HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 9 20041
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
Public Works and Safety Committee
March 9, 2004
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.44 TO CLARIFY
PROCEDURES FOR FILING OF APPLICATION SUMMARIES AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS CLARIFICATIONS (AB2004-104)
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manger - Traffic/Development, submitted a
substitute ordinance (on file). He added Councilmember Crawford's suggested
language about industrial zoned areas. Whatcom County Code (WCC) section
12.44.040(E)(2) of the substitute version was added because a per lot basis is not
a fair way to calculate assessment for commercial and industrial zoned areas, which
may generate a great variety in the amount of traffic. Items one, three, four, and
five of that section are regarding residential zones that are assessed on a per lot
basis.
Crawford stated wording at the end of section 12.44.040(e)5 is missing. Add
language, "...new development to the proposed road construction will suffice, in
support of the assessment calculations submitted." There are other typos that
need to be corrected. Donahue agreed.
Crawford asked if this is legally a fair way and if they are within the realm of
what the statutes allow.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, read from the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) section 35.72.030. The State statute leaves the assessment
method open somewhat. The necessary connection must be based on benefit to
the property owners. There is a variety of ways that can be calculated. The
County engineers have worked with a variety of methods. They have proposed
saying that, within a residential area, assessment should be calculated on a per lot
basis and variations are minor in terms of traffic generation compared to industrial
areas. It's fairest to treat them all equally.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/9/2004, 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
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 referenced typos on page two, line 34 "...reimbursement eF on
beneficiary property owners..." and page eight, item D1, "exited existed."
Rutan stated staff would review the substitute version for consistency with
Crawford's recommendations two weeks ago.
Crawford asked about the obligation of the road construction application to
notify, and to record the potential assessment attached to each property owner's
deed in the assessment area. He asked if there is currently a mechanism for a title
company to provide a warning about an assessment fee. Gibson stated if it has
been identified as a property in the assessment area and the application has been
recorded, it should show up on the title search. Properties not included in the
original proposal would not be put on notice. There is a strong legal issue about
whether a property not on legal notice could subsequently be pulled into the
assessment area to their detriment.
Crawford stated his concern is that the Yancy's were not notified, but there
was no mechanism for them to be notified. There may not have been a reasonable
expectation for the Yancy's to be notified because the Council hadn't created an
agreement yet. It wasn't the developer's fault that the Yancy's didn't know about
the assessment. He doesn't know if the County can ever capture the time between
finishing the road and the filing of the assessment where they can fill that gap.
Rutan stated staff suggested that a proposed assessment area be recorded
at the time it is proposed, before coming to the Council. In the case of Mission
Road, it would have notified the Yancy's, but not the existing houses that weren't
included in the original assessment proposal.
Gibson stated the recording of a proposed assessment area needs to be
recognized as a potential cloud that could affect value, but not final determination.
Crawford asked what that does. This is a summary of an application. It's
not the final assessment. He asked if that is attached to all properties in the area.
Gibson stated it should show up as a potential cloud on the title search. Not all
sales require a title search.
Sam Ryan, Building Services Division Manager, stated she is concerned
about front loading and the time it takes to process building permits. She is
concerned this required research will add additional time to the building permit
process. Do the front -loading before the building permit submittal. Make sure the
title is searched for these assessments before coming in for the building permit.
This information has to be easily accessible to the clerical staff. Gibson stated this
was developed during the time the Tidemark system was viewed as a method for
becoming aware of all these various things. It sounds like it hasn't answered all
those questions.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/9/2004, 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.
Ryan stated it has not. Keep in mind how to make this work properly and
quickly.
Gibson stated that Planning and Development Services staff doesn't do title
searches every time someone comes in to request a building permit. Ms. Ryan is
asking where the staff should look to determine if the property is encumbered with
a latecomer's agreement.
Ryan stated road improvements with no new plats aren't clearly identified.
Right now, they don't deal with anything that isn't on a major plat. They don't
route residential permits to the Engineering Division.
Donahue stated that in the past, they've flagged those assessed lots in the
Tidemark system. They've only done two of these assessments.
Rutan stated that in other instances where a latecomer's agreement could
have been applied, Mr. Donahue has been very good about getting all the parties to
the table to work out an arrangement without having a latecomer's agreement. In
the two instances where there have been latecomer's agreements, that could not
be done.
Gibson stated the latecomer's agreement is not easy to do. It is often the
hammer that gets people to the table to work things out another way.
Brenner stated this ordinance will give the buyer some recourse.
Crawford asked what happens when a road developer sees a new home
being built and knows that he didn't get paid that home's assessment. Donahue
stated the parties have to work through it.
Brenner asked if the County is supposed to collect the assessment. Gibson
stated the County is the agency that receives and disburses the money. The
enforcement responsibility is shifted to the person who has filed the latecomer's
agreement. However, it's not liable if the road developer isn't paid. That is a civil
matter between the two parties. If there's a genuine obligation of the property
owner to pay, it's clearly best to get payment prior to the permit being issued.
Brenner stated this is their best shot right now. Bring this ordinance back to
the committee in two weeks. Rutan stated it will need a public hearing. He will
bring it back to committee first.
Brenner stated this will be held in committee for two weeks.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DRAFT LETTER TO BE SENT TO THE
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2004-085)
Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/9/2004, 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
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 read the letter into the record. He moved to recommend to the full
Council.
Carl Reimer, Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), stated the SWAC has
concerns that the councilmembers think SWAC is asking for universal collection.
However, the SWAC hasn't considered universal collection. The exemption process
is important. There are fairness issues with all the cities requiring universal
collection, the County being required to do the same thing with the exemption
process. The County is not enforcing exemption. The County's study shows there
are 17,000 households not paying the tax, but using the service the tax is paying
for. They don't know what those households are doing with their garbage at this
point. SWAC doesn't have a proposal for the Council. There are ways to handle it
at no cost to the county. SWAC would like to study it and come back to the
Council. That's what SWAC is asking for.
Brenner stated that request sounds different from the request in the letter.
The Council's letter to SWAC says it's problematic to do better collection. Reimer
stated all the cities have universal collection and have no problem enforcing it. For
the most part, they rely on the haulers to enforce the law. That wouldn't work if
they still have an exemption process. The haulers could at least let the County
know of people who are potentially not doing anything with their garbage so the
County could check to see if there is an exemption for that property.
Brenner stated the committee was told by Jeff Monsen that record -keeping is
done on each person, not by property, and it would be problematic and costly to try
and follow that person around from domicile to domicile. She suggested doing it by
property, rather than by person. Reimer stated that whether the resident is a
renter or owner confuses the issue.
Gibson agreed. Practically, the cities are signing people up as a matter of
course when a place is occupied. There's a culture of expectancy in the cities.
Brenner stated it's also a matter of convenience. Garbage pickup is
convenient in the city, but not in many places in the county.
Gibson stated the law authorizes an excise tax on the privilege of living in
the district. It's not even the privilege of having garbage collection. If people are
not thinking about the benefits of having garbage collection, they are more quick to
challenge the imposition on a property as opposed to a residence. If they don't
distinguish between that, they run the risk running afoul of the law. The County
Code is set up to tax people for garbage services, not for the privilege of living in
the district.
Brenner stated the letter to SWAC shouldn't prevent the SWAC from coming
up with a good idea to address the issue while respecting the logistical problem of
resources. She moved to recommend to the full Council sending the letter.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 3/9/2004, 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
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.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:10 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 Safety Committee, 3/9/2004, Page 5