Proposed Annexation of Geneva Area to City of Bellingham

Browsing with a Smartphone?
— It is suggested that the phone be rotated to a horizontal position for a better viewing experience.
— To anonymously vote in the Informal Non-binding Survey scroll all the way to end of the post before comments.

INTRO:

1. Greetings from the Gem known as Geneva (the other Geneva):

I’m Mick A. Kozlov. To some I’m known as MAK, to my neighbors TNL (Token Neighborhood Liberal). On a political scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the most progressive, I’m a 6. So to the many and various progressive environmental NGOs that I support, like the Sierra Club etc., I’m known as ATM. I’m unabashedly Left-leaning, sadly, cognizant of the harmful environmental (and economic) effects of climate change on THE Planet(No Planet B) and the protection and preservation of wildlife. (Hint: Pink Lawn Flamingos do not count as an ‘endangered species’).

That said, as discussed below, I believe the proposed Annexation would do nothing to further protect the environment, and water quality of Lake Whatcom in particular; and
a) that some provisions of the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) represent governmental/bureaucratic over-reach; and
b) despite some of the acknowledged positives, could pose a net overall  negative impact, in particular the erosion of your property rights of  use, utility and enjoyment of your property within the Geneva Area; and
c) Or…If it ain’t broke…

A little about my personally relevant living situation which I suspect is not that unique. I currently reside solo in a modest demur dwelling with a breathtaking view of Lake Whatcom, that I cherish every single day. I literally custom built the house in the Geneva Area in 1997 with the distinct design objective of entering…and exiting ACT III, with dignity, in my own home and on my own terms.

Many of the homes in Geneva are larger than average (some between 4,000-5,000 sf) of so-called “empty-nest” homes owned by retirees with much of the square footage essentially unutilized. But…with Social Security Insurance (SSI) not even remotely keeping up with  a rapidly increasing Cost of Living, at some point, for anyone  living on a fixed income that could mean having to utilize a portion of their home to generate rental revenue, or to accommodate a live-in assisted-living care giver to be able to age in place with independence and yes, dignity. COB BMC as proposed by Annexation could severely constrain an aging homeowner from capitalizing/enjoying the utility of their asset.

So, I’m just a (cranky-hey-you-kids-get-off-of-my-gravel) old guy living out his years in what I consider paradise, aging in place with design elements I initially incorporated to allow me to live here as long as I can remain vertical, and physically…and financially viable. How old you were about to ask? I was 19 when, when sadly JFK was assassinated. Yeap..that old.

By the way, I’m a dues paying member of the Coronado Heights Homeowners Assoc. (CHHOA) incorporated in 2015. That along with flashing my AARP and Costco cards makes me feel kind of special. Or not.

So, a little about this website. It was designed and is maintained by me at my own expense. Just on old dog trying to learn new technical tricks. It is an unofficial resource for members of the CHHOA. To limit access to certain information that is considered proprietary certain links have been password protected to maintain confidentiality.

2. The opinions expressed here, excluding comments by others to this post, are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Directors, or other members of the CH HOA.

3. The purpose of this post/website is to inform and promote proactive participation, including but not limited to, discussion on matters that may affect property owners who reside in the Geneva Area, more specifically members of the CHHOA.

4. To better understand how your quality of life could be unnecessarily compromised…and gratuitously complicated by the Proposed Annexation, please read on.

THE PROPOSAL:

1. On May 2, 2019 @6pm at Geneva Elementary School,  A Discussion on Annexation was hosted by the University of Washington Master of Urban Planning Studio, in which I and several other members of the CHHOA attended. I was quite impressed with the comprehensive knowledge, professionalism and very accommodating attitude of the Graduate Students from UW who were conducting the Studio–essentially an academic exercise, like a Lab, to hone their skills in preparation for entry into the profession of Urban Planning. Sending a big thanks, and a well done!
Here’s a link that will explain the UW-Bellingham Annexation Research Initiative

2. What follows are my preliminary impressions/opinion of the potential impact, direct and indirect, and the intended and potential unintended consequences of the proposed Annexation of the Geneva Area to the boundaries of the City of Bellingham, (COB) as proposed on May 2, 2019. The Geneva Area is currently under governmental regulation, with police/fire services provided/regulated by the authority of the Whatcom County government granted by the State of Washington.

OK. With all that out of the way, let’s have a look under the hood of what’s being proposed for the Annexation of Geneva on May 2, 2019–the good, the bad…and yes, perhaps the ugly:

For starters, for those of you who did not attend, below is the front and back of the announcement handout at the meeting on May 2nd. (emphasis in red by me)

Figure 1 – Front page of handout on May 2nd Meeting. Note red rectangal (mine)

Figure 2 – Back page of handout on May 2nd Meeting. Note red underline (mine)

A (VERY) BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS: (updated 05-09-2019)

1. As I understand it, a petition process is initiated and circulated by “a resident” (not necessarily a landowner but not COB) of the proposed area of annexation, whereby if 10% (ten percent) of the residents (approximately over 1,200 residents including tenants maybe approximately 1,000 landowners) would sign/approve Annexation, the matter would then be referred to the Bellingham City Council (BCC) for further consideration/action. This petition would require the following to be included with the signed petition:
a) Application Fee of $600 paid for the applicant(s.) If a professional land use consultant is used, the cost to be paid for by the applicant(s).
b) A certified survey of the boundaries etc. paid for by the applicant(s).

On the weekend of May 11, 2019 students from the UW Masters Class of Urban Planning will be conducting a door-knocking survey with a list of questions to take the pulse of members of the Geneva community re Annexation. This is an excellent opportunity especially if you oppose annexation to make your intentions known on how you would view annexation, and whether you would sign the initial 10% petition.

No 10% –No Annexation. End of Story.

2. If, after the initial review by the BCC, they approve going forward, then Staff would work up a report on the issues/findings/legalities etc. and report back to the BCC. If the BCC elects to continue to move forward,  comments from the public would be solicited and open public hearings would then be conducted.

A very complicated process would  then follow that identifies and quantifies potential issues involving inter-local government sovereignty i.e. negotiation  re fire, and police protection, water and sewer, tax revenue distribution etc.. The whole process from beginning to end could take anywhere from a year to several years for final ratification,  depending on the complexity of interest of the stakeholders.

This would provide the greatest and most effectual opportunity to state your position for the record, especially if you are in opposition to Annexation.

3. The BCC would then decide whether to move forward. If so, another petition again initiated by a resident or or legal agent thereof, requiring a super majority of 60% (sixty percent) of the total tax base valuation of the verified property land owners from the County Assessor’s records that reside in the Geneva Area only. If the authentication process passes muster, COB would then undertake the final process of  inter-local government negotiation re fire, and police protection, water and sewer, tax revenue distribution etc.. and ratification  Again, No 60% — No Annexation. Full Stop.

4. By the way, it is my considerably researched opinion that Annexation by COB ostensibly would NOT provide more environmental protection of water quality of Lake Whatcom Reservoir than already exists under current Whatcom County and WA State law and environmental regulations.

Here’s a map of the Proposed Geneva Annexation Area

Map of City of Bellingham Urban Growth Areas (UGA). Annexed or under consideration for Annexation. Geneva (Area 14) initially scheduled for 1st Qtr. of 2020 for initiation of the process which has to be initiated by at least 10% of verified resident(s) (including but not limited to landowners — NOT COB initiated)  signing a petition.

Lake Whatcom Watershed currently within the City of Bellingham
COB Lake Whatcom Watershed Ch. 16 – Land Use (13 pp)

Here’s a short preliminary, but by no means final, list of some of the more unsettling concerns I have as unintended, potentially detrimental, consequences of Annexation:

ISSUE NO. 1  – The high cost of “lower” taxes.

From Figure 1 above note handout states “The average single family home owner will pay $83 less a year in taxes and fees.”
Note emphasis in red on the “$83 less”. I believe this is the equivalent in commercial advertising of a “loss leader” designed to induce, in fact seduce. a buyer to suspend skepticism by making an initial extremely attractive offer (coupled with invoking the T-word anathema ). If it sounds too good to be true…it probably is. 

By the way, for the average annual property tax for homes in Geneva this so-called net saving amounts to approximately less than 2%.

What is not discussed is the trade-off for the so-called lower property taxes and a few minimal reductions in cost of services etc. In my opinion, it could mean more restrictive Byzantine layers, or unknown unknowns, of regulatory bureaucracy, and as you will see further down, governmental/bureaucratic over-reach eg. Rental Regulation Ordinance.

The general level, for the most part, of regulation in Whatcom County is less restrictive than the City of Bellingham.  Additionally on Figure 2, underscored in red by me, potentially creating an additional layer of burdensome regulation and filings etc. to the City of Bellingham for existing Homeowners Associations.

This may well in fact trigger a new and different more stringent/restrictive set of regulations etc. re issues like Retention/Detention Ponds etc. currently regulated by Whatcom County. Different bureaucracy…different rules of the road and players. Best to deal with the devil you know? TBD.

ISSUE NO. 2  – Rental Regulation: A Hammer in Search of a Nail?

Currently Whatcom County generally does NOT require registration, regulation, inspections and fees for rental units within Whatcom County.

That would all change if annexed by COB. ALL rentals except those exempted (very few) would be legally required to register their rental with COB.

To a hammer…everything looks like a nail…

This COB rental regulatory scheme as proposed seems gratuitous, overzealous and frankly, unnecessary in Geneva. It is perhaps a response to the many documented landlord abuses that cater to Western Washington University students. A classic example of the old legal axiom…bad cases make bad law. But Geneva, I suspect has very few WWU students who rent because of the cost. Besides there are already sufficient administrative and civil legal remedies available within Whatcom County, such as Whatcom County Health Dept. and Small Claims court for egregious violations which I suspect are precious few in Geneva.

For many aging landowners living on a fixed income who wish to gracefully age in place with dignity, this provision could have a profound negative affect on their economical viability.  At present, there are no known considerations/exemptions available under this ordinance which I personally find insensitive and tone deaf for the fastest growing demographic: the aging population.

But it is not just the aged who could be negatively affected. In a hypothetical, perhaps emergency situation where the property owner must deal with a family health emergency, themself or a member of their family, eg. an aging parent, that requires them to have to leave suddenly perhaps for an extended period, or even a short term, as I understand the Rental Regulation one would first have to apply to the COB. Then cure any (conceivably costly) deficiencies resulting from a very comprehensive inspection which could take weeks or months, perhaps never to resolve with COB.

If one needed the rental revenue to satisfy their mortgage/taxes/insurance, this would only add to an already presumably very stressful situation. Or maybe a relocation because of the loss of a job, or a death or divorce where the property may eventually require to be sold.  As no one can ever truly predict life’s vagaries, I would think everyone would want to preserve the option of renting out their property (in whole or in part) without  having to jump through bureaucratic hoops.

It is abundantly clear that the state of Washington recognized a compelling interest in assisting the aging population of the state (with a maximum annual income of approximately $40,000), to remain in their homes–to assist them to age in place with dignity. The obvious legislative spirit and intent of this law was to help mitigate financial anxiety by offering Exemptions for qualified means-tested aging property owners,  a significantly reduced annual property tax.

So, why is it then, that the COB, and for that matter Whatcom County, do not recognize and otherwise implement this compassionate concept in the form of an exemption for the aged re land use ?
It is a false dichotomy to argue that it is a binary proposition, that one must be at the expense of the other.  I contend that the environment can, and indeed must be protected while at the same time accommodating and balancing the interests of the aging population of COB/Whatcom County,  including promoting a known COB priority of housing density in-fill.  

All that is necessary is the political will and courage to creatively address the problem. It is not a failure of government per se or the staff who are charged with merely administrating the regulations. Rather, it is a failure of imagination of those elected who sometimes fail to remember who got them elected and who they are sworn to serve…with courage, and yes, compassion including the most rapidly growing constituency of the aged and the unique challenges they face.

Here’s two very informative documents re designing living environments for seniors which you can view/download for review: 
Aging in Place – An Intergenerational Priority – Huffington Post Life 2015 (10 pp)
ARRP Model State Local Ordinance re Aging in Place (60 pp of practical creative solutions)

Case in point, realistically looking downstream I suspect at some point some, if not many, to gracefully age in place (audible sigh) may need an assisted living, live-in caregiver. The notion that one would have to cast their fate for viability into the hands of a COB bureaucracy as to whether…or not… a live-in caregiver, based on an the prohibition of an arguably arbitrary, trivial technicality could legally share their residence, I find patently unreasonable, unfair and an usurpation of a property rights.

Compliance is NOT optional.  And failure to comply could carry penalties, fines and possible cease and desist action, ultimately potentially depriving one of rental revenue:

1. Long Term or Seasonal Rentals: If a property owner rents his property out in a Single Family Dwelling Zone, either perhaps as a seasonal rental while the owner migrates to milder climes, or long term rental to a third party, the property would be subject to registration, regulation and fees. There may well be limitations on the term of a rental in certain areas/situations/neighborhoods; and
2. Short Term (STRs eg. AirBnB) will become more  heavily regulated and in certain cases impermissible.
   Here’s some documents that you can view/download for your review re stringent regulation of STRs
   COB Short Term Rental FAQs (1 p)
   COB BMC Short Term Rental application re AirBnB (13 pp)
   
3. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Detached (D-ADUs) or Attached (A-ADUs) with separate cooking facilities unless grandfathered in from a prior formal filing and legal designation by Whatcom County would not be permissible because Geneva is designated as Watershed Area, and therefore could not be legally habitable. Also of note–the Whatcom County rules re ADUs provide for a ADU in excess of 1200 square feet, while the maximum for COB is a more restrictive at 800 square feet. Perhaps an example of the potential for a generally more restrictive COB land use etc. ordinances?
   Here’s the COB Definition of ADU to view/download(scroll down to p. 3):
   COB ADU Definition (17 pp)

All of the above could be either deemed impermissible or subject to costly improvements to comport with building codes and COB ordinances in order to be in compliance with the Rental Ordinance.

And it must not be left unsaid that all of the above newly more restrictive imposed land ordinance(s) (re rental limitations) would probably require full disclosure in the event of a sale of the property, thereby potentially causing a chilling affect on the sale, perhaps even translating into a perception of diminished market value.

I find this provision particularly intrusive and onerous. The registration/inspection process seems dauntingly complex. If you would intend to register a rental you should definitely review the documents below.
Here is a good place to start. The link to the COB website with FAQs re Rental Regulation:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are some documents you can view/download for your review:
COB Rental Registration Application ( 2 pp)
COB Rental Inspection Checklist (11 pp)

Probability of Detection of your unregistered rental? A remote possibility? Out of the realm of probability you were about to say? Ask a man who has been struck by lightning how much he cares about the probability of it. For him it is now 100%.

LEGAL STUFF:

1. Sorry, but in today’s litigious world, this has to be spelled out.
I am a layperson. I am not a member of what some have called “the second oldest profession” or an attorney. In my writing, I do my best considering I’m a barely sub-clinical dyslexic A.D.D (…sure hope they find a dyslexia for cure…soon) with a declining short term…uh…uh…memory. Like the senior swinger said to the little old lady on the next bar stool, “Do I come here often?”. So I hope you can transcend I’m sure, the many typos, grammatical and spelling errors and come away with the essence of what I was humbly trying to say.

2. I am not any kind of expert on issues of land use, the regulation thereof.
The information provided in this post/website, including comments, is opinion and not necessarily legally valid, factually correct or binding, or a substitute for your personal due diligence.

3. While all comments of differing views are welcome and encouraged, because of the potential for abuse, all comments are moderated/approved by me before they become visible to others. Because this website is personally owned/maintained and solely subsidized by me, I reserve the right to delete any post that I find demonstrably counterfactual, the use of profanity or generally offensive. In short, please be civil and kind to each other. All decisions are final.

That concludes my initial review of the main issues as I perceive them surrounding the possible annexation by the City of Bellingham.

More to follow as the situation begins to unfold.

Thanks for taking the time to read thus far. Your comments are welcome and I look forward to a civil and informative discussion on this very challenging and controversial issue facing us in Geneva.

Best Regards.
MAK

Email

Take the anonymous Informal Non-binding Survey on Annexation by the City of Bellingham (commencing 05-10-19). The Results are periodically audited to insure one vote per household in Geneva.

05-11-2019

On Sat. afternoon 05/11 I met with a UW Grad student doing the Survey at my home. The survey taker was very professional and knowledgeable; a) while I felt the survey questions were essentially unbiased as framed; b) I do think that the construction of the questions in final phase of the survey (page 2) were rather unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated for the average person to deal with and may in fact skew the overall accuracy of the survey. The whole process took about 20 mins. I asked her how the survey residents were selected, She indicated that the list for interviewees was randomly created by computer…I find it “interesting” that I was “randomly” selected…just lucky I guess…

~mak