HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 11 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
February 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(7:02:04 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Carl Weimer, Pete Kremen,
Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Weimer announced there was an ordinance adopting the current state building
code and repealing existing Title 15 of the Whatcom County Code (AB2013 -271)
discussed during the special Committee of the Whole meeting. This ordinance will be
introduced at the next Council meeting.
Weimer also announced there was discussion regarding potential property
acquisition for the Flood Control Zone District (AB2014 -018) and discussion with
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Gibson regarding potential litigation (Swift
Creek) (AB2014 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
(7:03:36 PM)
Buchanan moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 14, 2014
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 14, 2014
3. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR JANUARY 21, 2014
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE ON AN
INTERIM BASIS TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL PACKINGHOUSES IN THE
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT AS CONDITIONAL USES (AB2014 -060)
(7:04:36 PM)
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Matt Petrini, Northsound Baykeepers Team, stated he encourages the Council to
adopt the ordinance. It's important to balance the need for local meat against the risk to
water quality from these facilities. This ordinance provides neighbors a process to voice
their concerns.
Bob Aegerter stated he urges the Council to adopt the ordinance. He agrees with the
previous speaker. The use should be conditional to make sure environmental review is
adequate and to make sure neighbors have an opportunity to comment.
Ronna Loerch stated adopt the ordinance to allow time for further study and data
collection on the impact of the unrestricted allowance currently in place. It's a good idea for
local farmers to slaughter and pack their own meat. Neighbors should be allowed to voice
their concerns if they are downstream or next door to such a facility.
Judith Green stated she is opposed to the Planning Commission proposal and
supports strict limitations on slaughterhouses due to water quality concerns. It's possible
that multinational corporations will develop large facilities and ship their products to China.
Peter Willing stated adopt the ordinance to protect the aquifer recharge areas and
protect children from groundwater contamination.
Alice Brown stated she supports Matt Petrini's comments.
Jose Manuel Reta stated he supports buying local and local farmers. The
environmental impacts of the current system are good. They need a strong economy.
Brooks Anderson stated she supports the ordinance and protecting water quality.
Don't infringe on the property rights of neighboring property owners.
Jon Strong stated this amendment is unnecessary. He's concerned about
unnecessary regulations on local business.
Ken Kaliher read from his handout (on file) and stated he supports the ordinance. A
conditional use permit is more appropriate. The ordinance respects the property rights of
the neighbors. No one will be denied use of their property and protects the interests of the
county as a whole. Don't forget the long -term impact of countywide water resources
management. Protect the county's natural resources and future water resources.
Kris Halterman stated the current ordinance was recommended against by the
agricultural community and Planning Commission. Agricultural land owners can currently
slaughter livestock for their own consumption. A 7,000 square foot facility is too small to be
productively viable. If farmers aren't capable of using their property, it's more likely the
property will be bought by multinational corporations and used for things that aren't about
local farmers. Agriculture is a shrinking commodity in the county. The County must look
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
out for the agricultural community. Allow the use to be permitted outright, not conditional.
It still goes before the Hearing Examiner for a non - emotional review.
Matthew Goggins stated he is against the amendment and supports the original
ordinance.
Karen Weill stated she supports the ordinance and agrees with comments from Matt
Petrini. Review anything that may add to the existing pollution in the county. Neighbors
must be able to have a say about what is going on next to their property, especially in
flooded areas.
Patrick Alesse stated he supports the ordinance. It's thoughtful and is a step in the
right direction.
Judith Aikens stated she's concerned about slaughterhouses in ecologically sensitive
areas. She supports the ordinance making slaughterhouses a conditional use.
Greg Brown stated he is opposed to the ordinance. They already changed the
version that the Planning Commission recommended. The program already restricts how
these things are built in the county. There is a permitting process and rules and
regulations. Existing regulations protect the water already. Don't make it more difficult.
Ton Fenton stated he is opposed to the ordinance. They need a slaughterhouse in
the county.
Cy Eldred stated people don't understand how the slaughtering process works.
Every bit of the animal is used except the undigested stomach contents and the contents of
the bowel. That is dealt with the same way as any other sewage on the farm. Don't change
the ordinance.
Max Perry stated he is opposed to the ordinance. Ecology and the Health
Department will watch the packinghouses closely. Leave the regulation as a permitted use.
John Lesow stated he supports small scale slaughterhouses, not large
slaughterhouses. The Planning Commission did not see a large support from the
community. This is a free industrial upzone for farmers. It won't be just for local farmers.
The rural industrial manufacturing (RIM) and industrial zones allow slaughter. This
ordinance produces bad mitigation that does not mitigate for environmental consequences.
It's easy to get a conditional use in this county. Send this back to the Planning Commission
to hear the opinions of organic farmers.
Alyssa French stated she supports the ordinance to protect the environment.
Dave Onkles stated he is opposed to the ordinance. He supports the Planning
Commission recommendation to make this a permitted use. Opposition from
environmentalists in Bellingham persuaded the Council to do otherwise.
Wes Kench stated there is no reason to rush this through because there are no
pending permits. The Council is creating uncertainty, and no one will invest in a facility.
The people don't really desire to buy locally, otherwise they would support making a
slaughterhouse possible.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated making it a conditional use only makes it more expensive. The
Hearing Examiner doesn't rule on how many people testify about their concerns. The
Hearing Examiner rules based on the law. Comments for supporting this amendment are
from people who want small scale slaughterhouses and to buy local. All things being equal,
conditional use permits are more expensive. No one who wants to develop a small facility
will be willing to go through a conditional use permit process. She is against the ordinance.
Mann stated the original ordinance was for a small scale agricultural slaughterhouse.
Then it turned into unlimited slaughterhouses everywhere in the county, which was
unreasonable. The Council tried to scale it back, but it didn't work. No one liked this
ordinance when the Council adopted it. It was a compromise. It's not a good ordinance.
Make it easier for small scale agricultural slaughterhouses. Make the use conditional for
large operations and permitted for small operations. This is an interim ordinance that they'll
work on to make better.
Browne stated that since there have been no applications, there really are no
impacts to this ordinance. The only change is that this amendment gives neighbors an
opportunity to express their concerns.
Weimer stated he supports the ordinance. Many people were concerned that they
didn't have a chance to express concerns with the current process. There is already a
challenge to the ordinance. He hopes this amendment will help prevent the County from
spending a lot of money on lawyers to defend the ordinance. The reason the County started
this issue was because a project proponent wanted to develop a small scale slaughterhouse.
They all embraced that idea. He wanted a 7,000 square foot slaughterhouse as a
conditional use. That's what this interim ordinance allows.
Brenner stated an administrative approval process allows a process with someone
who has expertise in the process.
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Crawford (2)
2. RESOLUTION GRANTING A QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (AB2014 -055) (7:42:18 PM)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Mann moved to approve the resolution.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated State Department of Transportation staff
Patrick Fuller is available for questions.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
OTHER BUSINESS
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE
ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, PROCESSORS
AND RETAILERS AS AUTHORIZED BY WASHINGTON STATE INITIATIVE 502 AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER CHAPTER 69.51A RCW
(AB2014 -074A) (7 :44:02 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, proposed an emergency ordinance to allow the
County 60 days to create an interim ordinance concerning retail sales and growing
operations within Whatcom County. He read the ordinance into the record.
Crawford stated an emergency ordinance requires a supermajority of the Council to
pass and has a 60 -day limit.
Kremen stated he thanks the Executive for bringing this forward. He supports the
voters who made the uses legal, but it's necessary to have rules and a structure on which to
base decisions about permitting applications. All the measures on the emergency ordinance
are valid. It's good policy that protects the County and its citizens. He moved to adopt the
ordinance.
Crawford stated this only impacts the unincorporated portion of the county. People
applied to the State, so this doesn't regulate what the State does. This has to do
specifically with development proposals. Louws stated an application requires a State
license to be able to operate and also a Whatcom County permit that the operation meets
building, fire, and land use codes. This pertains to Whatcom County's role in making sure
Whatcom County's code is applicable. The State could grant a license, but the County
would not approve the location if it goes against the County Code.
Crawford asked if a store that wanted to sell marijuana would get permits at the
County Planning Department to operate a business.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that type of
operation requires a tenant improvement application and approval from the Planning
Department. It would also get an occupancy permit. They've had four applications for
tenant improvements so far. A tenant improvement is a type of commercial permit.
Brenner stated the Liquor Control Board representative and State Attorney General
opinions were different.
Mann asked if the four tenant improvement applications will be grandfathered in
before this emergency ordinance. Schroeder stated three will be grandfathered in because
they have applied for an application, if they acquire the Liquor Control Board license to
operate. Staff get 30 to 50 correspondence per week regarding marijuana facilities.
Many commercial operations will apply within the next couple of weeks. They accepted one
land use application today. Many people are moving forward to apply for permits, which is
why this is coming forward. Continue the discussion of an interim ordinance in two weeks.
Mann stated it's amazing the State would grant a license without knowing if the site
is viable. Schroeder stated the County and State Liquor Control Board coordinate. Before
granting the liquor license, the Control Board asks questions about whether the application
complies with local zoning and is safe.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Louws stated the zoning is right based on the County's zoning interpretation policy,
but that doesn't guarantee the building they're putting it in will meet County code or the
Control Board's rules in terms of fencing, visibility, lighting, security, and other factors.
There are many months before the Liquor Control Board grants permits and potential
businesses work through the system before they open business. Get ahead of the situation
now.
Crawford asked about the timeframe for the interim proposal. He asked if they can
get through to an ordinance within the 60 days. Louws stated staff will prepare a package
for Council consideration within the 60 -day window. It's up to the Council to determine
whether the ordinance put forward is viable or the emergency should be extended another
60 days. They can get an interim in place within 60 days. Then the Planning Commission
and Council will have six months to develop a permanent code toward the end of this year.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
(8:05:21 PM)
The following people spoke:
• John Lesow spoke about a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
zoning text amendment regarding a radio transmission tower wattage in Pt.
Roberts.
• David Stalheim spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070), a draft resolution regarding a
Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067), and the environmental impact statement
(EIS) timeline for the Gateway Pacific project.
• Armene Belless spoke about a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
zoning text amendment regarding a radio transmission tower wattage in Pt.
Roberts.
• Frank James spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070), a draft resolution regarding a Water Action
Plan (AB2014 -067), and the environmental impact statement (EIS) timeline
for the Gateway Pacific project.
• Mark Robbins, Point Roberts Taxpayers Association, submitted and read from
a handout (on file) and spoke about a resolution regarding transportation
improvements and a border area transportation benefit district (AB2014 -093).
• Matt Petrini spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) and a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069).
• Luanne Chapman spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070), a proposed ordinance amending
Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and
Deposits (AB2014 -069) and the environmental impact statement (EIS)
timeline for the Gateway Pacific project.
• Alex Ramel spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
• Ronna Loerch spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070), a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069) and about zoning of marijuana - related operations (AB2014-
074).
• Peter Willing spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014 -069)
• Laurel Felber spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069).
• Bob Aegerter, Sierra Club, spoke about a draft resolution regarding a Water
Action Plan (AB2014 -067), a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070), and a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069).
• David Kershner spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Karen Weill spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069), a draft resolution regarding a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067), and city
and county presentations relating to population and employment growth
allocation proposals (AB2014- 056A).
• Larry Blanchard spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) and a proposed ordinance
amending Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications,
and Deposits (AB2014 -069).
• Andrew Eckles spoke about the environmental impact statement (EIS)
timeline for the Gateway Pacific and a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Patrick Alesse spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Ian Alexander spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Greg Brown spoke about a draft resolution regarding a Water Action Plan
(AB2014 -067) and a draft resolution regarding contract amendments with
CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Ken Kaliher submitted and read from a handout (on file) and spoke about a
draft resolution regarding contract amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070)
a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid
Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014 -069), and a draft
resolution regarding a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067).
(8:52:49 PM)
Brad Owens spoke about a draft resolution regarding a Water Action Plan
(AB2014 -067) a draft resolution regarding contract amendments with CH2M
Hill (AB2014 -070) and a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069).
Myra Ramos spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069).
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
• Chet Dow spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments with
CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069).
• Alyssa French spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) and a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069).
• Jayson Reimer spoke about Council accountability.
• Matthew Hilliard spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) and a proposed ordinance
amending Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications,
and Deposits (AB2014 -069).
• Nora Workman - Weaver spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) a proposed ordinance amending
Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and
Deposits (AB2014 -069).
• Wendy Harris spoke about land use planning and protecting wildlife in County
parks and about the County parks plan.
• Kris Halterman spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069).
• Lorraine Newman spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract
amendments with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070) a proposed ordinance amending
Whatcom County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and
Deposits (AB2014 -069)
• Lawrence Smit spoke about emergency moratorium ordinance regarding
marijuana (AB2014- 074A).
• Matthew Goggins spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom
County Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits
(AB2014 -069).
• Manuel Reta spoke about a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County
Code 3.08.090, Bid Requirements, Specifications, and Deposits (AB2014-
069).
• Paula Rotundy spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
• Judy Aikens spoke about a draft resolution regarding contract amendments
with CH2M Hill (AB2014 -070).
Brenner stated the Council was told that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
part of the process is an administrative process, not a Council process. The way to change
that is through a charter amendment. They can't decide which rules they'll obey and which
they won't obey. After the environmental impact statement (EIS) goes out, there should be
ample time to read everything in the record. However, forty -five days isn't enough time to
do that. The Council was told today that County costs are being covered. She's frustrated
about the timeline before it goes out. She asked what to do if people can't know before it
goes out.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated Whatcom County has billed the project
proponents $59,931 through last November at a rate of $80 to $100 per hour. The County
changed the hourly rate last year to $100 per hour. Staff working on it make approximately
$40 hour and are getting 35 percent benefits. Therefore, direct staff time is $60 per hour.
If the County had billed for the staff's direct time, they would have billed about $36,000,
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
not $59,931. The difference takes care of incidental costs such as his time and the
Prosecutor's time. The Health Department and Public Works Department have both billed a
few hours of their time.
The project lead, Tyler Schroeder, has done an admirable job managing the project.
His training and background are in this process. He's also had the benefit of working with
members of the State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have
taken on a greater load in some aspects of project management with that. At this particular
time, the County administration has done a great job in bringing the project forward to
where they're at.
It's highly likely that the County will need extra help analyzing the reports as scoping
begins and the County begins receiving reports. At this particular time, he's confident the
County has done a very reasonable job in charging the proponents of this project the money
for the time the County has invested into it. He gives the community his word on that.
They are billing things out. They have billed more than two hours on this.
Public comment will be sought at the appropriate time moving forward, at the stage
for the draft environmental impact statement. Washington State law says the comment
period shall be 30 days, and it can be extended out to 45 days. The key word is "shall."
They have talked with the attorney general on this. Even if they ask the proponents
permission to extend that time, he's not sure they can legally extend the time beyond that
timeframe. The community must understand that as they move forward. The County will
engage in and try to make it as inclusive and available to the public as possible, but it's
State law that's governing this process. The County administration will continue to do what
it can to make sure they're working within State law, so at the end of this process Whatcom
County has a good solid set of documents legally prepared for the County Council to take a
vote.
They are actively working to get public documents released. He hopes that day will
be in the near future. The County has an agreement, which the Council reviewed and
approved, with co- agencies to work cooperatively on and to release documents at the same
time. He takes seriously the requests to get these documents out. At this particular time,
Whatcom County is pushing its co -leads to release these documents.
The contract has taken a long time. The scoping ended last January or early
February. CH2M Hill did a good job of compiling that information. For the last six or seven
months, they've primarily been working on contracts that go to the federal government, the
State government, and local government. They're getting close.
The councilmembers may read any document posted to the County website. As
documents become available. As documents become available that they're legally able to
release, he encourages the Council and all members of the community to read those
documents.
Today's presentation from legal staff was good. It's challenging to get all the
document signed. He would love to have the Council involved. However, the more the
councilmembers are involved, the more opportunity they will give both sides to attempt a
challenge. The further the councilmembers stay away from it at this time, the more solid
their votes will be in the future.
The administration is trying its best to get the information out. Some of his
comments tonight will not be taken as truth from some members of the community. He
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
understands that's the position he's in. He believes County staff, the Department of
Ecology, and the Corps of Engineers are doing a fine job at this time. They're working in
consultation with attorneys at the State, federal, and local levels. He encourages members
of the public to be patient as they move forward. He hopes this discussion will do some
good to explain where the County is at.
Weimer closed the public session.
Crawford stated this item was held in committee today, so he understands there
won't be any vote tonight.
down.
Weimer stated the ordinance was held in committee, but the resolution was voted
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break at 9:26 p.m.)
CONSENT AGENDA
(9:37:11 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through 12.
Brenner withdrew item 11.
The motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through ten and 12 carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF UNCOLLECTIBLE
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE (AB2014 -077)
2. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TREASURER'S LIST OF PETITIONS FOR
PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS (AB2014 -078)
3. RESOLUTION CANCELING UNCOLLECTIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
(AB2014 -079)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE
PURCHASE OF THREE REPLACEMENT 1 -TON CAB AND CHASSIS WITH 2 -3
YARD DUMP BODY FROM THE LOWEST BIDDER, LEGACY FORD, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $107,927.76 (AB2014 -080)
5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF GLASS BEADS FOR TRAFFIC
MARKING PAINT USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM
VENDOR ALPINE PRODUCTS, IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $100,000
(AB2014 -081)
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN 2014 FOR PATROL
VEHICLES USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR
AUTO ADDITIONS, INC., IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $70,000
(AB2014 -082)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON
MENTAL ILLNESS (NAMI) FOR THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2014 -083)
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ASSIST IN
COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND PREPARING DATA AND REPORTS
RELEVANT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTIES AND TENANTS AS
WELL AS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THE CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $47,885 (AB2014 -084)
9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM EVENTS TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADVERTISING AND TOURISM PROMOTION OF THE
ANNUAL SKI TO SEA RACE IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000 (AB2014 -085)
10. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GERALDINE COLEMAN TO
PROVIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR CHILDREN IN AT RISK YOUTH AND
CHILD IN NEED OF SERVICES PETITIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,708.33
PER MONTH (AB2014 -086)
11. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL LOAN AND GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO PROVIDE FUNDING THROUGH THE EDI
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S NORTH END REGIONAL STORMWATER FACILITY
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500,000 (AB2014 -087)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve the request.
Brenner stated they do not have an accurate picture of traffic in the area in terms of
all the new development that has happened and will happen in the area. Don't approve a
regional stormwater facility for an area that may or may not be able to have that much
development. She is against the request. She did not get all her questions answered about
traffic. They're talking about a mall in addition to Costco in that area. The extra lanes on
the Bakerview overpass have helped if coming from a certain direction. However, it hasn't
helped for traffic leaving or entering the Fred Meyer store. They didn't get the information
they asked for.
Crawford stated the committee received a lengthy and thorough review by the
County road engineer to inform the Council about his conclusions based on the traffic
studies from the City of Bellingham. He acknowledged and identified some serious traffic
issues in the area. He supports the request. The stormwater project has been a good
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
project all along for economic development investment (EDI) money. He was concerned
about enabling other traffic - related problems by this project. In the months they've
discussed this topic, he believes this is a good EDI project that enables the City to move
forward with its commercial development plans. The City is now aware of the County's
concerns. He looks forward to the all the jurisdictions working on Slater Road issues.
Everyone is looking at the issues in this location. He's ready to move this forward.
Mann stated he struggled with this project. As a stormwater project, it's a great
project. However, it's a marginal economic development project. Big box retail isn't ideal
economic development. Within the law as it's written, it does qualify. Maybe facilitating
commercial development will promote other types of economic development. He would
prefer they get manufacturing, industrial, or technical jobs with EDI money, not this type of
thing. He'll support the project.
Kremen stated the EDI money for this infrastructure would be appropriate.
However, Bellingham is not the kind of entity that should receive rural sales tax money.
This money comes from the rural sales tax that was enacted by the State legislature to
assist the most rural counties in the state. It is to compensate for the inequities and
unintended consequences of lost revenue to rural counties because of growth management.
Bellingham does not have a revenue problem. They're talking about allocating $2.5 million
from the EDI program to the City, which just passed a significant tax under the guise of
Sunday service for the Whatcom Transit Authority (WTA), but a significant amount of that
money will go into their public works fund. Those dollars are a sales tax and are paid for
by people who live in the more rural towns in unincorporated Whatcom County. Now
they're taking rural sales tax money and handing it over to the City of Bellingham so Costco
and many other businesses can have adequate infrastructure. That will exacerbate the
disparity of rural Whatcom county being able to generate sales tax revenues. He will
oppose the measure on principle. The City of Bellingham could assess more impact fees.
He has a problem with rural sales tax money being used for this project. This project is not
rural.
Crawford stated two - thirds of this is a loan, so the EDI fund will be paid back about
$1.6 million over a period of time.
Browne asked why part is a grant and part is a loan.
Crawford stated it's a matter of general policy. The idea is to create a sustainable
mechanism by which the fund can continue. They attempt to meet a two -third loan /one-
third grant formula. In this case, the City applied and the EDI Board recommended the
project.
Kremen stated the County has already committed $1.1 million from the EDI fund.
That allocation is 100 percent grant money for waterfront redevelopment infrastructure.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated this is a good project. It's in the best interest
of Whatcom County and Bellingham to retain the big box stores on taxable lands. The $1.6
million should be paid back quick as major developers join. This project meets the criteria
of the EDI loan. Although the City of Bellingham portion is $3.5 million, the County gets
about $3 million annually from the City for the fund. The Council committed well over $10
million to the City of Lynden from this fund. Relatively, it's not an unfair distribution of
funds. He encourages the Council to approve the request.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated the level of service for this area is F. Make sure it won't create a
worse problem. The City should let Costco expand its current location instead of moving to
a new location and leaving its current location empty. The State just widened the Guide
Meridian.
Weimer stated he is in favor of the request. He's glad they've discussed this the past
few months. He was skeptical of whether the traffic studies were adequate. There were
questions, and some questions remain. He's more comfortable that everyone has done
their due diligence and there's a process for addressing Bakerview Road as it relates to
Slater Road. While it's called the rural sales tax, the people of Bellingham pay a huge
portion of that tax. They need to get some share of that back.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Weimer (5)
Nays: Brenner and Kremen (2)
12. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND COMGROUP FOR
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $72,430 (AB2014 -059A)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,724,000 (AB2014 -058) (9 :56:45 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAKOTA CREEK BRIDGE NO. 500 PROJECT
FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR THE DAKOTA
CREEK BRIDGE NO. 500 PROJECT (AB2014 -042) (9 :57 :13 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SLATER ROAD INTERSECTIONS, IMHOFF
AND FERNDALE ROADS PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT
BASED BUDGET FOR THE SLATER ROAD INTERSECTIONS, IMHOFF AND
FERNDALE ROADS PROJECT (AB2014 -043) (9 :57 :47 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT FUND AND RELATED CAPITAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION
(AB2014 -059) (9:58:22 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE NOT ENTER INTO
FURTHER CONTRACT AMENDMENTS ON CONTRACT NO. 201205028 WITH
CH2M HILL WITHOUT COUNTY COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL (AB2014-
070) (9:58 :56 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated it failed in committee.
Weimer moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner stated they may be recused from voting and liable to a lawsuit. Get a
review from legal counsel first. She's concerned about being recused. The County's State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official Tyler Schroeder is collecting contact information for
anyone who wants to be notified when any new product comes out on the website. The
Department of Ecology is also sending out press releases.
Kremen stated he's concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest. He
suggested they modify the resolution so the County Council would be apprised of any
contract amendments so there is transparency. They can accomplish the intent of
transparency without potential problems with an approval process that could be either
beneficial or injurious to the contractor. The Council would get a report from the Executive
about contract changes. Maintain separation of powers, achieve transparency, and avoid
any potential legal problems for the Council.
Mann stated transparency is a good thing. He's not sure the Council would be liable
to accusations one way or another if it does or doesn't approve contract amendments. The
Council is very limited in the process. The public is paying attention. He asked if the
Executive could put any proposed contract amendments on the County website for a time
before they're signed to give the public and councilmembers time to review. He asked if
that is feasible. Louws stated the approved document is the public document. Everything
prior is deliberative and not distributable to anyone. Under the agreement with the
County's co- leads, contracts go up on the website as soon as it's approved and becomes
public information. He asked how the councilmembers would make suggestions without
showing their hand. The attorney said today it's what they do with it once they see it that
will get them in trouble.
Mann stated they aren't suggesting the councilmembers do anything with it.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Louws stated he and his staff are committed that they do everything within the law.
If it's not, the criticism points to him and his co -leads for not doing things right. Making a
change at this point in the process will look manipulative. He encourages the Council to not
make any change.
Mann stated he has no question about the Executive's integrity. He was trying to get
at the issue of transparency. Public review, if feasible and legal, may be a way to address
this issue without jeopardizing the Council's quasi - judicial status.
Weimer stated it sounds like there is agreement with the other agencies that doesn't
allow that public review. Louws stated the final draft is going to be released in the very
near future, before it's signed by all parties. As soon as that document is available, the
staff will post it on the web. He encourages the public and Council to stay tuned. They will
send out a press release when that happens. The community will have an opportunity to
look at it at that time.
Kremen stated more information is a good thing. Make available information such as
the staff time being spent and the amount being billed to the company, as long as legal
counsel is comfortable that they aren't putting the County in a legally vulnerable situation.
Louws stated they've put all the pertinent documents on the website, answered every email
that has come in, and are trying to get the community up -to -date about what the County
can and can't do legally. It's sometimes difficult to get the message out about the facts.
He spends a tremendous amount of time on this project and other similar projects to get
the message out, which is a challenge. He will continue to do what he can to get the facts
out there.
Kremen stated Tyler Schroeder is an asset to Whatcom County, as are others in the
administration.
Browne stated he's seen no evidence that things have been done improperly. He
asked if the final contract will include a scope of work, which will include a list of questions
that must be asked and answered during the EIS process.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that's
correct. The scope of work is very detailed. It describes what the County has hired CH2M
Hill to do to prepare the draft EIS. The community would be well- served to use that scope
of work to see where the draft EIS will move forward. That scope of work is not yet
published. It is the document that will be posted when the contract is signed.
Browne asked if the scope of work will include the questions that the State
Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also come up with.
Schroeder stated it is a combined effort to prepare the scope of work, because CH2M Hill is
hired to prepare the SEPA document for the County and Ecology and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for the Corps of Engineers. That scope of work
has been meticulously reviewed and agreed upon by many attorneys and many people who
work for the government agencies.
Browne stated there were approximately 120,000 comments during the public
comment period. He asked who decides which comments are incorporated into the scope of
work. Schroeder stated they've reviewed those 125,600 unique comments and compiled
them into topics in which each comment touches on. They've transferred that into the
scope of work. Within the legal parameters that SEPA is set up to do, the comments that
can be addressed and accomplished will be considered as they move forward with the draft
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
EIS. There will not be a specific reference to each comment. There will be a broad
description and specific direction and deliverables for CH2M Hill to prepare the draft EIS.
When the draft EIS is issued, everyone who commented during the scoping period will
review the draft EIS (DEIS) and then provide comment on whether their specific comments
were addressed. SEPA requires the agencies to then respond to each one of those DEIS
comments to show how the comment was addressed, where the document was changed, or
why the document wasn't changed.
Browne asked if the public comment period after the draft EIS is issued is 30 to 45
days, and how long it takes to respond to DEIS comments. Schroeder stated the DEIS
comment period is 30 to 45 days. There isn't a strict timeframe in State law for the
issuance of the final EIS (FEIS). Once the FEIS is released, staff will formulate a staff report
to the Hearing Examiner in terms of the seven criteria for the major development permit.
The Hearing Examiner will hear the merits of the application and the EIS, and then
recommend one thing or another to the Council. The details are laid out in the major
development permit.
Browne asked when the Council is allowed to see the EIS. Schroeder stated the
Council can see the FEIS when it is issued.
Browne asked the Council's ability to comment on the FEIS to the Hearing Examiner.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the Council would do that in the context of
the decision the Council makes when the Hearing Examiner's decision comes to the Council.
If there is a deficiency with the EIS, and someone wants to appeal that decision, they can
appeal it to the court. It's not the Council's job.
Browne stated he's trying to create a chart of the timeline and sequence for the
Council and the public. Schroeder stated the process and timeline chart already exists and
is on the website. It describes the process, all the required permits, and the associated
timeframes. In the coming months, the staff may be able to described that process to the
Council, as long as they stay away from the discussion of the permit and stay on the topic
of the process. At the next Council meeting on February 25, they will talk about the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan and zoning text amendment docket. One idea is to discuss
the timeframe of a major project permit.
Mann stated the Council gets a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner. He
asked if the Council may have public comment or public hearings at that point. Frakes
stated the County Council may have the discretion to have its own public hearing.
Schroeder stated the major project permit allows for one open record hearing in
front of the Hearing Examiner, which might last for weeks. Then a recommendation comes
to Council. The Council has a number of options. The Council can: make a permit decision,
hold another open record hearing, or transfer that project to the Planning Commission for
additional public hearings. State law allows for more than one open record hearing if the
Council specifically requests it.
Weimer stated the Council has 20 days from the time the Hearing Examiner gives a
recommendation to the Council. He asked if that includes all the hearings the Council could
have. Schroeder stated he's not sure at this point. They will review that process at the
next Council meeting.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated the Council is allowed to consider everything that's been submitted
online. Schroeder stated he understands that the Council is allowed to look at what is on
the record. All of those comments associated with the EIS are on the record.
Weimer stated there is a substitute resolution. A companion ordinance was held in
the Finance Committee. The Executive has been following the code perfectly, but his
concern is with the code. He trusts the opinion of legal counsel, but the advice is very
conservative. The line for when they have to worry about their vote is far from that
conservative opinion. He's happy to hear the contract, which includes the EIS scope, will be
posted on the website before it's signed.
Mann asked how this resolution impacts the current draft contract.
Weimer stated the contract hasn't been signed. This resolution asks the Executive to
not sign any more contracts.
Brenner stated this gives the Council an opportunity to review and approve the
contract.
Browne stated this resolution is nonbinding on the Executive. His priority is to
protect his right and the rest of the councilmembers' right to vote on the final project. He's
reluctant to do anything that could jeopardize that right.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer (1)
Nays: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (6)
6. REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR
NORTHGATE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2 BINDING SITE PLAN PURSUANT TO
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 21.07.030(5)(A)(I) &(II), FILED BY APPLICANT
OXY CORPORATION (AB2013 -351) (10:36:54 PM)
Mann reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to approve
the request.
Browne stated the applicant was asked to comply with additional parts of the code
that have applied since the original application. They've agreed to those additional
conditions during committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST BY THE NORTHWEST PARK AND
RECREATION DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONERS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE
DISTRICT TO BLAINE -BIRCH BAY PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
(AB2014 -071) (10:38 :09 PM)
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
8. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM
FAMILY COMMUNITY NETWORK - APPLICANT(S): MICHELLE WILLIAMS
(AB2014 -073) (10:39:05 PM)
Kremen moved to appoint Michelle Williams.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(10:39:39 PM)
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the substitute for
Introduction Item six.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SIXTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $260,519 (AB2014 -088)
2. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, FIRST REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $498,700
(AB2014 -089) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH CODE WCC 24.03,
FOOD SERVICE REGULATIONS (AB2014 -090) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH BOARD)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY 2014 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE
TO AUTHORIZE THE FERRY FUND TO ABSORB CREDIT /DEBIT CARD
CONVENIENCE FEES ON SINGLE -RIDE FERRY FARES AND INCORPORATE
CREDIT /DEBIT CARD CONVENIENCE FEES ON MULTI -RIDE FERRY PASSES
(AB2014 -091)
S. RESOLUTION AND PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO A COMMUNITY BLOCK
GRANT APPLICATION (AB2014 -092)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.27A, AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES (AB2014 -075)
OTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND
RCW 82.47 AS NEEDED TO CONFORM TO RCW 36.72 WITH RESPECT TO THE
TRANSPRTATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE SUPPORTED WITH FUNDS
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
DERIVED FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL EXCISE TAX DULY FIXED, IMPOSED AND
COLLECTED BY A BORDER AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (AB2014-
093) (10 :40 :10 PM)
Brenner stated the State created its own transportation benefit district. The State
law is too restrictive. Transportation benefits should apply to all transportation, but now it
only applies to concrete and asphalt. The State legislature is able to enlarge that definition
to allow for other things, including extra school buses. This is a resolution for the State
legislature asking to rewrite the law to allow the district funds to be used for broader uses,
specifically for school bus turnarounds. She moved to approve the resolution.
Crawford stated he doesn't know much about the issue, so he won't support it until
he learns more. It seems appropriate to allow such districts to pay for infrastructure.
School districts, not transportation benefit districts, are in charge of school buses. He
doesn't see the nexus between the two.
Weimer stated it looks like this requires a change in State law. He asked if that's
possible this year.
Kremen stated the County Council adopted a public transportation benefit district to
enable Point Roberts to collect a $.01 per gallon gasoline tax. Point Roberts would like more
flexibility for using the money collected. The State legislature must allow a more flexible
use of the tax revenue. That will be difficult. Because Point Roberts is such a unique
community with special needs and circumstances, the legislature may grant an exception
for Point Roberts. Allow the local delegation to try to change the law. He supports this
resolution
Weimer stated he also supports the resolution. The people of Point Roberts have
special needs. The County Council must approve how they use the money, so it has some
control. He encourages Senator Erickson to make this attempt.
Brenner stated that if they don't do it this session, they can do it next session.
Crawford stated that the County has the fund. He asked if the County does
additional road projects in Point Roberts using this fund. He's never seen any road projects
based on the collection of this tax. He asked if this request allows the County to give
money to school districts from the road fund to run buses.
Brenner stated the County would work with the school district.
Kremen stated the County would approve the money to be spent. He would have a
small problem augmenting the school district's responsibility to transport their students.
There have been other requests from the Point Roberts community to use this revenue for
various projects that would not be allowed under the current law.
Crawford stated he will support the resolution, but would like a presentation from the
administration about the details of this fund.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the fund currently has $656,883 in the fund.
They collect about $96,000 per year. The fund can be spent on construction, maintenance,
and operation of transportation facilities. The community develops an advisory list of
projects they would like done. This money is allocated to a portion of certain County
projects in Point Roberts. They are asking for projects that are above what the County
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
considers the minimum requirements for roads to support that type of density. He
suggested the County says it supports that a certain percentage is diverted, not all of it.
The community expects the County to provide a certain level of service with this money. If
the money is diverted to other projects, the community would still expect the County to
provide that level of service. Allow no more than 15 to 20 percent of the funds to be
diverted from what the voters originally intended.
Buchanan asked if the County Council functions as the board for this transportation
district.
Crawford stated they've never done it.
Browne asked if the Council will ultimately decide how the money is spent.
Brenner stated the tax collected is supposed to pay for things that are more than
what the County would pay for normally. It's not a substitute for County road work.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
(10:54:26 PM)
Browne reported that he thanks Councilmember Weimer for his work on the water
action plan. He met with Congresswoman DelBene, during which they discussed water
issues. He also visited farming communities in Acme and Lynden.
Brenner asked if there was discussion about the Planning Unit work on the water
action plan so they don't have to create another group to do similar things.
Weimer stated he has no intention of creating another group. Everyone thought it
was a good idea. They will tweak the language in committee. Staff will take comments
from councilmembers to change the language.
Brenner stated the County is not adequately funding the Planning Unit. She's
concerned about devaluing the Planning Unit's work. Costs must be involved.
Weimer stated staff is just putting together the next version of the resolution. All
the groups, including the Planning Unit, were involved. He believes the Planning Unit is
asking for more funding from the Council. Don't mix the Planning Unit into this effort at this
point.
Weimer reported he will not be at the next meeting. Councilmember Mann will be
chair.
Mann reported for the Planning and Development Committee on the City and County
presentations relating to population and employment growth allocation proposals
(AB2014- 056A), which was held in committee.
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on March 11, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 2/11/2014, Page 21