HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole October 24 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
October 24, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Barbara Brenner
Robert Imhof
L. Ward Nelson
Ahcanf
Sam Crawford
Connie Hoag
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WATER RESOURCE ISSUES (AB2000 -132)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated this item came before the
Council at the last Water Resources work session last Tuesday. They didn't have
the time to discuss it. Water District #10 seeks a joint adoption of this resolution
on November 15. Tonight, they would answer questions regarding this. There are
staff comments to review. He asked for the County Council's opinion on whether or
not it supports the resolution and this kind of activity.
Dawson stated they discussed this as a Council before. The concern was that
Sudden Valley is a private community association, and they would be gifting public
funds to buy up these lots, which would exclude the public.
Sandy Peterson, Water District #10 General Manager, stated they had the
same concern. When they were originally invited to the table to discuss this, their
attorney said that Water District #10 wouldn't own the lots. The water district
would purchase a covenant to render the lots permanently unbuildable. They are
buying density reduction.
Roll stated they would purchase easements that would be there forever.
Imhof questioned whether the County could transfer development rights out
into the county and get some of the money back if, by chance, the transfer of
development rights (TDR) ever comes into play.
Peterson stated the TDR program is a major economic incentive. If one has
an unbuildable lot, the economic incentive evaporates.
McShane questioned whether Sudden Valley is in the TDR program.
Imhof stated they are, but they have to be buildable lots. There has to be
something to transfer.
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2000, 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
Dawson questioned whether the owner would still pay taxes on the lots.
Brenner stated Sudden Valley would. It is a win -win situation. She
supported it. They've gone over this before.
Peterson stated that Sudden Valley would own the lots because of the
covenants and the dues. If anyone but Sudden Valley owns them, there is a dues
obligation that attaches to the lot.
Brenner stated the County doesn't want to own this because there would be
no taxes on them.
Roll stated that Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson reviewed this, and
he didn't see an issue of gifting public funds.
Brenner stated that she was comfortable with it, then.
Dawson stated there was concern about buying these lots because this may
be a gift of public funds, but they are saying that Sudden Valley would pay the
taxes on them. The County would just take on the covenant.
Imhof questioned whether they are still working with neighbors of the lots to
get them to purchase neighboring vacant lots. He questioned whether there is a
dues reduction incentive. Peterson stated that is a project of the Sudden Valley
Association. The incentive is that if it is still on the market and is buildable, then
the vacant lot could be built on, and a house would be on the neighboring property
instead of the forest. The unbuildable covenant floats.
Dawson stated it can transfer from one lot to another.
Peterson stated that if Sudden Valley buys 50 lots, they are guaranteeing
that 50 lots in Sudden Valley may be rendered unbuildable. It may not be those 50
lots that they buy.
Dawson stated they could end up paying more for a nice, buildable lot and
then they will trade it with a less desirable lot. Ultimately, the Sudden Valley
Association would end up paying all the taxes on it. She questioned whether there
were any concerns of the councilmembers about this. She then stated there was a
consensus to go forward, and questioned when this would occur. Roll stated this
would be proposed for joint adoption at the joint meeting in November.
Peterson stated that in 1997, approximately 109 Sudden Valley lots came up
for sale. Sudden Valley bought some of those, and the water district bought 17. In
the final analysis, over 170 lots became the County's property. In that year, the
water district and Sudden Valley approached the County and agreed to pay all of
the back taxes, which amount to approximately $38,000, if the County forgave the
penalties, interest, and foreclosure costs and a restrictive covenant be applied to all
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2000, 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
the lots. The restrictive covenant is the same covenant as all Sudden Valley lots.
All of this transpired in mid -1998. Sudden Valley ended up with the legal
ownership of those lots, but there is a deed restriction. In 1999, Sudden Valley
went to the tax sale and bought the lots they wanted, and the district agreed to pay
for half of those costs. The County was only really involved in the 1997 tax sale.
Nelson questioned the number of lots that are still problem lots. Peterson
stated there are more vacant lots than there are built lots. There are
approximately 1,800 lots that are built on. Sudden Valley owns about 300 lots.
There are a total of 4,400 lots in Sudden Valley. This is part of the Sudden Valley
density reduction program.
Imhof questioned how many of the 4,400 lots are unbuildable. Peterson
stated there are several hundred lots on Sudden Valley that are too steep or have
an attribute that makes them unbuildable. There are probably 500 or 600 lots that
are like that. Sudden Valley has a goal of 1,400 lots they want to take out of
circulation.
Nelson stated that the more lots they reduce, the more their fee base is
affected. Peterson agreed.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2001 UNREPRESENTED RESOLUTION
(AB2000 -370)
Brenner moved to go into executive session to discuss this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 28 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2000, Page 3