Ham-

Kinda hard to have City representation at their meeting when their published agenda says nothing of initiating litigation for executive session.  It does say that open session is a work session and “no formal actions” will be taken.

Scott said ?I just don?t see anything else we can do now to move this forward.?  Funny, I have not been asked or talked to as a Councilmember about any of this - just sued.  I guess it was convenient to skip a step.

Yeah, it would be nice to have some cooperation between the Port and the City on this and other things.

What are we as the City supposed to do?  Enable this behavior?

Jack, Thanks for joining in.

All the evidence is that there is a broken process and it has been broken for some time.  My hope for government is that 1) problems get fixed, 2) the public is kept informed and 3) our precious taxpayer dollars are well spent.

My worry is that if the City and Port can’t figure out how to resolve a water connection issue at the airport, how will they ever be able to handle the waterfront redevelopment, let alone any of the other pressing local and regional issues. 

If how our local governments work together is a core problem, then I would hope our elected officials step up, set aside the past and fix it. 

Is that not what is important?

It is always laudable to counsel peace, compromise and cooperation.  It is more difficult to decide when to draw the line.

Too often our attention is directed to the particular in order to distract us from thinking about the general.  We get tied up in a discussion of an exception before we even understand the rule.

The issue here is not about a fire station or a water hookup.  At issue is how growth and development will proceed and be managed.

Critical is the availability and provision of urban services, and we have determined that the city is the logical entity to provide those services.  This puts them rightly at the heart of the planning process.

And this makes sense because, if you haven’t noticed, the city ends up having to deal with all the unforeseen and ill considered consequences of growth decisions made by the county and junior agencies like the port.

After years of less than appropriate decisions to extend services outside its boundaries, Bellingham finally adopted a policy of only providing water where it intended to eventually annex. 

Prior to annexation, this allows them to control development in areas designated for future growth through inter-local agreements that prevent the ill-planned activities of the past that create enormous expense for the city.

Of course the POB resents being brought under control.  But get used to it, Junior.  Quit wasting the taxpayers money.  You’re losing enough already.

Ham,

Yes, the Port does have a strong basis for their position - past City utility approvals to provide services cannot be summarily dismissed.  This begs the question of all the private property owners and other public agencies in the same situation. 

The airport is in a very large service zone in unincorporated Whatcom County adjacent to Bellingham’s northern and eastern City limits.  Similar circumstances exist south of the City limits (think Larabee State Park and Governors Pointe).  In several similar cases, the Washington State Supreme Court has required municipalities to fulfill prior approvals for providing water and sewer services.  The winning property owners collected large damage awards. 

This issue came to City Council in early 2007 when the City staff advocated prohibiting new water and sewer connections outside the City limits.  The Council agreed, then expanded the position to prohibit hook-ups in previously approved water and sewer zones.  Many property owners complained, and ultimately a 2 year “grace period” was established for folks to “use it or lose it”.  Unfortunately, this arrangement may still run against the past WA Supreme Court decisions should the City enforce this policy. 

The Port is doing the right thing by protecting its (and the taxpayers’) interests.  Other public agencies and private property owners will watch this closely (or join in the suit?).  Should the issue go to trial, a judicial decision may be the best way to redirect an ill-conceived City policy so that an obligation to serve is fulfilled. 

The financial impact on Bellingham taxpayers for not fulfilling this obligation can be huge.  Let’s hope the Port’s actions brings some reality to the table.

This is definitely about how growth will be managed, whether the City’s policy for service extension has any teeth.

There is an interesting parallel between the Port’s request and the current request from developers at Governor’s Point.  Both have had long-standing services that they now wish to expand.

There is an important difference: The fire station at the airport could qualify as an “Essential Public Facility” within the City’s new ordinance for EPFs under the Growth Management Act.

For the City, the question is whether their policy needs refinement.  For the Port, it is a question of what rights their earlier service implies.

For citizens, it may be whether an airport expansion that could attract overflow traffic from Seattle is appropriate in the middle of the combined Bellingham/Ferndale UGAs.

Mr. Geyers remarks are welcomed.  It is informative to learn the position of the Building Industry of Washington on this issue.

It would be truly informative if Mr. Geyer would actually tell us which Washington Supreme Court rulings they feel are precedent here.

We know that the court’s ruling in November of 2002, in Cooper Point Assoc v Thurston County, clearly upheld the prohibition of expansion of urban services in rural areas.

That matter certainly involved plans initiated before the passage of the Growth Management Act to expand services.  Appeals of the Growth Management Hearings Board ruling against Thurston County’s expansion plans were ultimately settled at the State Supreme Court.

It would, again, be interesting to learn what subsequent case the BIA looks to in hopes of circumventing growth management.

Any final resolution of this ‘issue’ by a lawsuit is unlikely, but some degree of clarification might be.

First, this issue is actually a nest of related issues, including among others; City annexation policy; City control of its water system; B&O;taxes and their impact on where businesses are located; determining the extent, boundaries and timing of any potential annexation(s); determining the need for a new or expanded Fire Facility serving most particularly the airport, and who will pay for its construction, staffing and overall management; whether the Port needs to, or can delegate some of its Federally mandated responsibilities to the City or other entity; whether prior recipients of water & sewer services have the inherent right to demand -and receive- additional or expanded service,

Second, this is certainly not the first time some of these inter-related issues have been discussed. So, a lawsuit has not just appeared out of the blue! Sometimes, legal solutions are the ones that people will understand and be bound by, so avoidance of every potential litigation is not always advisable. For better or worse, our system of government is based upon duly considered laws, and since these sometimes overlap or seem to contradict themselves, courts must step and settle disputes. That also includes the matter of examining past and current policy to see whether past poor policies have the effect of setting precedents that cannot be changed to fit current conditions.

Depending upon what the lawsuit actually asks, both the Port and the City will be obliged to consider these issues very carefully, and hopefully also comprehensively, so that what results is clear and unambiguous to all concerned. It would be instructive to obtain what is actually being contested before launching into generalities and speculation about outcomes.

Third, if I were the Port, I’d be tempted to just say ‘I agree to annex’, then let that empty promise drag on and never become consummated. After all, that has happened frequently in the past - because of the City’s laxity in demanding annexation BEFORE extending services!
That is the time of the City’s greatest leverage! Why not require annexation?

Fourth, because the City’s water is treated to meet Dept of Health requirements, and in fairness to its rate-payers, there are conditions attached to extending water [and sewer] services outside of City Limits. The City Council sets those criteria, and now one of those is requiring the certainty of annexation. While that is a change from past practice, it is a prudent and legal one.

Fifth, the Port’s proposed new Fire Station really has little -to nothing- to do with the other issues being debated. Of course, public safety is always paramount, and to insinuate otherwise is a deliberate deception! It sounds like the Fire Station is a red herring, largely being used to strengthened the Port’s other demands.

I hope this will confirm that, yes, this issue is a lot deeper and wider than a superficial discussion over whether a lawsuit between disagreeing jurisdictions is necessary!

Mr Geyer’s response is disingenuous squared; because of what it doesn’t say, as well as what is does. But, hope springs eternal for those who continually wish to game the system for their own ends. Comparing the airport situation and -most particularly the commercially zoned property nearby [already within the UGA]- to the proposed Governor’s Point development, is like comparing a real living tree to a small child’s drawing of one.

Lawsuits ought to be a last resort, so the Port must legitimately feel its run out of other options to obtain City agreement to its desires. If that’s the case, the Port’s gotta do what it’s gotta do. That means the City’s gotta do it too. Pretty simple to be so complicated, huh?