Building Industry Association of Whatcom County

Latest news from Bellingham City Council

2013-11-19T12:52:00.001-08:00

FYI -- Update on Bellingham Comp Plan population/employment projections

These projections will be used as a basis for the 2016 Comp Plan rewrite, helping determine what can built in future years.

At a Nov. 18 Monday morning work session, Bellingham City Council members Jack Weiss and Michael Lilliquist were adamant that the GMA does not require Bellingham to choose population or employment projections that are “likely,” and to accommodate those. They insisted they are free to choose any projection they want (within the Office of Financial Management’s recommended range), in an effort to influence how much growth the city gets. They might think the city will grow, for instance, but make a policy decision to pick a lower projection in an effort to discourage growth.

It turns out the sticking point may be something else entirely, however.

City Council last night approved “high” population and employment recommendations for Bellingham (noted as “very preliminary”). These will be submitted to the County at a WC Planning Commission hearing on Dec. 12. The County Council makes the final decision, sometime next year.

In approving these recommended projections, however, City Council voted to attach what appear to be conditions (labeled policy statements). The “high” figures will be submitted with a proviso that, in exchange, the county must choose population and employment projections “lower than the historic norm” elsewhere in Whatcom County.

Planning staff has been asked to improve the wording of these conditions. But Mr. Lilliquists’s proposal was that Bellingham supports:

1. “Continued County planning efforts to reduce the proportion of population growth in unincorporated areas significantly below the historical trends, and significantly lower than the countywide rate of population growth. (Lilliquist’s emphasis)

2. “Higher than projected levels of population growth in the cities, to the same extent and the same magnitude that growth in unincorporated areas of the County is reduced below the projected level.

3. “Continued planning efforts by Whatcom County and its cities to increase the proportion of employment growth in UGAs, and reduce the proportion of employment growth in unincorporated areas below historical trends.”

Mayor Kelli and Seth Fleetwood disagreed with the employment projection condition. But it passed. The idea, Mr. Lilliquist said, is to limit “urban employment” to “urban areas.” People, he said, can drive into town to work.

This raises the question – how would intentionally reducing employment growth projections “below historic norms” in unincorporated areas mesh with Growth Management Act requirements that the county maintain rural lifestyles and a healthy rural economy?

“Rural” land, under the GMA, is different from “resource land” (reserved for agriculture or forestry). I presume Mr. Lilliquist meant to limit employment on rural lands, not resource lands, since he said his proposal wouldn’t affect farming. But farming is an allowed occupation on “rural” land, and his wording did not exclude agriculture. Certainly this would appear to affect Whatcom County’s already-battered LAMIRDS (areas of more intense development in unincorporated areas).

There’s plenty of evidence that GMA allows business and some industry in rural lands, and that the law was not intended to block employment there: Cottage industry is allowed. “Isolated small-scale businesses” that aren’t cottage industry are allowed by (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii)). Natural resource-based industry is allowed by the case Abenroth v. Skagit County. Industrial development is limited but allowed in LAMIRDS, and is not even required to be principally designated to serve the existing and projected rural population (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(I).

Note: Cherry Point would be included in the major industrial developments allowed outside of urban growth areas by RCW 36.70A.365 – different rules altogether.

Hopefully, the Whatcom County Planning Commission and incoming County Council will take seriously the GMA’s support of rural lifestyles – as rural residents envision it. Avoiding sprawl doesn’t mean everyone has to live in a city. GMA is very clear about that.

Habitat tries to break cycle of inadequate housing, health problems

2013-10-07T08:52:00.004-07:00

World Habitat Day is Monday, Oct. 7. In honor of our local Habitat for Humanity’s efforts, here is a guest blog by:

John P. C. Moon, Executive Director

Habitat for Humanity in Whatcom County

As an agricultural worker, Julio Ortiz makes barely enough to support his family. And he only gets paid for the days he works. A few stormy days, or a case of the flu could be a financial disaster. His job doesn’t offer health insurance, and he can’t afford it on his own. If Julio or his wife, Juana, fall ill, “we get nothing,” he says.

Dan VanDyken is another Habitat partner. He has lived through the type of nightmare that Julio and Juana Ortiz try not to think about. Dan had a long career as a construction tradesman, but when he was diagnosed with advanced Crohn’s Disease and suffered several strokes, he was left unable to work, with a mountain of medical bills to pay. No longer able to make rent, he and his wife and grandson were forced to move into a cabin in Glacier.

The VanDykens' story is not uncommon for low-income Americans. A study by The Access Project, a program of Third Sector New England affiliated with the Schneider Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University, found that more than a quarter of families with significant medical debt, experienced resulting financial problems that made it difficult to find and/or maintain adequate housing for their families.

And for such families, housing problems only make health problems worse. Now that the VanDykens are wedged into a few hundred square feet of living space, if one family member gets sick, the bug will inevitably and quickly spread.

Because of his Crohns, “Dan has no immune system,” his wife, Mary, says. And Dan isn’t the only family member for whom a common cold can be a major problem: The couple’s grandson, Cody, a third-grader, has asthma.

Studies show that children living in inadequate housing are 10 times more likely than children in good housing to develop asthma and other respiratory problems. Research also supports what the VanDykens already know: when people are in crowded conditions they get sick more often.

Counting his sister-in-law, who shares their home, Julio Ortiz has a family of seven in his three-bedroom rental house. His wife, Juana, confirms that the any colds the children bring home from school tend to circulate quickly through the house.

In their future Habitat homes, both the VanDykens and the Ortiz family will have a little more space and a better chance to stay healthy.

Julio will go from paying $1,000 per month in rent to writing a mortgage check of just a few hundred dollars. With what he’ll soon have left over from his paycheck, he can afford to consider things that once seemed out of reach: like taking a day off and seeing a doctor when he gets sick.

Building Shelter, Transforming Lives, Strengthening Community in Faith and Partnership

1385 Admiral Place, Ferndale, WA 98248 / www.hfhwhatcom.org

Office: 715.9170 Mobile: 318.6254 / Habitat Store: 393.4352

Bellingham Noise Ordinance changes defeated

2013-10-01T12:32:00.001-07:00

Linda Twitchell, BIAWC Government Affairs Director

BIAWC was successful Monday night in helping defeat a proposal to cut back residential construction hours in Bellingham by about 17 percent.

City Council considered a proposal to cut construction noise hours in residential areas (BMC 10.24.120 C4). Construction is now allowed 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily – as it is in the surrounding commute area of unincorporated Whatcom County, Ferndale and Lynden. The proposal was to end residential construction at 8 p.m. on weekdays, and to limit it to 9 a.m.-8 p.m. on weekends and federal holidays.

At BIAWC staff’s urging, members submitted letters objecting to the change, and one testified at Monday’s hearing. Brian Evans and Linda Twitchell distributed notices of the hearing throughout the community, and were at the hearing, with the member letters and to give testimony.

Thanks to everyone who contributed!! Congratulations to Brent Cowden of Cowden Gravel and Ready Mix, Dave Edelstein of Greenbriar Construction, Bill Henshaw of Windemere, Mark Mendenhall of CB Wholesale, Dana Johnson of Mt. Baker Roofing, Don Rasmussen of Razz Construction, Tim Wiersma of Everkept Construction, Darcy Jones of Jones Engineers, Doug Campbell of APC, Bill Geyer of Geyer & Assoc., Paul Brainard of Creative Const. and Remodel and Lynne Henifin of Henifin Construction. You impressed the people we needed to reach.

BIAWC argued Monday that there isn’t a problem – city staff says of the 1,171 noise complaints in Bellingham in the past year, only 19 involved construction. Of those, 5 were at the Barkley theater complex and 3 involved hours that aren’t affected. Less than 1 percent of all noise complaints involved residential construction during affected hours. We noted that contractors regularly start at 7 a.m. and need Saturday morning time to fight the one thing they can’t control, the weather. Saturday is the industry’s backup day. Cutting hours then would hurt efficiency and run contrary to the city’s “affordable housing” emergency. To meet planning goals, Bellingham needs to welcome home construction, Brian noted, not make it more difficult. BIAWC member Jamie Henifin asked that if noise is regulated, it be done in term of decibels that construction crews can measure and thereby meet.

Councilman Terry Bornemann agreed, saying the proposal was not needed. “There are so many unintended consequences,” he said. “When the sun’s out, people have got to get their work done. We talk about being business friendly, then we propose something that’s a slap in the face to our contractors. I totally oppose it.” Councilman Stan Stapp also opposed the proposal, and Seth Fleetwood expressed concerns.

Jack Weiss, seconded by Michael Lilliquist, moved to postpone action to the next meeting. Bornemann and Gene Knutson noted they wouldn’t be at that meeting. The motion failed, 3-3, with Bornemann, Knutson and Snapp opposed. (Cathy Lehman was not at Monday’s meeting.) Weiss then moved, seconded by Lilliquist, to amend the proposal to allow construction from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. That motion also failed, 3-3. No further action was taken. BMC 10.24.120(C)(4) remains unchanged.

We encourage all to honor the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. quiet hours, to protect the interests of your industry, your customers and their neighbors, who could become your future customers. Thank you for a solid team effort!

WRIA 1 Planning Unit -- what's this all about?

2013-09-23T10:01:00.000-07:00

Why worry about water rights?

The Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe have asked the federal government for an adjudication that could officially give them control of all water in the lower Nooksack Basin – the river, its tributaries, and the groundwater that feeds them, based on treaty fishing rights. Since many landowners in Whatcom County who are on private wells or who irrigate have not been required to hold a legal water right in the past, the implications involved are huge.

Water rights also have become an immense issue in Clallum County. There, the WRIA planning process resulted in rules that went into effect this year, saying rural property owners have a right to use only about 150 gallons of water per day INSIDE their homes, and no right to use water outside their homes (for gardening, watering lawns, irrigation, livestock, etc.). To use water outside the home, a landowner now must buy a “mitigation certificate,” which costs $1,000 to $3,000. The private wells in affected rural areas are now required to be metered (at the homeowner’s expense) to ensure that homeowners don’t exceed these limits. Most residents in Clallum County are only now starting to become aware of this situation.

In short, it would be wise to follow what is happening here.

Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs)

One of the groups involved in Whatcom County water planning until just a few years ago was the WRIA 1 “Planning Unit,” a board representing 10 caucuses. The caucuses gave a lot of non-governmental people a voice in local water planning. BIAWC had a seat on the Planning Unit representing a Land Development Caucus. Other caucuses included well owners, water districts, farmers, forestry, etc.

County government stopped calling the Planning Unit into session in 2009. But under pressure from previous participants, the Planning Unit is about to reconvene, on Sept. 25. If enough people participate, this could be an active group giving many folks a direct voice in water planning again. BIAWC believes it’s in your interest to understand the process and participate.

So here’s the background.

In April 1998, the Washington Legislature provided an opportunity for watershed management decisions to be made locally, passing the Washington State Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514, codified as RCW 90.82). The act created 62 water resource inventory areas across the state. Whatcom County and a portion of Skagit County are in WRIA 1.

According to the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan Version 1, dated March 5, 2004, on file at the BIAWC, the act identified two bodies involved in local water planning and implementation: the Initiating Governments (Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, PUD 1, Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Tribe), and the Planning Unit. On Oct. 29, 1998, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by all the initiating governments except the Nooksack Tribe, formalizing the WRIA 1 partnership. Documentation outlining duties of those Initiating Governments (and their staffs) and the Planning Unit was created that December and following spring.

The Planning Unit, advised by 10 caucuses, developed the March 2004 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan (WMP), and continued to meet for four years afterward to carry out its functions under that plan. In 2007, the Planning Unit approved and the county adopted a WRIA 1 Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). Both the WMP and DIP call for the Planning Unit to continue functioning, to address instream flows and WMP updates. But in 2009, without notice and, it is argued, without authority to do so, what’s now known as the Joint Board (the Initiating Governments) suspended Planning Unit meetings. The Joint Board has operated independently since then. The Planning Unit has not been convened since June 30, 2009.

In the past year or so, objections have been voiced and debate has questioned which group has authority to “plan and implement” in WRIA 1, the Joint Board or the Planning Unit? Under pressure from caucus members to reactivate the Planning Unit, county legal staff in February 2013 issued an opinion confirming that the Planning Unit still has legal standing. On July 23, 2013, the County Council adopted a resolution recognizing the Planning Unit’s continuing role and requesting that it report regularly to the County Council on the status of its work, and that the County Executive facilitate that reporting function.

As a result, Chris Brueske, assistant director of Whatcom County Public Works, was tasked with reconvening the Planning Unit. He has scheduled a 6-8 p.m. meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 25, in the Civic Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 N. Commercial St. Mr. Brueske says the county has hired a facilitator to host four Planning Unit evening meetings – on upcoming 4^th Wednesdays of the month (the PU’s traditional meeting time before 2009).

The WMP suggests that the Planning Unit meet monthly. We have no record of caucus meetings, how often they met or what business they did – but caucus work clearly is independent of the “initiating governments” (see below).

Who does what?

The March 2004 Watershed Management Plan specifies (p3) that Whatcom County is the lead agency, and will take an administrative role and fund the local portion of the Watershed Management Project. The “Councils of the Initiating Governments” (essentially the Joint Board) are “the elected policy makers who have the final approval authority for the watershed plan.”

The WMP says the Planning Unit “will facilitate the contribution of knowledge, technical expertise, funding, equipment, and other resources, and thereby contribute to the technical assessments and tasks necessary for knowledge-based decision making. In addition to assisting with the work of the project, representatives on the Planning Unit will be responsible for expressing the interests of their constituents. The Planning Unit will endorse the water resources plan before it is brought to the Administrative Decision-Makers of the Initiating Governments.” Planning Unit meetings are to be “open to the public for observation, but will not be conducted as open public forums.”

The July 2013 County Council resolution requests that the Planning Unit “regularly review and approve and provide recommendations as appropriate on any ongoing assessments of the current water resource situation, including, but not limited to water availability, instream flow, water quality, and habitat.” Amendments to the WMP are to be submitted to the County Council for approval. The Planning Unit also is to review the progress of salmon recovery efforts and provide input to the County Council to inform its participation on the salmon recovery board.

Addendum 2 of the WMP spells out Planning Unit caucus formation and function. It notes that 10 caucuses are to participate, “to include” (which means there could be more):

· Fishers

· Agriculture

· Forestry

· Environmental

· Land Development (BIAWC was this caucus’ representative to the Planning Unit)

· Non-municipal Water Systems

· Water Districts

· Diking/Drainage Districts

· The Port Authority

· Private Well Owners

The caucuses are independent organizations – “their formation and functioning is the responsibility of their members.” A single person is to represent each caucus in the Planning Unit, and is to forward the views of all caucus members if a caucus does not reach consensus on any issue.

Right now, BIAWC is trying to contact all groups involved with the former Land Development Caucus,
to see if they want to participate again. Liz Evans of AGC says that group will decline; they wish to support BIAWC’s efforts but are not interested in taking a direct role. Perry Eskridge of the Whatcom County Realtors Association, an attorney who has been studying water rights, is interested in participating and acting as the caucus representative. Roger Almskaar, a BIAWC member who also is president of the local CAPR property rights organization, also has expressed interest and plans to attend the Sept. 25 Planning Unit meeting, which is excellent since BIAWC is hosting a candidate debate that night at the same time.

If you want to participate in the land caucus, please contact Linda Twitchell at lindat@biawc.com.

If you want to participate, or spread the word, about any other caucus, please contact Chris Brueske for the caucus representatives’ contact information. Chris can be reached at 676-6692 or cbrueske@co.whatcom.wa.us.

Anyone can attend Planning Unit meetings to observe, although the rules we have on file indicate only official caucus representatives would address the group.

KOONTZ – Court forbids exorbitant permit requirements

2013-08-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

By Linda Twitchell
BIAWC Government Affairs Director

Anyone concerned that land use or environmental permitting requirements are sometimes too onerous should look into the June 25, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court decision Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.

The Court has given property owners a major victory and important tool.

Koontz centers on the issue of legal “takings,” which was a concern voiced during Whatcom County Council’s recent approval of DOE-recommended Lake Whatcom Watershed stormwater rules, designed to limit phosphorus runoff.

Some Council members expressed concern at estimates that the cost of meeting these new LID requirements on a small lot in Sudden Valley could be $20,000 or more – on lots that currently sell for an average of $20,000. According to calculations based on city estimates, phosphorus runoff from an urban lot totals about one teaspoon a year. The resulting debate became, is it reasonable to require LID work, to use a residential lot, that may cost more than the value of the property – and all that to reduce phosphorus runoff by only one teaspoon per year? (DOE’s goal is reduce phosphorus loading in Lake Whatcom by 3,139 pounds per year, according to Steve Hood, local DOE water quality engineer.)

The Koontz case expands the definition of “takings” (according to the Fifth Amendment, government shall not take private property without just compensation). The case also involves “exactions” –conditions the government puts on approval of a permit needed to use land. Exactions may be attached as a condition of a building permit, or may be required by environmental regulations.

In the past, someone who was denied a building permit because he or she rejected the conditions involved had insufficient footing to prove a “taking” occurred because, since the permit was denied and conditions therefore were not met, agencies could argue that nothing had actually been taken. In Koontz, however, the Court agreed that a permit denial can be used as the grounds for a challenge.

Koontz establishes that government cannot use the permit process to make landowners give up land, money or other property as the price of permit approval, unless the demands are related to and proportionate to the proposed land use, reports Brian T. Hodges of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigated the case.

The facts of the case are that Mr. Koontz, a Florida landowner, sought permission to develop a small portion of undeveloped, commercial property in Orlando. Mr. Koontz’s land had been designated as an environmentally critical area, and the agency involved wanted him to pay for expensive improvements on state-owned property miles away as a condition of receiving building permits. When he objected, the permit was denied, thereby rendering Mr. Koontz’s land unusable, Mr. Hodges explains in the Aug. 13th issue of BIAW’s “Building Insights.”

Mr. Koontz challenged the agency’s decision under two previous Supreme Court cases that had found “extortionate permit conditions” unconstitutional. These cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1992), created what is called the Nollan-Dolan test. This holds that government cannot condition approval of a land-use permit on a requirement that the owner give up a portion of his property unless there is an “essential nexus” (a connection) and “rough proportionality” between the proposed use and the permitting agency’s demands. In other words, permit requirements must have a connection to, and must be proportionate to, the proposed use.

One way agencies have gotten around the nexus/proportionality test is imposing fees. This might involve paying for totally unrelated public-improvement projects as a condition of getting a land-use permit – traffic impact fees that go beyond the scope of a project’s actual impact, for instance, to enable a city to build infrastructure. In the past, Washington State’s Supreme Court has upheld such fees, saying they are not subject to the Nollan-Dolan test, Mr. Hodges said. No longer.

In Koontz, Mr. Hodges notes, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that landowners are vulnerable to government coercion during the permitting process “because the government often has broad discretion to deny a permit that is worth far more than property it would like to take … [and] can pressure an owner into giving up property for which the Fifth Amendment would otherwise require just compensation.”

The Court also determined that all demands for property in a permit context – including demands for money – fall under the nexus and proportionality tests. A permitting agency must be able to prove that fees and mitigation requirements have both a direct connection to the permitted use, and that they are proportionate to the proposed use.

The implications are important to land use and environmental permitting practices in this state. A recent National Association of Home Builders webinar featuring Devala Janardan, NAHB staff counsel , noted that under this ruling government cannot require mitigation on 50 acres of wetlands to approve use of 3.7 acres of wetlands somewhere else.

In many land-use cases, according to these gentlemen, requirements are worth more than the land itself – a situation they expect Koontz to reverse. Could permitting agencies, then, require LID practices that will cost more than a lot is worth, as a condition of receiving a building permit to use that lot? The new Lake Whatcom LID rules are an example well worth exploring under Koontz, the webinar instructors said.

All this is a very real issue in the Pacific Northwest, where government increasingly relies on developers to fund public projects. In Washington, in particular, Koontz is expected to produce other major changes. As implications of the Court’s decision are sorted out, the expectation is that agencies no longer will be able to demand extraordinary conditions, costs or fees as a condition of gaining approval to use land.

One warning from the webinar instructors: Once you agree to a condition in order to get a building permit, that requirement becomes legally binding. “Negotiations” are allowed by law. Development agreements – if you agree to them – cannot be challenged as a taking. So if a permitting agency demands something you feel it’s not entitled to ask for, say no and challenge the proposed conditions.

Under the Nollan-Dolan test, the burden of proof rests on government, not the individual landowner. This runs contrary to existing Washington state environmental law, which is written so that landowners must follow agency requirements unless the landowner can prove doing so is not appropriate.

Changing the system will undoubtedly take time. But the bottom line is, if you feel a permit requirement is not connected to or proportionate to a proposed project, you now have grounds to challenge the permitting agency. The U.S. Supreme Court is in your corner.

Make your vote count!

2013-08-06T15:56:00.003-07:00

It’s Aug. 6th – Primary Day. If you received a primary ballot for this fall’s election, this is your last day to return it to the courthouse. There is a three-way race in one Bellingham City Council race, which will be winnowed down in this balloting.

Other election notes:

•    FYI – The Whatcom County Democrats Central Committee has issued a resolution on Lummi Nation sacred lands opposing residential development in the Cherry Point area. It states:

“We propose and support the rejection of all industrial, commercial and residential uses of the remaining natural lands and waters on and adjacent to Cherry Point; and
“We will encourage members to request that the current legislative bodies with jurisdiction over all industrial, commercial and residential uses of the remaining natural lands on or adjacent to Cherry Point, rule that such uses are not and shall not be permitted …”

•    Sign up now for BIAWC’s CANDIDATE DEBATES!
   Wednesday, Sept. 18 – Whatcom County Council contested races
   Wednesday, Sept. 25 – Port of Bellingham & Bellingham City Council contested races
   To reserve a spot at the dinner / debates, go to http://www.biawc.com/store/index.asp?show=cprd&cid=5.

Hear the candidates debate issues that directly impact your ability to make a living. Bring your crew and family for an informal, after-work BBQ dinner (pre-paid, the cost is $10 for members and guests, $12 for nonmembers), then meet the people who want to represent you.

Your attendance will have a big impact – a large crowd impresses on the candidates that our positions and concerns are important. Help us fill the hall, and come out for two interesting evenings!

Please send your suggestions for debate questions to Briane@BIAWC.com.
See you there!

Election season is here – how will you participate?

2013-06-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

By Linda Twitchell
BIAWC Government Affairs Director

It’s hardly July 4th, but the election season is jumping into action. The August 6 primary will not affect many races, but this fall, voters will have a huge impact on how the Whatcom County Council, the Bellingham City Council, and the Bellingham Port Commission operate for the next few years. New majorities will be chosen on each of those boards.

Now is the time to get involved, if you care whether these elected bodies represent your interests.
This fall’s races will be interesting in many respects. For the County Council, in particular, we expect to see a clear choice between candidates who back property-right concerns and commerce, and those less inclined to do so. And the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal is expected to draw national interest and money to these campaigns. That means candidates campaigning on other local issues will need serious grassroots support.

BIAWC isn’t trying to tell you how to vote – but we urge all members to be informed and actively support the candidates of their choice. Just a few voters can, and many times have, made the difference in how our councils and commissions are constructed, and how they approach local regulations and laws.

“Support” can take many forms. Campaign kickoff events are underway – if you’re interested, Google the candidates to see when and where.

Letting your neighbors know who you back, and why, is a very effective tool. Put up yard signs. Better yet, invite neighbors over for coffee with a candidate. Or just talk to people – word-of-mouth endorsements in the grocery store or gas line can be very effective in awakening the people around you to their options.

Then there’s money. You can, as one candidate notes, “contribute now, or pay later.” Even small contributions make a big, collective difference. Ten people contributing $50 each can make the difference between your candidate’s resources and those of his/her opposition – as the state’s PDC listings demonstrate. Mass mailings and newspaper or radio ads are expensive, so candidates need your help. To see how contributions are going – who’s getting what, and the difference between candidates – check the PDC listings online at http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Candidate/loc_candidates. A recent comparison is given below.

A word about BIAWC campaign funding – the trade organization doesn’t contribute to election campaigns. BIAWC has a PAC, the Whatcom County Affordable Housing Council (WCAHC), which acts independently and does contribute to campaigns. When a member joins BIAWC, he/she has the option of contributing to that PAC. Members in good standing who make an annual contribution of $100 or more can join the PAC’s Board of Trustees, who make financing decisions. The person in charge of that board is member Dave Simpson. The staff contact is Brian Evans. WCAHC will meet the second week of July, so if that interests you, now is the time to get involved.

Individuals and PACS are limited to $900 contributions per election for County or City Council candidates. There is no limit for contributions to Port of Bellingham candidates, according to the state PDC office.

BIAWC is planning two candidate debates on Wednesday evenings in September (dates to be announced). One debate will feature County Council contested races; the other will feature contested Bellingham City Council and Port races. These are a great chance to see for yourself who the candidates are and what they’re saying. To suggest questions for these debates, send an e-mail to Brian Evans at briane@biawc.com.

There’s a lot you can do before then. Please get involved. Register to vote if you haven’t yet done so. In judging candidates, don’t rely entirely on news reports, which may reflect the author’s opinions. BIAWC urges you to get out and meet the candidates, to see what kind of person each is and hear for yourself what they have to say.

Now’s the time to get started – Nov. 5 will be here before you know it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CANDIDATE CONTACTS for MAJOR RACES(For a complete list of local candidates, see https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/elections/Candidates/WhoFiled?countyCode=wm )

Whatcom County Council
District 1
Barry Buchanan           barrybuchanan46@aol.com, 224-4330
Kathy Kershner           Advocations@comcast.net, 220-7535
District 2
Ben Elenbaas              ben@elenbaasforcouncil.com, 595-4130
Ken Mann                  ken@votekenmann.com, 483-6020
District 3
Michelle Luke              michelle@votemichelleluke.com, 220-7358
Carl Weimer                electcarl@voteweimer.com, 223-2636
At-large
Rud Browne                 Rud@VoteRudBrowne.com, 318-5220
Bill Knutzen                  bill@knutzenforcouncil.com, 410-2000

Bellingham City Council
Ward 2
Gene Knutson              gene_knutson@msn.com, 734-4686
Ward 4
Clayton Petree             clayton@claytonpetree.com, 733-1303
Pinky Vargas                pinky@votepinkyvargas.com, 510-1388
Ward 6
Michael Lilliquist          mlilliquist@comcast.net, 920-2684
At-large
Allen Brown              Brown4Bellingham@aol.com, (954) 830-3335
Bob Burr                     bobburr@comcast.net, 671-7813
Roxanne Murphy         electroxanne@gmail.com, 647-7699

Port of Bellingham
Position 1
Renata Kowalczyk   renataforport@gmail.com, 389-2481
Dan Robbins             danrobbins3@comcast.net, 305-4211
Position 2
Ken (Patrick) Bell        voteforken@gmail.com, 739-1002
Michael McAuley          info@MikeForPort.com, 201-7199

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PDC REPORTS AS OF Friday, June 28: These are posted at http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Candidate/loc_candidates.

Whatcom County Council (pages 71 and 72 of the online listing)
District 1
Barry Buchanan – raised $5,019 -- has spent    $255
Kathy Kershner                  $3,797 -- has spent $1,473
District 2
Ben Elenbaas                 $1,574 -- has spent    $215
Ken Mann                        $11,228 -- has spent      $60
District 3
Michelle Luke                   $7,801 -- has spent $3,924
Carl Weimer                 $24,544 -- has spent $3,129
At-large
Rud Browne                    $27,203 -- has spent $7,674
Bill Knutzen                    $4,133 -- has spent    $263

Bellingham City Council (pages 9-10, under City of Bellingham)
Ward 2
Gene Knutson                        $0 -- has spent $0
Ward 4
(Jack) Clayton Petree $2,135 -- has spent $560
Pinky Vargas                   $4,145 -- has spent $2,439
Ward 6
Michael Lilliquist          $5,601 -- has spent $1,066
At-large
Allen Brown                             $0 -- has spent $0
Bob Burr                                 $0 -- has spent $0
Roxanne Murphy            $4,167 -- has spent $694

Port of Bellingham (page 58)
Position 1
Renata Kowalczyk                $0 -- has spent $0
Daniel Robbins                      $0 -- has spent $0
Position 2
Ken (Patrick) Bell              $303 -- has spent $0
Michael McAuley            $1,220 -- has spent $465

County Council appeals GHMB decision

2013-06-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

New facts on Lake Whatcom Overlay lead to ordinance delay.
‘Rural Element’ passes despite Futurewise attempt to extend debate.

Notes from the Civic Center – June 17 & 18
By Linda Twitchell, BIAWC Govt. Affairs Director
Here’s a short report on items the homebuilding industry may find of interest from this week’s city and county council meetings:

WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL, Tuesday, June 18 (See the full agenda with links to related documents at http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council/agenda.jsp.)

The County Council opened its Tuesday night meeting, June 18, by voting to appeal the Growth Management Hearings Board’s June 7 decision on the Rural Element, as it applies to water quality and quantity. The vote passed 5-2, with Ken Mann and Carl Weimer opposing.

This latest GMHB decision threatened the creation of new “exempt wells” for homes in rural Whatcom County. In the name of ensuring adequate water for fish and wildlife, thereby preserving “rural character,” the hearings board had ordered that: to get a permit to dig a residential well, landowners should have to prove first that the well will not impact streams that have been found to have low flows. The Nooksack River is such a stream, which suggests the entire river basin would be affected. The GMHB also challenged the county’s practice of educating septic system owners and allowing them to inspect their own septic systems, arguing that homeowners should have to pay a professional for an annual inspection instead.

Both of those issues represent a major expense to rural landowners. Potential gains to the environment remain questionable – at a recent Water Symposium, the majority of speakers said wells’ impacts on stream flows have not been proven, and fish habitat is not a simple matter of annual stream volume. The county has allowed owner inspection of septic systems because doing so seems to work; problem systems are the exception. BIAWC member attorneys have suggested the GMHB overstepped its authority in this ruling, in regard to water quality/quantity.

(For more on the June 7 GMHB decision, see a BIAWC blog posted June 14 at http://biawc.blogspot.com/2013/06/gmhbs-new-decision-threatens-exempt.html ).

Lake Whatcom Overlay District
In the works since 2011, this program would require stormwater collection and dispersion, infiltration or filtering systems for new homes (500 square feet or more or new impervious surface), remodels (1,500 sf of replaced impervious surface) or 5,000 sf of clearing in rural areas of the Lake Whatcom Watershed, to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the lake from residential runoff.

The proposal was sent back to committee Tuesday night, after a 5th public hearing that included some surprising testimony:

Steve Hood, local Department of Ecology spokesman, told the council that this program will not be enough – 85 percent of the phosphorus runoff from EXISTING HOMES in the watershed must also be removed, even if new properties are successfully limited to zero runoff over “natural conditions” (runoff from the land if it remained a forest).

Mr. Hood also said he no longer supports allowing properties to mitigate, where the land involved is too steep, soils are wrong or the lot is too small to use suggested LID practices. The idea had been that such properties could pay for runoff control on other property in the watershed, to bring down the total effect to DOE’s goal of “zero” impact over natural conditions.

“You keep changing the goalpost on us,” Council member Kathy Kershner responded.

Perry Eskridge of WCAR testified that despite the costs involved to the homeowners ($7,000-$20,000 according to planning staff; $20,000-$25,000 according to Mr. Eskridge) the proposal would remove only a teaspoon of phosphorus per year from the average residential lot, and held up a plastic bag with salt to demonstrate.

Councilman Sam Crawford asked, why not use the county’s resources to deal with the large amount of phosphorus that the city’s diversion (from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack) washes into the lake? The diversion is responsible for a large percentage of the lake’s phosphorus, according to testimony last fall from Jon Hutchins, then on the WC staff and now water resources manager for the city. The diversion is the true “low-hanging fruit” here, Mr. Crawford suggested, and dealing with it would produce a much bigger bang for your buck.

Natural conditions and development put 8,708 pounds of phosphorus into the lake each year, Mr. Crawfood said; DOE’s target is 5,570 pounds, leaving a reduction goal of 3,138 pounds per year – a figure development requirements may not be able to resolve.

The diversion does not fall under the state regulatory authority, Mr. Hood responded. It contains dissolved phosphorus, and very cool water that sinks when it hits the lake. Some phosphorus is needed to keep fish healthy, Mr. Hood added.

BIAWC’s Linda Twitchell noted that data on phosphorus contributions to the lake, according to Mr. Hood’s previous testimony, involved a study of only 2, unusually dry, years, which doesn't seem conclusive or representative. BIAWC is interested in a clean lake, she said, but is it polluted? If so, would a regional collection and treatment system be cheaper than charging every homeowner in the watershed $20,000 to $25,000?

Planning Commissioner Dave Onkels read from a report suggesting lake quality is improving.

County Executive Jack Louws reported that DOE still has not answered questions about the lake that staff posed in 2009, and in a recently resubmitted letter. He urged Council to allow time for staff to sit down with DOE and get some answers.

The Council voted 6-1, Carl Weimer opposed, to send the Lake Whatcom Overlay District proposal back to committee.

Rural Element Comp Plan and Zoning rewrite A proposal to deal with GMHB’s January 2013 ruling on a Futurewise et al challenge was adopted, 5-2 (Ken Mann and Carl Weimer opposed). See the full document at http://www.whatcomcounty.us/pds/plan/lr/projects/lamirds/lamirds.jsp. (The ordinance is under the "2013 Amendments" heading and the staff presentation is under "Documents.")

Council adopted the Rural Element proposal after hearing testimony from three of the challengers, including David Stalheim, whose aggressive tone seemed to threaten further challenges if Council did not cooperate with Futurewise's goals. Futurewise offered to support an extension, if the county would delay a decision and sit down to negotiate further.

The Council majority rejected that premise, suggesting the county has gone far enough to placate Futurewise at the expense of rural landowners.

BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, Monday, June 17(See the full agenda and links to related documents at http://www.cob.org/web/council.nsf/$vAllByUnid/84B50320D417AF0A88257B8900587031?OpenDocument)

• Wetland mitigation – first & second approval to spend $1,850,000 to buy 13 acres for a regional stormwater and wetland facility and 20 acres for future wetland mitigation, near the area where Costco is considering a new store, north of Bakerview Road and east of I-5.

• Landlord licensing – Council requested that Mayor Kelli Linville allocate resources in the 2014 budget to develop “a program, or comparable activities, to educate and enforce health and safety standards at rental properties in Bellingham.” A list of guidelines was included. A public hearing will be scheduled at some point before a program is adopted, but the mayor said unless otherwise directed, staff won’t take action until January. Kelli’s emphasis in this discussion was on “prevention before inspection,” and taking care of problem cases.

• HIP – Council authorized the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with Whatcom County for the Lake Whatcom Homeowner Incentive Program.

• South Side taxing district – conditions were discussed for an interlocal agreement with the new Chuckanut Community Forest Park District. CCFPD is an independent junior taxing district created by South Side voters in February. It will hold a hearing at Fairhaven Library at 7 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, to consider its mission and an agreement with the city to raise South Side taxes to pay off a $3.2 million loan the city used to buy 82 acres on Chuckanut Ridge in 2011. The district covers, roughly, areas south of WWU and west from I-5 to the bay.

In afternoon committee consideration of this, BIAWC member Bill Geyer noted three ways the city could pay off the loan without raising property taxes, including sale of some of the property for residential development. BIAWC Govt. Affairs Director Linda Twitchell reminded the Council that use of the entire property as a park will mean that 82 acres the city Comp Plan refers to as “buildable land” will have to be replaced, in the 2016 Comp Plan rewrite, to remain in compliance with the state Growth Management Act.

• Army Street right of way – Plans are moving ahead for redevelopment of a section of Old Town by the waterfront, roughly between Bay Street, Holly Street, Central and Roeder Avenues. The Public Development Authority reports 5 property owners (not those fronting Bay Street) have signed non-binding letters of intent. PDA envisions a possible hotel, parking garage with 400-500 spaces, mixed-use buildings and a pedestrian plaza – adjacent to the undeveloped Army Street right of way. Council agreed to a nonbinding letter of intent with PDA that sets the scene for pursuit of developers and investors.

• A site specific rezone at 348 W Bakerview Road was approved 6-0 for 1st and 2nd reading.

• Final approval was given for:
     1. Updated Whatcom Falls Neighborhood plan
     2. Economic Development Chapter to the city’s Comp Plan.

• CHAT – Kelli noted that she and Councilman Seth Fleetwood have created a task force that is reviewing citywide housing affordability, picking up points from the former countywide CHAT Report of 2008. BIAWC’s Dick Skeers and Brian Evans are on this task force, which will meet several times this summer.

What’s next?
Monday, July 1:     • Discussion (in committee?) of new construction noise regulations, yet to be announced.
Monday, July 15     • 7 p.m. hearing to docket 5 proposed Com Plan amendments for review in 2013/2014. These involve the Samish, Happy Valley, Cordata, Meridian, Cornwall Park and South Neighborhoods and a citywide update to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
     • Budget schedule – the city began, this year, operating on a two-year budget cycle. The budget for 2014 is set, but can be amended. A presentation on how such changes will be considering is set for July 15.

Chuckanut Community Forest Park District - "mission" hearing June 27

2013-06-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

South Siders, please note:

Bellingham’s South Side residents voted in February to create an independent junior taxing district, to charge themselves a property tax that will pay off a $3.2 million loan the city used in 2011 to buy 82 acres on Chuckanut Ridge, for use as a park.

The ballot issue did not state the district’s mission; it simply created the taxing district and elected commissioners. The district includes, generally, all areas of Bellingham that are south of WWU and west from I-5 to Bellingham Bay.

The new commissioners will hold a public hearing on June 27 to consider citizens’ comments on the district’s mission, and potential terms for an interlocal agreement with the city regarding loan repayment for the property (known as Hundred Acre Wood or Chuckanut Community Forest or formerly, Fairhaven Highlands). Speakers will have three minutes at this meeting to present their ideas.

The hearing is set for 7 p.m., Thursday, June 27, in the Fairhaven Library’s Fireplace Room.

On Monday (June 17), Bellingham Parks Director James King offered City Council a suggested outline for an interlocal agreement, that discussed the loan repayment, suggested the group’s “mission” be limited to repaying that loan and related costs, and suggested that the district agree to disband itself after repaying the loan. For details, see: http://www.cob.org/web/council.nsf/0/DA8CB1CEAEE09A8288257B89005928FF/$File/17jun2013_AB20014.pdf?OpenElement. This will be presented at next week's hearing, but it remains a suggestion. The new district is an independent body and not bound by COB suggestions.

Also on Monday, BIAWC member Bill Geyer suggested to the City Council three ways the city could repay that $3.2 million loan without taxing South Siders: sell Transfer Development Rights from the property, lease property on the parkland to recreation companies (similar to the Woods Coffee arrangement at Boulevard Park), or sell a portion of the property for residential use. Council did not respond.

What do you think the district should do? If you live in the new taxing district, this is your chance to speak up:  Send written comments of any length to either:
     CCFPD, P.O. Box 4283, Bellingham, WA 98227.
     Or via email to the clerk, Vince Biciunas at: vbici.ccfpd@gmail.com .

Written comments must be received by June 27th, and will be accepted at the hearing.

Need more information? The ballot measure’s steering Committee website, www.chuckanutcommunityforest.com, is still active and the Feb. 12 ballot measure is available from the Elections Division of the County Auditor’s office or from Vince Biciunas at vbici.ccfpd@gmail.com.

GMHB’s new decision threatens exempt wells

2013-06-14T11:22:00.003-07:00

The Growth Management Hearings Board has published its decision on Futurewise’s 2012 Rural Element challenge regarding water supplies and transportation in Whatcom County’s “rural” lands. The hearings board ruled June 7 that the county should require land owners to prove that new wells for homes or subdivisions won’t reduce the volume of water in threatened streams, before building or subdivision permits are granted.

Drilling new wells in rural land for domestic use is currently exempt from state regulation – these are known as “exempt wells.” If you pay a $200 county permit, you can have a well drilled.

BIAWC member Jack Swanson of Belcher Swanson Law Firm, PLLC, warns that the new hearings board decision will end residential construction in the rural element areas of the county, and likely destroy the ability of BIAWC members to earn a livelihood.

Please contact your COUNTY COUNCIL representatives TODAY if you want them to appeal this decision, or consider alternatives!   They will meet Tuesday, June 18, at 6:30 p.m. with County Prosecutor Karen Frakes to discuss how to respond to this ruling.

Jack reports that the decision requires the county to adopt regulations that protect water quality and quantity as follows:   Permits to drill wells must show that the water to be withdrawn is not in “hydraulic continuity” with a watershed that does not meet in-stream flow requirements imposed by the state Department of Ecology.

This means the Nooksack River. According to the GMHB, the mainstem and middle fork of the Nooksack fail to meet in-stream flow requirements for more than 100 days each year.

The proposed rule will apply to exempt wells that are allowed to pump less than 5,000 gallons per day. The Whatcom County Health Department requires rural residential wells to be able to pump 400 gal/day. Water association systems plan for a maximum, worst-case scenario of 800 gal/day.

In other words – the whole debate over water rights may be a moot point if Futurewise gets its way and owners of undeveloped rural land are, basically, denied the ability to use or sell their property by requiring them to go through the expensive process of proving a well won’t hurt area rivers and streams.

How do you determine whether a well will affect in-stream flow? Our member engineers tell us that typically, to determine if hydraulic continuity exists (if drawing water from an aquifer will affect a nearby stream) you’d drill a well and conduct pump tests, monitoring the stream during those tests to see if there’s an effect. If in-stream flow is reduced, you’d have to abandon the well. There are other alternatives, but either way testing to try to prove that a well doesn’t affect a stream could cost $20,000-$25,000, according to BIAWC members’ rough estimates. Just drilling a 100-foot test well would cost about $5,000 – but that’s the tip of the iceberg. Landowners would also have to pay for a pump, the additional cost of pump tests, concomitant in-stream monitoring by a hydro-geologist, a report summing up the project, paying the state and county for submittal and review of these tests – plus the possibility of a need for additional tests at multiple locations.

The GMHB decision also objects to Whatcom County’s practice of educating landowners to inspect their own septic systems, and may push the county into a rule requiring that property owners pay for costly annual, inspections by professionals.

Other requirements, Jack notes, would include less impervious surfaces, more open space and less development in the rural area overall.

The GMHB has given the county until December 4 to write and put new rules in place to meet its objections.

If you want to maintain the option of a rural lifestyle, with workable and reasonable environmental protections rather than no-growth rules that go to an extreme, BIAWC strongly urges you to follow these issues and to speak up to the County Council now.

The County Council will decide how we respond to this decision. When the last major hearings board decision was issued, BIAWC strongly urged the Council to appeal the entire decision. But, following advice of their legal counsel, they made only a limited appeal – which some members have said they regret.
Futurewise’s goal seems to be the adoption of land-use policies that will impose significant development restrictions throughout the county’s rural lands, driving future residents into the area’s cities.

Part of BIAWC’s objection is that this approach is not backed by a consensus of scientists. As the water symposium held in Bellingham at the end of May pointed out, there is not agreement on whether wells are a threat, or to what degree they might threaten, in-stream flow. Also, annual volume isn’t the only issue when ensuring fish habitat – in Western Washington we get too much in the winter and too little in the summer. If residential water is the issue, storing rainwater for use in the summer could have a big effect on allowing adequate summer flows. Temperatures and other concerns also are important.

Contact your COUNTY COUNCIL representatives NOW if you want them to appeal this decision! Tuesday’s meeting may determine what direction the Council goes. Send comments to: Council@co.whatcom.wa.us .

The BIAWC Board also notes that there are alternative ways to protect water, without shutting down all drilling of exempt wells, and that at the very least, conclusions about wells’ affects on streams need to be challenged.

The Council rarely hear from more than a dozen private residents or businesspeople on any issue, so comments from those who own property in Whatcom County’s “rural” lands could have a big effect.

To see the June 7 GMHB decision, go to:
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/lr/projects/lamirds/pdf/20130607-gmhb-fdo-water.pdf.

To see a June 11 Bellingham Herald article on this decision, go to:
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/06/11/3046961/state-board-tells-whatcom-county.html

This decision is a response to Futurewise's 2012 challenge on water resources and transportation planning in the rural lands (a transition zone between urban and “resource” agricultural or forestry land). The GMHB found the Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance 2012-032, is noncompliant with GMA as it lacks measures that protect surface and ground water resources throughout the rural area – threatening rural lands’ “rural character” by failing to protect fish and wildlife habitat or groundwater and surface water recharge and discharge areas. Though the board found the County's Comp Plan noncompliant on this issue, they did not declare invalidity.

On the topic of inconsistency between the Comp Plan's rural and transportation elements, the Board did not find that there was an inconsistency.

Rural cluster plat rules are changing

2013-06-11T13:37:00.002-07:00

GET YOUR PRE-APPS IN NOW!

New Comp Plan/Zoning changes on the “rural element” probably will be approved June 18 by the Whatcom County Council, going into effect 10 days later.

This means CLUSTER SHORT PLATS in the county’s “rural” lands will have new minimum reserve "area" sizes. The minimum sizes are a bit smaller than the current reserve tract requirements, but later development on reserves will no longer be allowed.

There will be some allowed uses on these reserves – including septic systems, stormwater ponds, underground utilities and (in ag reserve areas) agricultural buildings. But in a change to placate the Growth Management Hearings Board, these will now remain in reserve status “in perpetuity.”

If you want to develop under the existing rules, your window is narrowing fast. You have just a few days left to get in your pre-app.

The county Planning Department confirms -- pre-application vesting for a short or long plat involves: Request a pre-app meeting, which usually occurs about two weeks after you submit a request. A couple of days after that, PDS issues findings of fact. If you turn in your complete application within 30 days of issuance of the findings of fact, you are vested back to your original “pre-app application” date – the day you requested the pre-app meeting.

Apply in June to use the existing rules!

Note:
The proposed ordinance uses the terms "reserve tract" and "reserve area" differently than before. The The new term “reserve area” will be unbuildable (except for farm outbuildings) in perpetuity, unless the parcel is designated an Urban Growth Area in the future. “Reserve tract” means the platted lot that meets the reserve area requirement (generally 30-75 percent of the total acreage), and may contain extra land for a home site.
A short plat is limited to 4 lots. Creating 4 lots and a separate tract for the required reserve area = 5 lots, which would bump a project up into a long plat. To resolve the problem of how to allow 4 building lots and the required reserve area in a cluster short plat, the Planning Commission suggested creating 3 lots for houses and a "reserve tract area" big enough to include another homebuilding space AND the required minimum reserve area -- on which you could never build a house. Doing this will require creating 3 platted building lots and a "reserve tract area" that is big enough to include a designated location for a 4th home AND a protected reserve area tract that meets the new minimums.

Gov. Inslee’s veto will slow economic recovery

2013-05-22T14:16:00.000-07:00

From the Building Industry Associations of Washington and Whatcom County

With new housing construction starts at 1981 levels, the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) is surprised and disappointed that Governor Inslee vetoed legislation that would create jobs, improve the economy and increase local and state revenues – all critical issues he has consistently heralded as his top priorities.

Thursday, the governor vetoed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1652. This bill proposed shifting payment of transportation, parks and school impact fees from the time a building permit is filed until the actual time of impact – when a home sale closes or certificate of occupancy is issued.

Sponsored by Rep. Marko Liias (D-Mukilteo), the bill had broad bipartisan support in the Legislature – passing with 73 votes in the House, 34 votes in the Senate and with 83 votes when the House agreed to Senate amendments.

“Impact fees are challenging to finance and are a significant upfront cost to homebuilders, especially small and mid-sized builders,” said BIAW Executive Vice President Art Castle. “The costs are so significant, they prohibit new housing starts which, consequently, stifles local and state economies.”

Locally, both Habitat for Humanity and the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAWC) had written letters to the governor supporting the bill. Bellingham Mayor Kelli Linville announced earlier this month that she backed the bill, and that regardless of the governor’s decision, the city of Bellingham will take action to defer payment on transportation and park impact fees. The mechanics and timing involved have not yet been worked out.

ESHB 1652 would not have deprived local governments and schools impact fee revenue – it would have simply deferred the payment to closing, when the house sale transaction occurs.

In 2009 and 2011 the Legislature, at the request of the school districts and local governments, passed legislation that extended the timeframe in which they could spend the money generated by impact fees from six to 10 years – because schools and local governments couldn’t spend these fees fast enough.

Ironically, many school districts opposed ESHB 1652, arguing that the money is critical to keep up with current and projected growth. Delaying this upfront cost of home construction would ignite homebuilding, increase the tax base and would actually bring in more money to local governments and schools through increased housing starts.

Construction is critical to our state’s economic recovery and was the hardest-hit industry in the recession. In Washington, construction accounts for 25 percent of the state’s sales tax revenue. And, in 2011, a down year, new home construction still created 41,000 jobs and generated $3.1 billion in state and local revenues.

“House Bill 1652 would have relieved an industry that is still struggling to recover,” said BIAW 2013 President Audrey Borders, a general contractor from Bellingham. “It would have been a big boost to homebuilding and to those of us who survived the recession and a boon to economic growth in Washington State.”

The significant upfront cost of impact fees are passed on to the consumer. Consequently, this not only means less housing starts and a smaller tax base, but fewer and fewer families will be able to buy a home and pursue the American Dream.

Action Steps for Bellingham – Building a Stronger Industry & Community

2013-05-10T11:28:00.002-07:00

The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County approached Bellingham’s Mayor Kelli Linville in January 2013 with a proposed action list of items we feel could improve conditions for the building industry, and in turn support our local community and economy. The mayor’s reaction was positive, and some of these items were passed on to city staff. On April 30, 2013, BIAWC presented the following, more formalized list.

This list is posted on our website under Government Affairs, and we welcome your comments on these suggestions. Give us a call at 671-4247 or send an e-mail to Government Affairs Director Linda Twitchell at lindat@biawc.com.

City of Bellingham Action Steps proposed by BIAWCApril 30, 2013

FIRST STEPS – Low-hanging fruit:

Process land-use applications efficiently and in accordance with the time limits set by law. Previous settlements show there is a problem. Slow processing of recently approved subdivisions has cost developers hundreds of thousands of dollars and the taxpayers of Bellingham undetermined costs for staff time with no measurable benefits.

Do not require payment of System Demand Charges upon issuance of foundation-only permits. Require payment of those fees when the builder purchases the balance of the permit. This will incentivize builders to do their site work during the dry season, reducing the impact of land disturbance work on the environment and increasing efficiencies in the construction process.

Do not require separate land disturbance permits for stockpiling of excavated soils off site when such excavated soil is generated from a currently permitted project. Apply the conditions of the issued permit to the stockpiling site, rather than requiring a separate stockpiling permit.

Allow use of pre-constructed pump stations. Current city policy requires that each system be designed and built from individual components. Pre-constructed systems can save hundreds of thousands of dollars and reduce staff time needed to review and approve those unique systems.

The city should facilitate providing water for mandated on-site mitigation. If mitigation is required to satisfy land-use issues before permanent water service is available on site, the city should provide water at no charge to the owner.

Allow performance bonding for all public improvements and infrastructure necessary to record a subdivision plat. Allowing bonding, in lieu of constructing all required infrastructure before recording a plat, provides a builder needed flexibility in project financing and timing. Bonding to record a plat is standard procedure in many jurisdictions. Bellingham’s code allows it, but the city doesn’t currently encourage it in practice.

Reconsider the city’s 5-year performance bond requirement for critical areas. Whatcom County allows one-year bond increments with annual renewals.

Allow private sector to make final connection to City water mains when expanding or altering the City system. Currently the COB requires its staff to provide the materials, equipment and labor to make final connections. This is typically charged on a time and materials basis and typically develops more cost than the private sector would incur completing the job. City staff would still be responsible for monitoring, inspecting and controlling all flow.

COST OF FEES:

Provide a sliding scale for impact fees and System Demand Charges, descending from the current fee structure, to reflect the size of the house. The current costs provide no incentive to the marketplace to provide affordable housing. In fact, it discourages production of smaller, lower-cost housing.

Defer payment of impact fees (transportation, parks, schools) to final inspection. This is done successfully in Kitsap County, Olympia, Ferndale and other jurisdictions. (We are waiting for the Governor’s signature on this one).

Defer payment of System Demand Charges (water and sewer capacity fees) to final inspection.

Reconsider the cost of all regulatory fees involving SFH construction. The city’s share of the cost of building in Bellingham has increased tenfold in the past decade.

LAND USE:

Inventory all City and other public agency purchases of land since adoption of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Document and quantify any residential unit yield eliminated by changing the use of that land. Define specific steps to return that residential unit yield to the land supply. Require that if the city buys land zoned for residential use, the lost density must be offset – and the decision to purchase must define where the lost density will be relocated.   In 2012 the city proclaimed that an affordable housing emergency exists. Putting a no net loss policy into effect, as recommended in the CHAT report, is essential to market-affordable housing.

Make off-site wetland Mitigation Banking a priority.

Existing platted lots determined to have no wetlands features within their boundaries should not be subject to wetlands review/mitigation from features existing outside their boundaries. Approved platted lots should not be required to mitigate for wetland impacts from offsite wetland features whose buffers extend onto the subject property.

Allow “lot size averaging” in all short plats and subdivisions. This would allow lots of difference sizes so long as the average lot size meets the underlying zoning.

Support city staff’s recommendation to allow single-family homes to include an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU):     • Allow detached two-story garages to house ADUs.
     • Allow conversion of garages to ADUs.
     • Reduce impact fees on ADUs.

Support city staff’s recommendation to allow use of the city’s Infill Toolkit in all SF residential zones. Allow density bonuses to create demand for use of the Infill Toolkit.

Incentivize infill by amending the development regulations to permit TDRs:      a. TDRs exist, but we have no clear mechanism for using them: Establish a “Transfer of Development Rights” definition in BMC 20.08.020.T. To date, TDRs haven’t been utilized.
     b. Establish receiving areas in these zones, throughout the city: Permit TDRs in all Residential Multi, Residential Multi Planned and Urban Village zones at full number or units in the TDR.
     c. Amend BMC 20.32 and 20.38 to permit full use of the TDR, not constricted by other development regulations (setbacks, height limitations, FAR, etc).

Allow existing hookups to reconnect, if they have been discontinued. Not allowing reconnections functionally takes land out of the city’s land availability pool.

Allow new hookups where water and sewer mains already exist within city limits and in the UGA. Increasing the City’s customer base will help defray the cost of providing service by increasing the “density” of the system.

Extend services to vacant land the city has identified for development, within the city and the UGA. According to the GMA, a UGA is an area where development is to be encouraged. Prohibiting extension of services there encourages sprawl elsewhere.

PROCESS:

Establish clear decision tracking for land use decisions by Planners, with written accountability to the Planning Manager. Many current “front line” interpretations result in improper code interpretations that necessitate Legal Department review when they could be resolved quickly by the Planning Manager. Set a clear management protocol for the Planning Manager to intervene and render a timely decision as appropriate within the code. (see first item on this list)

Establish a system of two pre-design conferences between the city and contractor, splitting the normal $600 “pre-application” meeting fee into two events. Ensure that the COB keeps a written record on the discussions for future reference by both parties.
     • First meeting, $200: City and contractor discuss the project. Agree on the concept and feasibility. This sets a direction, so the builder/developer can evaluate their project and the city can determine which departments need to be involved.
     • Second meeting, $400: Contractor and all involved COB departments agree on the general approach to be taken. Map out base parameters and an approval path. Produce a written agreement spelling out the steps to be accomplished, so COB departments are aligned from day one and the contractor has a clear, predictable path to follow.

For better communication between the City Council and affected parties, allow public comment during City Council Committee meetings.   Thank you for moving in this direction!

COMP PLAN REWRITE:

Be clear about actual land availability: Make certain that what is identified as “available land” for residential development in the city is in fact land that can be developed, and that the “supply” reflects the actual number of units that will result after all land-use rules are applied.

Apply density goals citywide. All neighborhoods need to participate and be held accountable to facilitate infill, increase density and meet compliance with GMA.

FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION:

Reconsider the city’s system of relying on fees instead of general tax levies or monthly service charges for infrastructure support.

Re-define all SFR zones to allow at least the average density noted in the city’s Comp Plan (3.8 units per acre is the average noted in the last plan – density in single-family zones in 2003, see Ch2, p12).

Change the rules defining a “building lot,” so clustering by right is allowed in single family zones. This would facilitate building to the underlying density.

Revisit the city’s setback rules. Are all of these practical and advisable in a city where you want to encourage infill? Can tandem or front-setback parking help?

Keep citizens involved in water resource planning

2013-04-11T13:52:00.000-07:00

By Roger Almskaar
Land use consultant, BIAWC member and Whatcom County CAPR president

On March 21, years of effort by many local water interests got results as Whatcom County Executive Jack Louws stated publicly that the proper vehicle for local public participation in water resource planning, known as the Water Resources Inventory Area No. 1 planning unit, should be restored to its statutory role per the state Watershed Planning Act.

Water Resources Inventory Area No. 1 (WRIA 1) is the Nooksack River basin and coastal drainages in Whatcom County.

The Whatcom Chapter of Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) believes this is now the most significant resource issue for the entire county, and that reasonable solutions can be achieved.

Why should we care? Water is key to property rights and economic vitality. Without water, land is useless, and resources such as salmon are threatened. Pending decisions by local, state and federal governments will seriously impact our future water usage, and the planning unit provides the best means for citizens to participate effectively in that process, without spending hours pouring over every detail.

While most citizen committees are only advisory, this law vests the planning unit with responsibility to approve planning documents, which cannot be amended later by county or state government. Thus, the Watershed Planning Act puts those who will be most impacted in the middle of the decision loop.

What's the underlying issue? Since the state established the current system of water rights in 1917, many water users have operated outside the boundaries of water law. A permit is required except for wells limited to certain uses and amounts. The state has refrained from enforcement, recognizing the economic and political impacts. That tolerance is likely to end soon, as demand for water increases. Our state's water rights system is called the doctrine of prior appropriation, or, "first in time, first in right." The rights of senior users, who put their water to use first, may not be impaired by junior users who come later.

The two local tribes hold the most senior rights, because they were here first. In the Yakima basin, through a court case that lasted decades, tribal claims were upheld and many feel the same outcome is possible here. There, new water users will soon have to buy water from a senior right holder, or do without. If and when the quantity due local tribes is determined, everyone else, even with a permit, will be junior. Their usage can be curtailed whenever instream flows fall below pre-determined levels.

To help resolve these issues, in 1999 Whatcom County agreed to become lead agency under the 1997 Watershed Planning Act, joining with Bellingham, the tribes and the Public Utility District, to form the planning unit. It is comprised of local, state and federal governments, along with large and small water systems, well owners, fishers, foresters, farmers, environment and business, all represented through caucuses.

The planning unit produced a preliminary plan, known as the 2005 Watershed Management Plan --Phase One, which was approved by the county council and the state in 2005. Among other things, this plan provided for confidential water rights negotiations with the tribes. After six years, those negotiations have collapsed. The tribes decided to go to court. The prospect of many water users losing their access to this vital resource looms. It is time for the planning unit to come back together and produce an updated plan.

Water has also become an issue now because during the past few years, Bellingham, the Public Utility Distric, Whatcom County and the two tribes decided the planning unit should become advisory only, ignoring its statutory authority to review and approve any such plan or amendments. When in June 2009, the planning unit refused that demand, those responsible for scheduling planning unti meetings simply stopped doing so.

Since then, through years of grassroots efforts, some planning unit members worked to educate and mobilize public support for its restoration. Executive Louws, after studying the issue, and consulting with the county attorney, has determined that the planning unit "has legal status" and has swung his support toward its renewed involvement. We hope other local officials will agree.

However, restoring this legally required and meaningful public participation to our water resource planning is not assured. Some elected and appointed officials seem reluctant to accept a significant role for citizens representing the many diverse and legitimate interests.

Check Hot Topics on the CAPR website for information: capr.us/whatcom. We urge you to become informed and work with the groups listed there, and others to help reach a fair and constructive resolution. Contact your elected representatives, ask them to follow the law and restore the planning unit to its proper role. These decisions will impact every person in Whatcom County, far into the future.

(This article also appeared April 11 in The Bellingham Herald.)

Comp Plan Rewrite progress

2013-03-22T13:38:00.000-07:00

Initial meeting of Whatcom County elected officials on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

By Linda Twitchell, BIAWC Government Affairs Director

The 2016 Comp Plan rewrite process is getting started earlier this time around than it did back when this area’s current plans were drawn up, and to me seems much better organized. There was an introductory session Tuesday in Lynden, where elected representatives of the County, all the smaller cities and Bellingham reviewed a schedule their planning staff leads have been working together on.

This session was chaired by County Executive Jack Louws and attended by:

Bellingham – Mayor Kelli Linville and council members Seth Fleetwood, Jack Weiss.

Blaine – Council members Dennis Olason, Bonnie Onyon, Ken Opplinger.

Everson – Councilman Eric Oettel.

Ferndale – Mayor Gary Jensen and council members Jon Mutchler, Cathy Watson.

Lynden – Council members Gary Bode, Tobey Gelder.

Nooksack – Councilman Tom Jones.

Sumas -- Mayor Bob Bromley.

Whatcom County Council – Sam Crawford.

Planning staff members from several municipalities attended. Non-government observers were Linda Twitchell of BIAWC and Kate Bystone of Futurewise, Wendy Harris and Shane Roth.

All cities have already signed interlocal agreements with the county, and are proceeding jointly to meet GMA requirements that the city and county plans be “coordinated and consistent.”

There will be joint review in the next three years of:

· UGA boundaries

· Land capacity

· Population and employment expectations

· Coordinated capital facilities planning (water, sewer, etc. plus fire service and school districts)

In general, the plan is that study begins on much of these items this year, and final decisions by Planning Commissions and City or County Councils will be made in 2016. Planners noted that the GMA requires early and continuous public involvement.

In 2013, a consultant the county the county has hired – and everyone has agreed to use – will take up:

· Population/employment preliminary recommendations

· Land capacity methodology

· Preliminary UGA alternatives

POPULATION: County planner Matt Aamot reported that Census and Office of Financial Management figures for the past 3 decades show growth across Whatcom County since the 1980s has averaged about 3,000 people a year – which matches the OFM’s countywide “medium” projection for 2036 of 273,911 people (a gain of about 3,000 a year). Various options can be considered for population figures, but this one looks right on the money. (See www.OFM.wa.gov)

LAND CAPACITY: County planner Gary Davis said, “staff has approved the methodology we’ll go forward with,” which will include:

· Assembling GIS parcel data for each UGA

· Categorizing developed, partially developed, used, under-used and vacant land.

· Figuring net development (subtracting developed land, land for schools, parks, critical areas, infrastructure, and considering a “market factor” to ID land that will not be available in the next 20-year planning period).

NOTE: Davis said this information will be drawn from the Assessor’s Office and from the knowledge of local planners, and will be run through councils and planning commissions where the public will be able to testify.

· Multiplying the net developable acreage by assumed densities taken from Comp Plans and zoning codes.

· Comparing this to allocated 20-year population growth, then looking at UGA boundaries.

In 2014:

· A multi-jurisdictional resolution will be drawn up addressing land-capacity analysis, population and employment allocations.

Rollin Harper, consultant planner for Everson, Nooksack & Sumas, said the resolution will be a non-binding, multi-jurisdictional, preliminary look. In the end, the County Council will make the final decision (expected in 2016) on population allocations and UGA boundaries. Work on the resolution will start in the first quarter of 2014, with a County Planning Commission town hall meeting in July, and a hope that the cities will follow with similar meetings in the fall.

In 2015:

· City UGA proposals

· Final EIS

· City and WC planning commission recommendations to councils.

The planners noted that by then everyone will have preliminary growth and population forecasts and land supply analyses – if they match, great. If not, policy decision will have to be made. GMA requires 8-year reviews, and UGA decisions, for instance, can be reconsidered in any year.

In 2016:

· City and County Council reviews and adoption, by June 30 to meet the state’s deadline.

There was a question about whether tribal plans are factored in – concern about the jobs impact of the Lummi Nation request to move 80 acres in southern Ferndale into trust status, where a major retail center may be planned. There was no direct answer; Jack Louws was to meet March 20 with tribal officials to discuss the situation.

2013 MEETING SCHEDULE:

Elected officials from all the cities and Whatcom County will continue to meet, quarterly:

· Wednesday June 5, at Blaine City Council Chambers, 435 Martin Street, Suite 4000 at 3:00 p.m.

· Tuesday September 3, at the Ferndale Police Dept., 2220 Main Street at 3:00 p.m.

· Tuesday December 3, at the County Courthouse, Suite 513 in Bellingham at 3:00 p.m.

Whatcom County Planning Commission will discuss the UGA review and related matters:

· Thursday, June 13 – UGA review briefing and opportunity for public comment.

· Thursday, July 25 – Town hall meeting on preliminary population & employment countywide projection, and allocations to UGAs.

· Thursday Sept. 12 – UGA review briefing and opportunity for public comment.

· Sept.-Nov. (dates TBD) – Hearing and work session on population & employment countywide projections and allocations to UGAs.

· Thursday Dec. 12 – UGA review briefing and opportunity for public comment.

It is anticipated that Planning Commission meetings will continue in 2014-2015.

Whatcom County Council

County Planning & Development Services Department briefings to the Council on the UGA review process are anticipated to continue in June, September and December, and 2014-2016.

Waterfront Planning

2013-03-20T15:09:00.006-07:00

By Linda Twitchell, Government Affairs Director

The Bellingham Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at its 7 p.m. meeting this Thursday, March 21, on city/port Waterfront District development plans. This hearing may be continued on March 28. After that, 4 consecutive weekly Planning Commission work sessions start on April 11, before the project goes to City Council.

This two-month schedule of Waterfront District development meetings began last week with a city/port staff introduction to the Planning Commission. For those who are interested, here’s a report:

The area in question centers on the acreage where GP operated – 237 acres between lower Cornwall Avenue and Bellingham Bay, to be developed over several decades involving gradual city investment.

At last Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting, staff mentioned several times that no single-family homes are planned. The Waterfront plan envisions, at most, 1,400 housing units but they would all involve the kind of dense, highrise mixed development Bellingham frequently labels as urban villages. Planners hope this will include “affordable” (subsidized or down-priced) housing.

Documents the PC will consider:

· The Waterfront District Sub-Area Plan (goals, policies and action steps)

· Waterfront District Development Regulations (will become part of BMC 20.37)

· Waterfront District Design Standards (will become part of BMC 20.25)

· A Planned Action Ordinance (used for projects whose environmental impacts and mitigating measures have been previously addressed in the area’s already-complete EIS. Will become part of BMC 16.20).

Basically – this planning process has been going on since 2003, with much review by staff and advisory committees (“100 public meetings 2005-2010”). The final EIS is done and approved. The plan calls for public investment (cleanup is a big part of that) to enable private investment. Planners figure this area has the potential to accommodate 6,500 new jobs at full build out – which staff warns is many years in the future. Development is planned in phases, the last of which would include relocating railroad lines close to the bluff at the edge of the district – city Public Works Director Ted Carlson reported “we have improved alignment with BNSF.”

The plan favors a working waterfront, with 5 subareas:

1. Downtown waterfront – 37 acres of urban village development, commercial and mixed use with parks and plazas at the northeast end of the district. This is where the housing would be located. This would accommodate every travel mode but is pedestrian oriented (on-street parking everywhere but no big parking lots).

2. The “log pond” (where the log pond used to be, and adjacent land – 52 acres). Industrial mixed use, focus area for jobs, public access along the shoreline.

3. Marine Trades area – 58 acres including the old wastewater treatment lagoon and area north of the lagoon where marine trades now operate. The lagoon would be cleaned up and turned into a marina, for which the port says there already is an excessive waiting list.

4. Shipping Terminal – 25 acres – existing deep-water shipping terminal and adjacent acres. No public access. This is a secure area behind the old Cornwall Avenue port offices.

5. Cornwall Beach – 29 acres that what would become a “legacy park,” which would eventually include an overwater walkway connecting to Boulevard Park (which, for comparison, is 20 acres). This area would include about 2 acres for private ownership – commercial mixed use zoning – at Cornwall Cove (where Cornwall Ave and Wharf Street meet).

More details are available online:

Waterfront subarea webpage: http://www.cob.org/services/planning/waterfront/index.aspx

Reconveyance passes

2013-03-13T11:37:00.004-07:00

By Linda Twitchell, BIAWC Government Affairs Director

The Whatcom County Council held a 5-hour hearing last night (Tuesday, March 12, 2013) on the reconveyance of 8,844 acres of state trust land on Lake Whatcom, returning the land to Whatcom County for use as a park. The Council voted at the end to approve the resolution favoring reconveyance. The vote was 5-2, with Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner opposed.

The meeting will be aired tonight (Wednesday, March 13) at 7 p.m. on TV Channel 10, tune in if you'd like to see it. My take on the meeting was this:

Many speakers pro and con, starting with Jack Weiss accompanied by other City of Bellingham council members who briefly noted that the city favors the reconveyance.

There seemed to be fewer comments about water quality than at last September's hearing, balanced by a like number of people noting that DOE tells us water quality was not at issue, that the reconveyance wouldn't impact the lake's phosphorus problem. Many people speaking in opposition suggested an independent fiscal analysis of the project, said more parkland is not needed in Bellingham where much existing parkland still isn't developed, and asked that the matter be put to a general vote of the people. Many people speaking in favor noted that a park this big (7th largest in the nation, according to one comment) will help attract business and put us on the map, benefiting current and future generations. The reconveyance does more than double Bellingham's park land.

Various Council members promised at the end of the meeting that:
-- the resulting park will not require any tax increase, "no new taxes."
-- management of the acreage will not be turned over to a non-governmental entity (Whatcom Land Trust, for instance). Bill K offered an amendment to stipulate that, which he said had been cleared by the county's legal department; it was voted down for fear that a language change might raise DNR objections.

Council members' comments:

Bill Knutzen expressed concern that the reconveyance will involve "ooops" incidents that raise costs, noted that DOE says this won't resolve Lake Whatcom water quality issues, and noted that the county could take advantage of the DNR's recent offer to pursue recreation plans for the county, but has taken no steps to do so.

Sam Crawford said this is not a proposal to raise taxes, and pointed to a (Tuesday?) letter from Hart Hodges and other economists suggesting the reconveyance would provide economic benefits.

Ken Mann said handing over management to a non-governmental organization "is not on the table." He wasn't impressed by the DNR's recent presentation on recreation, saying they had no money or motivation, or plan. He wants local control of the land and is convinced the reconveyance will be a net positive.

Barb Brenner is concerned about water quality and noted that this won't resolve Ph questions, that the county will have to spend millions to pursue other water-quality fixes. "We have economic problems in this county, continuing cuts," she said. "I'm worried we won't have money for big-bang projects in the watershed." The Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, she said, already gives local control without the potential liability she worries about. Mass wasting, she said, will happen regardless of whether there's logging on this land or not.

Pete Kremen said "the canopy of a reconstituted old growth forest" will be a plus for water quality, costs are basically known and doable, and the financial impact to logging from a reconveyance would be "almost not discernable." Logs from this area are, he said, primarily processed in Skagit County anyway. The $6 million in the Conservation Futures Fund will pay for the park, he said.

Carl Weimer noted that parks represent love and happiness.

Kathy Kershner also noted that money for the project will come from the Conservation Futures Fund, a dedicated fund she feels is flush enough to handle the proposed park. She noted the reconveyance is not a "magic bullet for drinking water," that modern logging practices are not at fault for slides and mass wasting, and that creating "reconstituted old growth forest" will require a forester. She also said the division of trust lands approved last July set aside the best timberland for continued harvest under DNR management -- that is not part of the 8.844 acres discussed here. She said all details aren't worked out yet, that the county needs control of the land before it dives into planning.

Tuesday's vote approved was a resolution stating what direction the county will go. The details -- paperwork and contracts and a park master plan -- will follow, all going before Council for eventual approval. No promises were made about park use. Several council people noted that off-road vehicle use isn't likely, though DNR may be able to select a site elsewhere in the county for that, if Whatcom County becomes a DNR recreation priority area.

Final note -- apparently the letters/e-mails the Council received on this issue have not been posted online. The Parks Department has a reconveyance web page with many documents, but none of the written testimony. I called the Council office this morning, where Jennifer confirmed that the written testimony on this issue was not posted, but said she would be happy to help anyone find what they need if they show up at the Council office at the Courthouse.

VOTE “No” on PROP. 1 – THE CHUCKANUT COMMUNITY FOREST PARK DISTRICT

2013-01-16T10:54:00.001-08:00

A little-discussed election is coming up Feb. 12 in Bellingham. Ballots go out Jan. 24.

Voters on the South Side are being asked to create the “Chuckanut Community Forest Park District,” purportedly to raise property taxes in southwest Bellingham to help pay for Chuckanut Ridge, 82 acres the city bought in 2011 using a loan from the Greenways fund.

We are hearing the comment, “Don’t worry, this is just like the Greenways levy.” But it is nothing like the Greenways levy.

Prop. 1 is not a levy initiative. You are not being asked to approve funding for something. You are being asked to create a new & independent taxing district, which could raise money for a variety of park-related causes, for as long as the park commissioners involved choose to do so. The public will have no say over what property tax increases might result.

The ballot issue only asks 2 questions: Whether to create the new “metropolitan park district,” and who should be chosen as the 5 commissioners, a body that would act independently of the city’s Parks Department and the City Council.

Supporters say the announced goal is to raise $3.2 million to help the city pay its loan to the Greenway fund for the purchase of Chuckanut Ridge. But the ballot does not specify how much money would be raised – for what purpose – or for how long.

The BIAWC Board of Directors strongly recommends that you vote “no” on this issue.

Concerns are many:

· Creating an entirely new level of bureaucracy is not the way to solve the city’s financial problems. City Council members are your elected representatives. They are the body that chose to buy Chuckanut Highlands for use as a park. They should remain responsible for city indebtedness and for making decisions on property tax increases on a citywide basis.

Do we really want to introduce the practice of creating a new, independent commission for each problem the city faces, and asking different areas of the city to take on funding responsibility for those?

Surely better solutions are available. Residents could vote, citywide, to approve a “Greenways 4” levy to pay off Chuckanut Ridge. Or, as the mayor has proposed, the city could enact protections for the natural resources on this land, and still sell a portion of it to cover costs. Other city assets could be sold to pay this debt. The city could sell development rights from the property, enabling the buyer(s) to build elsewhere in the city. For that matter, promoters could pay off the debt directly by holding a private capital campaign. If all 1,600 people who signed the petition for Prop. 1 were willing to pay $2,000 each over the next 10 years, the $3.2 million loan could be retired.

· Proponents say the new park commission, if approved, would raise taxes on the South Side by 28 cents/$1,000 valuation (costing the owner of a $300,000 home $84 a year) for 10 years. But the levy amount and duration are NOT on the ballot. By state law, the commission would have authority to raise taxes by up to 75 cents/$1,000 (as much as $225/year for the same house) with no time limitations.

· The proposed commission would also have authority to condemn property, in AND outside the tax district’s boundaries, to “widen, alter and extend streets, avenues, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds, to enlarge and extend existing parks, and to acquire lands for the establishment of new parks, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds.”

· There is no sunset clause for ending this group’s authority. Once it’s formed, the park commission could disband itself but there is no provision for a public vote to disband the district.

Only South Siders will vote on or be taxed by the proposed district. The proposal encompasses southwest Bellingham – generally south of WWU and west of I-5 to the bay.

Whether you own property or rent in that area, you will pay more for your housing if this is approved. Last year, the City Council declared that Bellingham has an “emergency” regarding lack of affordable housing. But this proposal, added to this year’s 1% property tax increase and the new Bellingham Home Fund, will create at least $175 in new property taxes for that $300,000 house. And that doesn’t include increases in city water, sewer and stormwater user fees that also begin this year.

Now is the time to look into Proposition 1 and discuss the situation with your neighbors.

Read the law – look up RWC 35.61. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.61&full=true#35.61.001

There is an organization, Protect Bellingham Parks, opposing Prop 1. You can ask them for a yard sign, volunteer to walk your neighborhood or host neighbor coffee meetings, or send contributions to the VOTE NO campaign to: Protect Bellingham Parks, Treasurer, 1700 Iowa St., Bellingham, WA 98229-4702. Email: info@protectbellinghamparks.com.
For a citizen’s view of why this should be opposed please see:

www.chuckanutcommunityforestmpd.org

BIAW’s 2013 Legislative Priorities

2013-01-09T12:23:00.001-08:00

Our state organization, the Building Industry Association of Washington, will be pursuing these issues during the upcoming legislative session. Contact your senator and representatives if you have comments or concerns (see contact list at the end).

1. Defer Impact Fees to Time of Closing

Impact fees are a beast. They add to the price of a home, are difficult (if not impossible) to finance, are inequitable, price potential homebuyers out of the market (every $1,000 price increase on a home prices out 4,702 Washington households), and are not reliable revenue sources for local governments or schools. Last year, the Legislature gave local governments the ability to exempt low-income housing from up to 80 percent of their impact fees. Impact fees make it difficult for all homebuilders.

A top BIAW legislative priority in 2013 is to seek sanctuary from impact fees until time of closing. While not eliminating impact fees altogether, delaying the time of collection allows the builders to build the project and pay the impact fees when money is available. Also, it is clear there is no immediate need for the revenue, since the Legislature extended the deadline by which school districts have to spend the money to 10 years.

2. Six-Year Code Cycle

The State Building Code Council (SBCC) reviews and updates all the building codes on a three-year cycle. Since so little construction has taken place between the last code update in 2009 and the most recent in 2012, both builders and code officials do not even know the 2009 codes, particularly the Washington State Energy Code. The SBCC is considering asking the legislature for a permit fee increase to help offset the expensive cost of code updates. Instead of redistributing the cost to homebuilding, why not save the SBCC money and process as well as local governments and builders and switch Washington’s code cycle from three to six-years? Doing so would allow people the time to learn the codes and build to them and would give the SBCC real, concrete data to determine if the code lives up to its purposes. For instance, the SBCC could determine if the energy code does, in fact, save the energy it’s projected to save. Extending the code cycle also gives builders certainty of the regulatory setting in which they are doing business, which is a vital to the success of the industry.

3. Clarify Timeline for Damages from Governmental (In)Action

This BIAW priority stems from a Pierce County court case, Birnbaum, wherein the County took more than five years to process a property homeowner’s application for a land-use permit, violating state law to process the permit in 120 days. The property owner, Wendy Birnbaum, knew in statute (RCW 64.40) that applicants have 30 days to sue if the permit took longer than 120 days to approve or deny. These delays cost property owners time and money and can lead to the demise of the project, even if it’s eventually approved. Birnbaum sued the County after final decision was made—more than five years after the permit application was submitted. The court eventually held that the 30-day timeline for applicant recourse starts before a final decision is issued—it begins as soon as the 120 days processing timeline has been violated. The Washington State Supreme Court refused to hear the case and thus the lower court’s decision stands, however, it is in conflict with other court cases that require applicants to wait until final decision to seek remedy. As of now, no one knows when an applicant can seek remedy for time delay by a local jurisdiction, and builders and applicants are wary of suing a department that is still processing their application for fear of tainting the permit application.

A simple solution is to clarify RCW 64.40 to specifically state that the 30 days to seek financial remedy begins once the final decision has been made. This provides clarity and certainty for builders and local governments.

4. Stormwater

In 2012 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 6406, providing minor stormwater relief for phase II jurisdictions and extending the time for mandatory low impact development (LID) to coincide with jurisdictions’ comprehensive plan updates. LID can be a useful tool to mitigate stormwater, however it works best as a market-based tool, not a forced mandate. The new stormwater permits mandate LID in both phase I and phase II jurisdictions as time rolls on. A key problem with implementation of LID is a lack of professional understanding. Extensive education is necessary for planning department staff and developers. For this reason, BIAW supported a budget proviso that gave the Department of Ecology $1 million in 2012 to be allocated on securing the best LID training in the country, which happens to be the Puyallup extension of Washington State University. BIAW Executive Vice President Art Castle serves on the Ecology work group to ensure that those funds are being used to educate builders and planners. The projected budget to continue and complete this training statewide will be $1 million a year for five years. BIAW will ask the legislature to add $2 million to its biennium budget for LID education.

5. Unregistered Contractors

BIAW members know the underground economy severely undercuts those who play by the rules. The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) is working on enforcing the state requirement that contractors be registered and pay workers’ compensation insurance, but their efforts are barely scratching the surface. In Washington state, any worker injured on the job gets L&I worker’s compensation – regardless of immigration status or if they’re being paid illegally or if the employer is not paying workers’ comp premiums. This unpaid cost gets passed on to those who are paying into the system. The best way to curb unregistered contractors is to remove their market by holding those who hire them accountable and create incentives to report unregistered contractors. Requiring those who hire unregistered contractors to pay a portion of any workers’ comp claim while on that job would help end fraud that not only disenfranchises builders, but also the workers and homeowners.

6. Health Insurance Exchange Fix

In the 2012 legislative session, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2319 passed, continuing implementation of Washington’s state-based health insurance exchange as well as establishing the market rules necessary to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in Washington, effective Jan. 1, 2014.

Health insurance exchanges established by the ACA will offer coverage only to individuals and small groups (2-50 employees). Large groups, including Association Health Plans (AHPs) like BIAW’s and the MBA of King & Snohomish Counties’ qualify as large groups and generally are not regulated by the market rules established by the ACA or in HB 2319.

Unfortunately, the language from HB 2319 created an unclear situation for AHPs and other large groups, as it could be interpreted to mean that they are in fact subject to certain market rules because the law indicates these rules apply in “any market” outside the exchange, which could be interpreted to mean large groups as well.

BIAW, the Association of Washington Business and other groups with similar concerns will submit language to the Legislature that will correct this lack of clarity so that AHPs, large groups and the carriers themselves can move ahead to implement ACA with more certainty. Without such changes, your BIAW health insurance plan may be greatly affected beginning in 2014.

Whatcom County’s state legislative contacts:

40th District:

Senator Kevin Ranker (D) (360) 786-7678

215 John A. Cherburg Fax: (360) 786-7450

Mail to: PO Box 40440 Bellingham: (360) 676-2160

Olympia, WA 98504-0440 E-mail: Ranker.Kevin@leg.wa.gov

Representative Kristine Lytton (D) (360) 786-7800

310 John L. O'Brien Building Fax: (360) 786-1283

Mail to: PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600 E-mail: lytton.kristine@leg.wa.gov

Representative Jeff Morris (D) (360) 786-7970

436A Legislative Building Fax: (360) 786-1276

Mail to: PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600 E-mail: morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov

42nd District:

Senator Doug Ericksen (R) (360) 786-7682

414 Legislative Building Fax: (360) 786-1323

Mail to: PO Box 40442

Olympia, WA 98504-0442 E-mail: ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov

Representative Jason Overstreet (R) (360) 786-7980

422 John L. O’Brien Building

Mail to: PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600 E-mail: overstreet.jason@leg.wa.gov

Representative Vincent Buys (R) (360) 786-7854

465 John L. O'Brien Building Fax: (360) 786-1283

Mail to: PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600 E-mail: buys.vincent@leg.wa.gov

Metropolitan Park District – Feb. 12 ballot issue

2012-12-28T13:14:00.004-08:00

Bellingham residents, please be aware that a special election is planned Feb. 12 on a measure asking South Side voters to create a new junior taxing district. Ballots will be sent out Jan. 24.

Voters on the South Side will decide whether to create a “Chuckanut Community Forest Park District,” which would tax them to help pay for the city’s purchase of Chuckanut Ridge.

The district would encompass southwest Bellingham – generally south of WWU and west of I-5 to the bay. Formation of the district and a vote on 5 commissioners to run it will be on the Feb. 12 ballot. If the plan is approved, the idea is to raise more than $3.2 million in property taxes within the new district to repay a loan from the Greenways fund that helped the city spend $8.2 million on Chuckanut Ridge.

The proposed amount of the new tax was mentioned in the petition for an election, but will NOT be on the ballot. It would be decided later by the park district commissioners, without a public vote. Supporters say a tax levy of 28 cents per $1,000 valuation is envisioned, which would cost the owner of a $300,000 home $84 a year for, presumably, 10 years. The commission would have legal authority, however, to charge property owners up to 75 cents per $1,000 in value (up to $225/year for the same house), without a time limit.

The proposed commission could, we’re told, condemn property in or out of the district for use as trails, connectors or moorage. There is concern that because this would be an independent board, their actions might violate the city’s transportation or parks plans. There’s also concern that tax levies approved could raise the issue of double taxation (since South Side residents still will pay for the city’s regular parks operations), or that this might discourage approval of later levies needed to pay the city’s unfunded liabilities – such as retirement funds, library improvements, waterfront development, etc.

Bellingham bought Chuckanut Ridge arguing that its use as a park would benefit the entire city, which also raises the question of why South Side residents, alone, should be asked to pay for such a large chunk of it.

BIAWC advises voters to look into the details before voting on this measure.

First Use of the Bellingham Home Fund

2012-11-27T15:03:00.001-08:00

It looks like the public’s vote this fall in favor of the Bellingham Home Fund will indeed lead to greater support of social services in the city. The first allocation of this new tax will not, however, be used for housing as promised during the Home Fund campaign.

At a budget work session on Monday (Nov. 26), City Council tentatively adopted a plan to boost spending on a host of social programs that need more money. Many of these may be on your preferred nonprofit list, and are needed and worthy of support. But most of the additional money earmarked for them – $26,000 – will come from the Bellingham Home Fund’s rental services section, according to city staff member David Stalheim. This is money that voters were told would be set aside to help with home rentals for needy, low-income people.

That $26,000 will be used instead for a variety of social programs involving temporary shelter (Womencare Shelter, Northwest Youth Services, Sean Humphrey House, the Opportunity Council’s winter emergency shelter, etc.), physical health/mental health (Interfaith Community Health Center, Evergreen AIDS Foundation, LAW Advocates), and “basic needs” programs like Maple Alley Inn and the Opportunity Council’s Community Voice Mail program.

Mr. Stalheim’s proposal on this to City Council shows two sources of funding to bring social services up to speed. One is the $26,000 from the Home Fund. The other is reallocation of $14,619 that had been budgeted for Whatcom Counseling & Psychiatric Clinic, which has found funding elsewhere, according to John Carter, the city’s finance officer. Carter said he didn’t know which social service programs would actually get the Home Fund money – but none of those listed involves rental assistance.

Meals on Wheels, one of the only social programs that drew favorable testimony at the city’s Nov. 19 budget hearing, is set to receive an additional $1,397, for a total of $7,792 in 2013. BIAWC had written in support of more money for that program. Our mission is support of home ownership, and Meals on Wheels helps elderly people stay in their homes.

Council changes to Mayor Kelli Linville’s proposed budget that were tentatively approved at the budget work session also include non-social service programs that now are set to receive money (or more money) from the general fund:
     • Sustainable Connections, which received support at the budget hearing, will get another $10,000 in 2013 for its “Think Local First” program. Another $20,000 presumably will go in 2013 to Sustainable Connection’s Green Building Smart Growth initiative, which had been dropped from the budget altogether. The motion supporting Green Building didn’t name Sustainable Connections, but that agency has been the contractor in the past.
     • More money for public TV, which also drew supportive testimony.
     • And another $5,200 for legislative staff.

Funding, or lack thereof, for the city’s Public Development Authority is more complicated and remains in question. PDA was seeking official approval to use proceeds from the sale of its 1100 Cornwall Ave. property (to Catholic Community Services) for its 2013 operations. Councilman Terry Bornemann countered with a proposal to limit use of that money (generated from the city's parking fund) for work on parking projects; Council approved his motion twice. The only other ready source of funding for PDA is the general fund reserve, but Gene Knutson, in particular, strongly opposes dipping into the city’s reserves to the extent that would be necessary.

On Monday, Dec. 3, City Council members may decide not to fund PDA, essentially disbanding it. Or Council could take Jack Weiss’ suggestion to fund PDA through 2013 and decide as PDA reaches various thresholds on its next, “Army Street,” project whether to continue. This will be taken up in committee, then probably on the Council floor. BIAWC has written suggesting it is time to disband the PDA.

There is no hearing planned Monday night, but if you have concerns about use of the Bellingham Home Fund money, use of the city’s “parking fund” money, or comments on the PDA’s future, you can speak during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. This is one of your last opportunities to let Council know your preferences regarding the 2013-2014 budget, which is scheduled for introduction Monday and action on Dec. 10.

BIAWC backs "site-specific" Gateway EIS

2012-10-25T10:21:00.001-07:00

The first local “scoping” meeting, to comment on the breadth and content of the Gateway Pacific Terminal’s upcoming EIS, is this Saturday, Oct. 27, 11 a.m.-3 p.m. at Squalicum High School, 3773 E. McLeod Road.

BIAWC has not taken a stand on GPT. But we oppose a cumulative EIS –because of the practical issues involved in finding accurate data for such a broad-based analysis, and because of the threat such a precedent poses to any kind of industrial development. We believe a site-specific approach is more appropriate and practical. BIAWC has sent the following letter as “scoping” testimony:

Oct. 24, 2012

Gateway Pacific Terminal “Scoping” Comments

Dear Sirs:

The scope of the Environmental Impact Statement to be required of the Gateway Pacific Terminal bulk commodities export terminal proposed at Cherry Point is now under consideration. BIAWC has not taken a stance for or against the GPT proposal, but is extremely concerned that you not apply a “cumulative” approach to scoping for this or any similar EIS.

We ask that the lead agencies limit the scope of Gateway’s EIS to a site-specific study of what is proposed at the Cherry Point site and to infrastructure in Whatcom County that would support it.

We’re extremely concerned about the precedent that will be set if you require a marine terminal infrastructure environmental review to include analysis of the source and destination of the commodities to be moved.

We are concerned that a “cumulative” or “programmatic” approach to an EIS is in fact an attempt to limit interstate commerce. The point of an EIS is to study the terminal design and operating impacts, not commodity impacts, which are not guaranteed in a free market system. Market forces, not regulatory agencies, determine what is shipped over our rails and roadways. It’s our understanding that the railroads cannot refuse legal loads. Changing that system should demand a much broader legal debate and action than the methods used to define the scope of one project’s EIS.

We’re concerned that even if you wanted to, there is no accurate means of evaluating any project’s actual environmental effect on a regional, national or worldwide basis. It’s impossible to realistically evaluate the “cumulative” effect of any project unless you can accurately predict all other potential contributors, and their effects. How would you find that information? Where would you draw the line? How would you obtain accurate information on other contributors’ future actions? If shipments of U.S. coal are said to be dangerous to the global environment, for instance, how much larger will the carbon footprint be if the Chinese instead buy softer, dirtier-burning coal from Indonesia? And who is to determine whether that would occur? We simply don’t know in what directions market forces in this country or governments elsewhere, as in China, will take us. It cannot be accurately predicted.

Setting a precedent that requires a “cumulative” analysis would be economically devastating to this state and nation. Significant delays and economic problems would result for the development of freight infrastructure as a whole if our state and federal agencies shift to such broad-scale impact analysis. “Death by 1,000 lawyers” is a common tactic used by those who oppose economic development, and this is a similar approach. If we set that as a precedent, it’s doubtful that any large project could ever come to fruition. This is of grave concern to our local tax base and our governmental revenue system, and support of our community through intelligent growth and “living-wage” jobs.

Encouraging limitations to trade is also in direct opposition to our national regulatory actions. President Obama signed Executive Order 13534 on March 11, 2010, setting a goal of doubling exports in the next five years by working to remove trade barriers. On Dec. 13, 2011, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued draft guidance stating as its purpose “efficient and timely environmental reviews.” This further notes that “NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise reviews and documentation that are proportionate to and effectively convey the relevant considerations in a timely manner to the public and decision makers…” In a March 2012 Executive Order, the President further stated, “Federal permitting and review processes must provide a transparent, consistent, and predictable path for both project sponsors and affected communities.”

BIAWC asks that you limit the scope of the EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal to the project itself. The environmental review should be project/site specific, not broadly drawn to capture the overall system of commerce across the West, the nation or the world. Doing so sets extremely bad legal precedent, runs against our national economic interests, and would be neither accurate nor practical.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Don Robinson, Brian Evans

BIAWC President BIAWC Executive Officer

Helping the homeless - "Our House" campaign

2012-10-24T14:36:00.001-07:00

In taking a stance against Bellingham’s proposed “Low Income Housing Levy,” the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County has encouraged the public to become more active in private efforts to help the homeless.

The idea is to provide help without imposing new taxes that will harm more low-income people than they help, and to put your money to direct use rather than spending your tax dollars on additional bureaucracy.

A good example of one of the many local programs that help the homeless is the Interfaith Coalition of Whatcom County’s “Our House” program. There’s a fund-raising effort underway that ties in with this Saturday’s (Oct. 27, 2012) “Make a Difference Day” celebrations. Here’s a good chance to support the cause of creating homes for those in need.

“Our House” is a private, non-profit effort to provide housing for families that are not eligible for help at local shelters. When Our House began, a homeless single parent who needed help couldn't take teenage boys to Lydia Place (which now accepts boys), or take children to area men's shelters. (Those programs are excellent and effective, but have restrictions on the age of children involved, or involving children at all.) These conditions put some parents in a position where they have to choose between finding shelter and splitting up a family.

The Interfaith Coalition’s “Our House” program owns eight housing units in Bellingham and one in Ferndale – a mix of houses and one four-plex. “These are available to homeless families, that’s our caveat,” reports Pastor Bobbi Virta of the United Church of Ferndale.

The program cooperates with case workers from Lydia Place and The Opportunity Council to aid families in need of housing.

Our House owns a “humble” 60-year-old home in Ferndale that the group wants to repair, Virta explained. The property is zoned multi-family, so the group wants to build a duplex on the back of the lot, increasing the capacity from one to three families. Plans for the project are drawn up, and the group is starting on permit approval with hopes of building in the spring.

To do that, repair the older home, and create a “small maintenance fund” serving all the project’s units, a campaign was launched in June to raise $500,000. The coalition also reports it would welcome in-kind contributions to help with the repairs or building.

This Saturday, the group will sponsor a “Hands Across Ferndale” event at 1:30 p.m. along a 2-mile route through town, to raise money for Our House. Donations of $10 or more can be made at one of four stations along that route:

· United Church of Ferndale, 2034 Washington St.

· Samuel’s Furniture, 1904 Main St.

· True Value Hardware, 2000 Main St.

· Ferndale Community Resource Center, 5694 Second Ave.

For more information on the program, contact Pastor Bobbi Virta at 384-3302 or bobbi@unitedchurchofferndale.com.

Vote “NO” on Bellingham's “Low Income Housing Levy”

2012-10-23T15:04:00.000-07:00

Helping the homeless and those struggling to stay in their homes is a humane, socially responsible thing to do. That’s not the issue, however, in deciding whether to back the proposed Bellingham Low Income Housing Levy. The question is, would this levy accomplish that goal without unforeseen negative consequences?

The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County is opposing this tax, and asks that city voters consider the following points.

• Is this the time for a new tax?

This proposal collects $3 million/year for seven years by adding $.36/$1000 of assessed valuation (for example, this would add $90/year on a $250,000 property).

Bellingham has more than $100 million in “unfunded liabilities.” These are obligations like retirement programs to which the city is already committed. Is this the time to tie up levy capacity with a new program?

The city is considering annual increases for each of the next 4-5 years in its sewer charge, water charge and stormwater charge, and a property tax increase. In addition to that, if you combine the Home Fund with last year’s sales tax increase and this May’s 140 percent increase in the city’s watershed acquisition fee, Bellingham residents will be supporting more than $10 million in tax increases that have accumulated just since April 2011. Is this the time for yet another tax?

• Do we need a new fund?

Helping low income and homeless persons is a good cause, nobody is debating that. But we already pour a lot of money into that effort, with good results. The Housing Authority’s budget alone is about $45 million a year. The Whatcom County Housing Program has cut the number of homeless here by 42 percent since 2008 – fewer than 500 people representing about 360 households were counted this year. We have cut the number of homeless veterans by 66 percent since 2008 – 46 were counted this year. Existing programs are very successful. Do we need a new fund?

• Will this help or hurt the majority of low-income residents?

The Home Fund would affect everyone – homeowners will pay higher taxes and renters presumably would pay higher rent, as costs are passed on to them. Research suggests that a dozen low-income residents will have to pay higher taxes or rent to support every low-income person who receives support.

• Do you know what this new tax would be used for?

The 44-page “Home Fund Administrative and Financial Plan” scheduled for Council action on Nov. 19, if the levy is approved, includes money for food and mentoring for low-income children, arguing that any support for low-income families will help fight homelessness. The plan suggests using the fund to promote planning goals (“implementing city infill and Urban Village strategies”). It suggests that homes in historic neighborhoods be targeted for help because fixing them may cost more than fixing housing in neighborhoods where housing is cheaper. We urge you to consider the details. Do such criteria ensure that your taxes will be used to best advantage, to help the most needy?

The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County encourages you to vote “no” on the Home Fund, and instead consider donating your time or money directly to existing efforts to end homelessness in Whatcom County.

"Scoping" for Gateway Pacific Terminal

2012-10-17T10:23:00.001-07:00

What do you think should be included in Gateway Pacific Terminal’s Environmental Impact Statement?

We have begun a comment period that give you a chance to comment on the Gateway Pacific Terminal’s “scoping" process. Gateway is a proposed deep-water, bulk commodity export terminal at Cherry Point that will initially involve coal shipments. Lead agencies soon will be deciding what ground to cover in the project's EIS.

Three local hearings will be conducted:

• 11 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 27 at Squalicum High School, 3773 E. McLeod Road.

• 4-7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 5, at McIntyre Hall, 2501 E. College Way in Mount Vernon

• 3-7 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 29, at the Ferndale Events Center, 5712 Barrett Road in Ferndale

Hearings also are scheduled Nov. 3 in Friday Harbor, Nov. 13 in Seattle, Dec. 4 in Spokane, and Dec. 12 in Vancouver, WA.

Written comments on the “scope” of the EIS also can be submitted until Jan. 21, 2013, by e-mail to comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov , via the webpage www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov or by regular mail sent to: GPT/Custer Spur EIS, c/o CH2M HILL, 110 – 122th Ave. NE, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98004.

Scoping is designed to collect comment on four topics affecting Gateway’s eventual EIS:

• Reasonable range of alternatives

• Potentially affected resources and extent of analysis of those resources

• Significant unavoidable adverse impacts

• Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate effects of the proposals

Make your voice heard.

People attending a public hearing can sit and write their comments, or present them verbally to the public. At each hearing there will be an open house area with information about the Gateway proposal.

Verbal comments will be limited to two minutes per person. You’re advised to prepare comments in advance. You can summarize your comments verbally and provide more detail in writing. To testify, you must sign in 30 minutes before the scheduled end of each meeting. Observers are asked to remain quiet and respectful. If you want to show support, you’re asked to raise your hand. Agencies present will listen but will not respond to comments or questions during the hearing.

When testifying, you will be asked to state your name and address. Suggestions: clearly state your position, pro or con. Address relevant criteria such as jobs, tax benefits, zoning regulations. Say how the project will affect your family, business, school, etc. Request action – what to you want the decision makers to do? Submit a written version of your comments for the public record.

Online information on the Gateway Pacific Terminal includes:

SSA Marine, the project proponent: http://gatewaypacificterminal.com/

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsReleases/tabid/2408/Article/4373/scoping-begins-sept-24-for-proposed-gateway-pacific-terminal-eis.aspx

State Department of Ecology: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/gatewaypacific/

Whatcom County: http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/current/gpt-ssa/index.jsp

Coal Train Facts, a nonprofit that emphasizes opponents’ arguments (gives the “costs” of the project but doesn’t list the advantages): http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/

ReSources, project opponent: http://www.re-sources.org/home/Gateway-Pacific-Terminal

Building Industry Association of Whatcom County

Latest news from Bellingham City Council

Habitat tries to break cycle of inadequate housing, health problems

Bellingham Noise Ordinance changes defeated

WRIA 1 Planning Unit -- what's this all about?

KOONTZ – Court forbids exorbitant permit requirements

Make your vote count!

Election season is here – how will you participate?

County Council appeals GHMB decision

New facts on Lake Whatcom Overlay lead to ordinance delay.‘Rural Element’ passes despite Futurewise attempt to extend debate.

Chuckanut Community Forest Park District - "mission" hearing June 27

GMHB’s new decision threatens exempt wells

Rural cluster plat rules are changing

Gov. Inslee’s veto will slow economic recovery

Action Steps for Bellingham – Building a Stronger Industry & Community

Keep citizens involved in water resource planning

Comp Plan Rewrite progress

Waterfront Planning

Reconveyance passes

VOTE “No” on PROP. 1 – THE CHUCKANUT COMMUNITY FOREST PARK DISTRICT

BIAW’s 2013 Legislative Priorities

Metropolitan Park District – Feb. 12 ballot issue

First Use of the Bellingham Home Fund

BIAWC backs "site-specific" Gateway EIS

Helping the homeless - "Our House" campaign

Vote “NO” on Bellingham's “Low Income Housing Levy”

"Scoping" for Gateway Pacific Terminal

New facts on Lake Whatcom Overlay lead to ordinance delay.
‘Rural Element’ passes despite Futurewise attempt to extend debate.