee could hear him. If Mr. Wheat asks for
more time to prepare, it is not an unreasonable request.
Brenner stated they should follow the process as much as they can.
Gibson stated that it would be wise to reopen the hearing, in terms of what
has happened, to make certain that all loose ends are tied up.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
48
McShane suggested making the minutes of this meeting a part of the
reopened public hearing by putting them in the Council packet in two weeks. There
is no way the Council should make a decision on this at the evening meeting.
Include any information that has come forward today.
Dawson asked why the culvert was taken out.
Gibson stated that, if the committee is inclined to include the minutes of this
meeting in the public record, the committee could take additional information.
Brenner stated that if no one is going to come to the reopened hearing, they
should talk today. She didn't want to hear the information twice, if anyone was
planning on speaking at the public hearing.
Dawson asked Mr. Wheat to continue his discussion.
Wheat continued to state that his project happened quite a few years ago.
These details were worked out with the Engineering Division. Everything was
accepted and fine until he began to feud with Mr. Rorvig, who is the only person
complaining about his assessment. Don Olson hasn't said a word about it. No one
else has come froward about it. At the public hearing, it was shown how much
money everyone put in. He thought it was all over. Yesterday, he received a letter
saying that his assessment contribution was reduced.
Hoag asked why his culvert was not used. Wheat stated he did not know.
Hoag asked if the culvert is in the same place. Wheat stated it is. His 90
feet of culvert was crushed in place.
Brenner asked why the culvert wasn't used. Mills stated he would have to
check with staff. The old culvert was not in the exact line and grade as the culvert
that was put in. The new fill needed a longer run of culvert. He would have to look
into the answer to that question.
Mike Rorvig, 3791 Greenville Street, Bellingham, stated that after Don Olson
and others started the project, they agreed it would be based upon an equal share
of front foot. From the beginning, he contended that method was skewed because
of the different zoning on the different sides of the road. However, he went along
with it. When the County took over the assessment, that was the method of
assessing people. Assessment should be on front footage and zoning. There are
people who are going to access this road. The reason he and Mr. Wheat are
feuding is because Mr. Wheat bought property directly behind him that does not
front the road. Mr. Wheat is going to sue him for access because the property is
landlocked.
Mr. Wheat was issued a building permit in error. He brought in a mobile
home. Others on the road have been trying to get permits. The Building Services
Division did not take away the building permit, but negotiated that Mr. Wheat do
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 8
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
some road improvements. The culvert was installed incorrectly and eroding
everything below. It was crushed in place and redone at the order of Engineering,
by Don Olson. Mr. Olson did not know that was in there. There was a meeting at
Ed Henken's office. Most people assessed were invited and attended. The
assessment was placed in front of them, and the amount was $215,379.10. They
all looked at it and discussed it. When the initial assessment was mailed out, Mr.
Wheat handed his estimate to the County, which accepted it as costs incurred to
Mr. Wheat. They were not costs incurred to Mr. Wheat. It was accepted as
contributions made by Mr. Wheat. Mr. Wheat did not write the checks. The entire
amount should not be included in the assessment. Since the culvert was crushed in
place, it does not provide a benefit to anyone except Mr. Wheat, who got to keep
his building permit and start a year earlier than anyone else. When Mr. Olson
stopped the process, there was no surface on the road and no one could get any
permits. The rest of the people involved in the project got together and decided
that they need to put up $15,000 to put the BST surface on the road. At that point,
they all decided they would each put up a total of $15,000 total into the project. At
that point, Mr. Wheat needed to put up another $3,000 to get to that $15,000.
However, Mr. Wheat told people that he spent $3,000 putting that culvert in. Mr.
Wheat never proved it, and his submittal for the costs is dishonest. Mr. Wheat did
not incur that amount. The person at the County who is attesting to this cost is a
good friend of Mr. Wheat's. Mr. Wheat needs to have receipts.
Dawson questioned how many multiple road accesses there are.
Brenner stated that Mr. Mills would find out that information.
Rick Sola, Shoreline, Washington, stated he represented Olav Sola and HJG,
and spoke on the cell tower road easement. That easement is an unsanctioned
easement that ended up on their property. They have not been compensated. An
arrangement was done with an adjacent landowner and Verizon. The road ended
up being cut on his side of the property line. There was compensation at that time
from Verizon to that landowner. There has been a donation of road building
material from Verizon to the development.
Brenner questioned whether the other property owner received compensation
for the easement as though it was going to go on his property, although the
property went on Mr. Sola's property instead. Sola stated that is correct.
Brenner stated that is a private matter.
Sola stated he is being petitioned to grant additional easement access by
other adjacent property owners. The easement issue is not so much one that he
has brought forth, as much as it is that he has been victimized, more or less. It
has also impacted the full development of his property. That is a different issue,
but there is an issue of yield of developable lots that was part of the consideration.
Brenner stated that, to develop any lots, they would have to have a road in
there. She questioned whether there is any private request for reimbursement or
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, 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
compensation for the easement. Sola stated there is a request, but he has been
stonewalled.
Brenner stated she did not feel comfortable considering the gravel donated
until that issue is cleared up.
Parker stated his driveway was originally on the western corner. It was a
short distance off the original pavement on Academy Road, before this project. The
driveway was moved further up the road. His driveway had to be moved from
where it was previously, and his assessment includes that extra distance. He was
told that he would get a satisfactory driveway, but the driveway is useless because
he could not drive up the driveway. It is too steep. The cost to correct the
driveway is about the same or more than the assessment. In that sense, he is
being asked to pay three different ways. His property is at the beginning of the
road. His driveway was a short distance from the old paved road. He was never
informed that this would happen. He had better access before the RID.
Brenner moved to recommend reopening the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Gibson suggested specifying the areas in which they intend to take new
information, such as to incorporate the statements from today into the record, and
specify the range of topics they wish to address.
Brenner stated they should address the multiple access and culvert issues,
and any related issue in which one party benefits more than another. Any new
information should be received.
Dawson stated she was comfortable with the County's recommendation on
Mr. Wheat's assessment credit.
Brenner moved that this hearing would be reopened to incorporate any
information received today.
Hoag stated the problem was that the hearing was closed. She was
concerned about advertising a hearing and then restricting the topics.
Councilmember Crawford was not present at the last hearing, although he can go
back and listen to the hearing. She did not know why they would burden the public
with sifting through what they've already said.
Brenner stated at some point they need to cut off the discussion to make a
decision.
Mills stated he was trying to mitigate any concerns expressed during the
public hearing. He asked if the new notice should include a new determination.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 10
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
Gibson stated that anything sent out should be in line with what was sent out
originally. Mr. Wheat has heard the recommendation. Staff has made that
recommendation, and Mr. Wheat has heard it. The reality is that most people
received notice and chose not to respond. Staff is not looking to drum up additional
responses to what has already been covered.
Brenner stated it seems that, legally, no one can assume anything until the
vote is final. The Council is not obligated to take the recommendation. Gibson
stated the recommendations have to be changed for a reason, upon analysis of the
record.
Brenner stated she has not made up her mind about any of the
recommendations yet.
McShane questioned whether a person would need a trail permit to upgrade
a road if only one house was built on the property. Mills stated the property would
have needed a trail permit and to upgrade the road to a certain standard.
Brenner stated the recommendation is to reopen the hearing, including the
information received today.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:57 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 Committee, 5/1/2001, Page 11