HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 9 19972
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 9, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM
AND WHATCOM COUNTY CONCERNING ANNEXATION AND
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB97 -400)
Starkenburg requested discussion on this item. He noted the city of Bellingham had
taken action on this last week and stated for the record and staff that he was concerned with the
22 agreement as it is written knowing that it is a template for other cities. He viewed it as the
23 County being responsible to the residents for all the city growth areas; the County must continue
24 to do so with this agreement until annexation. Upon annexation, the County must give each area
25 much time for transition. He likened this to a partnership agreement with each city. Regarding
26 the dollar effect, those cities would now be in the unincorporated areas. The County now gets
27 13 %. When annexation occurs, the County will get 2 %. He stated there were several issues
28 which included sales tax; property tax; and the road tax. Sales and road taxes have an economic
29 impact, and he was concerned about how the County will fair in this entire process regarding the
30 expense of staff time.
31
32 Discussion followed with staff comments. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development
33 Services Director, summarized recent events. Ward Nelson, Council member, was concerned
34 about the process of negotiation. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, spoke to the issue
35 of binding arbitration as the ultimate dispute resolution. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and
36 Development Services Manager, explained the boundary negotiation and review process.
37
38 Starkenburg stated the sales tax issue was a major one that needed a closer examination.
39 Gibson briefly commented regarding revenue properties. Also discussed was voluntary
40 annexation. Gibson noted that growth management strips the County of revenue - producing
41 properties. The County has tried to deal with this to the extent it can. Knapp stated that without
42 the Boundary Review Board (BRB), there would be no agreement. Dawson inquired about no-
43 protest agreements with the cities in urban growth areas (UGA). Sutter spoke to an economic
44 balance between what is given up and what is left. She thought Section 2D, Balanced
Planning Minutes, 12/9/97, Page 1
I Annexations, needs to be defined regarding the revenue that is produced and what the County
2 will lose upon annexation.
3
4 Starkenburg returned to the issue of the Bakerview agreement. Goodwin stated this BRB
5 record is open until next week until Council adopts this ordinance. Discussion followed on the
6 adoption process. Knapp stated the BRB is not obliged to address protest. He stated the
7 dilemma is that if the BRB does proceed and Council changes the agreement, the city is not
8 obligated to do anything. Therefore, all the revenue would go to the city.
9
10 Starkenburg was concerned about the three -year timeframe, as he felt it was not an
11 economically viable Interlocal Agreement. Knapp pointed out there had been a longer
12 timeframe of five years. Goodwin stated the BRB will probably make a decision regardless of
13 whether this annexation agreement is signed. If the County makes changes the city is
14 uncomfortable with, there will probably not be sufficient time to adopt those changes before the
15 annexation is approved. The County can request an extension from the BRB. It was noted the
16 BRB will only make a determination on the boundary only and not the timeframe.
17
18 Gibson stated the BRB could listen to the County and not proceed with this annexation as
19 proposed. The Board could also proceed without consideration of the County's concern. The
20 three -year timeframe must be examined in terms of other financial provisions, which include the
21 amortization of the roads; Bellingham receiving credit for road taxes paid from that area; and
22 road grant funding. The County requested the city repay it the amount that has not yet
23 depreciated for up to ten years. Bellingham informed the County it would not pay from the grant
24 funds and thought it should not have to pay for what has already been collected from that area
25 from road taxes. Bellingham conceded on taxes and the County on grants. Starkenburg
26 addressed the issue of the amount of time the County spent on negotiations with the city in order
27 to reach the point of where the added value increases come on line. Bellingham will get the
28 increased revenue from this, and the County will get a portion. He doubted the County will keep
29 up with ongoing costs regarding staff time working on this revenue issue. Starkenburg stated he
30 was concerned with sharing the sales tax with Bellingham for three years, as he felt it was a
31 significant loss on the County's part.
32
33 Michaelyn Dixon, Chief Deputy Treasurer, stated her office was concerned with a section
34 in the agreement addressing special assessment collections after annexation, Section 2 H. If an
35 annexation encompasses an entire assessment district, her office would like to have the involved
36 city take over that assessment because of the cost involved in collection. Starkenburg point out
37 the County, as proposed, would perform the work and give the revenue to Bellingham. Sutter
38 requested clarification regarding the entity receiving revenue. Dixon replied the monies go to
39 the district. Goodwin commented about LIDs within UGAs. Starkenburg requested input from
40 Gibson, who stated Council must approve the Interlocal Agreement in order for it to be in effect.
41
42
43 Discussion followed on timeframes and the amount of revenues that could be received. Ward
44 Nelson, Council member, suggested a possible executive session to discuss this in more detail.
Planning Minutes, 12/9/97, Page 2
I Gibson reviewed the tax process and stated Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) will
2 generate sales tax within the three -year timeframe.
3
4 (Clerk's Note: Tape 1, side B)
5
6 Goodwin pointed that as areas develop in the County, it does receive the construction
7 sales tax and permit fees. Many of the permit fees help fund Planning and Development
8 Services. She felt the County was better off having some of those areas develop in the County;
9 once developed, let the areas annex. Discussion followed regarding various developments.
10
11 Brown inquired about the portion the County expends on the Auditor, the Treasurer, and
12 the Assessor. Starkenburg stated the County, as well as the city, will gain on the sales tax
13 through property taxes. More business will be generated, which will result in more sales taxes.
14 If there are more sales taxes, the dollar amount coming from the state will be higher. If the
15 County owned vacant land, it would get all the revenue.
16
17 Discussion followed on the three -year timeframe, as the County Executive has agreed to
18 that timeframe. The city was, according to Knapp, adamant about three years v five years.
19 Nelson inquired if the city wished to annex a certain area under the Growth Management Act
20 (GMA) which is in the UGA, would the city have the right to annex the area regardless of the
21 desires of the property owners because the city provides water and sewer. Goodwin stated that
22 would be only if a no protest was signed, which was according to state law. Either a petition or
23 an election must take place for this to occur. Starkenburg inquired of Gibson if the proposed
24 document could be used for Bakerview only. Gibson responded some language change would be
25 required to clarify the issue. He stated Council could counter with a five -year timeframe.
26 Nelson wanted to know what "the hammer" would be. Dawson stated public opinion would be
27 the hammer. Starkenburg stated the hammer was in the document regarding a working
28 relationship between the two parties. Further discussion followed regarding the timeframe of the
29 proposed document; the hammer; and costs.
30
31 Starkenburg inquired of Gibson how to move this forward with the request that
32 discussions continue regarding the Treasurer's concern and the timeframe on the sales tax.
33 Gibson responded Council can request the Executive move forward on Bakerview but reserve
34 the issues of special assessment and the sales tax for renegotiation.
35
36 Dawson stated she would like to adopt this for Bakerview. Sutter agreed with a couple of
37 language changes, specifically changing the title to Bakerview Annexation and deleting the
38 fourth WHEREAS on packet page 61:
39
40
41
42 "WHEREAS, the City and County have established a formula to mitigate the
43 impact on the County of revenue losses and to equitably compensate the County
44 for certain capital facility expenditures in the annexed area; and... ".
Planning Minutes, 12/9/97, Page 3
2 Goodwin stated there are two separate annexations pending, Bakerview and Hannegan.
3 She suggested if Council wished to change one, it consider changing both.
4
5 Gibson requested Planning Department's input regarding the BRB process and asked if
6 the County had given any indication of protesting the annexation until the Interlocal is in place.
7 Knapp replied his department supported this proposal contingent upon Council's decision. He
8 requested the record be left open until Council's review of the proposal; his department would
9 then make a recommendation. Gibson stated he was concerned the BRB was moving toward
10 annexation not stopped by the County's lack of agreement; the County would then have nothing
11 regarding revenue. Executive session was discussed. Starkenburg then discussed moving
12 forward with this proposed agreement with Council requesting discussion with smaller cities
13 regarding pursuing fairer revenue sharing into their annexations. Knapp suggested proceeding
14 with this one as is and then amending it regarding future activities. Discussion followed
15 regarding recent discussions. Goodwin pointed out Lynden is the only city with upcoming
16 substantial commercial development in its UGA. Nelson also commented regarding annexation.
17
18 Knapp suggested this proposal not be changed and that a letter be sent to Council
19 indicating this. If there are any changes, there is no agreement. If the BRB proceeds with the
20 annexation, there is no ability for the County to have anything. However, there may be future
21 hammers. Discussion followed on BRB approval; taxes; and costs involved on the city's part.
22 Gibson inquired if change could be effectuated by next Tuesday. There was further discussion.
23
24 Dawson moved to recommend approval to full Council with the stipulation that two areas
25 are identified with the desire to make future amendments. A letter stating this would accompany
26 the Agreement.
27
28 Starkenburg pointed to packet page 68, Section C, Fire and Emergency Medical Services,
29 and inquired if this section touches on the current agreement between Bellingham and Whatcom
30 County on the Medic One. Nelson replied in the negative and commented. He pointed out
31 binding arbitration remains an option.
32
33 Dawson restated her motion to recommend approval to full Council. A letter would
34 accompany the Agreement stating that despite approval, the desire is to work with Bellingham
35 for future amendment, as it concerns a number of areas that are to be listed.
kili-
37 There was discussion on the motion regarding a Memorandum of Understanding and the
38 city renegotiating the agreement regarding the County's areas of concern.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41 Starkenburg noted draft language will be completed by legal counsel and staff for
42 tonight's Council meeting.
43
44 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
Planning Minutes, 12/9/97, 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
MAP FROM RURAL FIVE ACRES (R5A) TO LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL
(LII) FOR APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES IN THE CHERRY POINT -
FERNDALE SUBAREA (AB97 -401)
(Clerk's Note: This item was discussed first.)
Starkenburg noted this item was before the Planning Commission for a hearing on
November 13, 1997. There was one item of concern regarding water /sewer. He pointed out
packet page 79, Conclusions, number 2. Starkenburg stated he felt this was an acceptable
ordinance now.
Starkenburg moved to recommend for approval.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated only one issue
remained regarding the Grange and the railroad being contacted. Her office assumed they still
wished to be included in this ordinance. She recommended the boundaries remain as is.
Motion carried unanimously.
A i110I TR N
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 12/9/97, Page 5