HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
March 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(7:06:16 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Carl Weimer, Pete
Kremen, Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mann announced there was a strategy planning discussion and positions to be
taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2014 -018) and discussion with Chief
Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Gibson and Environmental Health Supervisor Jeffrey
Hegedus on potential State Street property acquisition (AB2014 -018) in executive
session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
Kremen 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 28, 2014
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 28, 2014
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2014
4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2014
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 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) (7 :08:21 PM)
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke:
Jim Dickinson stated that considering the amount of increased collections the County
will receive from credit card sales, the County will be able to absorb the fees. People need a
point of purchase system for ticket purchases before getting on the ferry.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated it seems unfair that a fee is collected from Lummi Island residents
but not visitors to the island.
Kremen asked the recommendation of the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee.
Greg Brown, Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee member, stated the committee
is basically okay with the ordinance.
Browne asked why they can't create new fares that absorb the cost of the fee.
James Lee, Public Works Department, stated the machine cannot calculate
convenience fees because each credit card company charges different fees. There isn't time
for a deck purser to calculate the convenience fee percentage for 20 cars during the ferry
crossing. The 2.35% charge for a single fare was chosen because it is consistent with the
fee paid at the front counter at the Public Works Department counter or online. This is a
starting point to collect data. Staff will come back to the Council in about six months with
some data on which they can present options and make decisions.
Browne stated raise the ferry fare by an amount that is equal to or greater than the
highest convenience fee. Lee stated that is an option. Staff brought forward the
recommendation from the Council committee made in December.
Brenner stated she didn't support the committee recommendation Add an extra
amount to each ferry fare ticket that would cover the cost of the convenience fee, whatever
that fee may be.
Weimer stated the Council will have to have another public hearing if it changes its
recommendation. The Advisory Committee and Council thought the amount of money the
County would give up in convenience fees would be minimal during this data collection
period of six months.
Brenner moved to amend the single trip cash fare to add five percent of its current
amount.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
Browne stated it's more logical to have an alternate credit card fare, but he doesn't
want to hold this up. He accepts a six -month sunset on the fare with a review in six
months.
Weimer stated that is staff's plan.
Kremen stated there isn't a sunset date, but the intent is to initiate program
implementation, and then do a review after six months to see if they want to make
modifications and adjustments. That's what the Council should do. Adopting the ordinance
tonight doesn't preclude the Council from incorporating Councilmember Browne's idea if
they think it will improve the program.
Mann asked how much money in convenience fees the County will absorb during this
test period. Lee stated the estimated convenience fees collected, based on historic ridership
and a 2.35 percent convenience fee, is $7,000 per year.
Weimer stated that for the six -month program, the County will absorb $3,500.
Browne stated he drops his objection.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he encourages Council to approve the
ordinance without the amendment. If the Council wants to amend the ordinance, he would
rather they hold it for two weeks so that staff can review and make recommendations.
Brenner stated the Council can create any convenience fee it wants. People are
giving visitors the convenience of being able to use the credit card. They don't need to wait
and let staff look at it.
Kremen called the question.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ALLOCATIONS (AB2014 -056B) (7:26:48 PM)
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Darcy Jones stated he encourages the County Council to approve the City of
Bellingham request for population projections, which can be part of the environmental
impact statement (EIS) analysis and alternatives. The City must maintain a population to
sustain a healthy urban core. He supports each element of the resolution, except the last
Whereas statement on Council packet page 278 regarding the transfer of development
rights (TDR) program, because the method of transfer may not be effective.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
Greg Brown stated he is generally in favor of the non - binding resolution with the
exception of Councilmember Mann's proposal regarding the last whereas statement in the
resolution regarding the TDR program.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated she
supports the growth and employment estimates for the cities, but is opposed to requiring
cities to purchase TDRs in exchange for enlarging their urban growth areas (UGAs) so they
can accommodate growth. There is not enough buildable land in Bellingham. Charging
developers effectively passes the cost to the home buyer and creates more issues with
affordable housing.
Jori Burnett, City of Ferndale, submitted a handout (on file) and stated the City
supports the resolution without the last two whereas statements. The City supports the
TDR concept, but there are too many questions with unknown answers. Perhaps create a
separate resolution for the TDRs.
Perry Eskridge, Association of Realtors, submitted a handout (on file) and stated he
is concerned about the City of Bellingham being able to meet its population projection,
because it hasn't been able to historically. The City was supposed to decide on its
annexation of Geneva and Hillsdale and sought to reduce density in certain proposed
developments. The City's population proposal is based on the fact they will achieve only 41
percent of the population.
Richard Banel, Columbia Valley Water District Commissioner, stated he supports the
resolution as presented. The projections are consistent with the Foothills Subarea Plan and
capital facilities plan, and other plans for the water district, fire district, and school district.
Kris Halterman stated she is opposed to the TDR requirement. TDRs don't work
anywhere, so don't make it a requirement.
Clayton Petree stated he supports the proposal from the cities, County staff, and
County Planning Commission. The rural numbers may be a little low. The TDR program
was not part of the process. They should look at a TDR program, but not in this resolution,
which is about the overall population and employment projections. The cities may want to
have their own TDR program. Remove the TDR language.
Gary Honcoop stated many things add to the cost of construction. Create incentives
for people to stay in the cities instead of moving to Whatcom County. Affordability is an
issue. He is concerned this may get results opposite than desired, partly due to higher cost
and a slow down in converting UGA lands to useable lots.
Dave Onkles stated the Council should design a functioning TDR program for the
County. King County transfers density into high rises in downtown areas. However, the
TDR requirement in the last whereas statement of the resolution is poorly conceived.
Wendy Harris stated she has a problem with the employment growth allocation at
Cherry Point. At Cherry Point, they must balance the heavy industry port and the state
marine reserve. Staff did not consider the habitat and marine resource reserve. They must
also consider the Lummi cultural interest in the area. In general, there is a lack of wildlife
conservation planning and habitat connectivity among the County and the Cities, so the
projections are artificial and high.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends, stated he encourages the County to take up
the City of Ferndale's offer to work on a TDR program.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Mann moved to approve resolution as presented.
Crawford moved to amend to remove the last two whereas statements.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to only replace the last whereas
statement with alternate language, "Whereas the County intends to work with the Cities to
find opportunities to use transfer or purchase of development rights."
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. He stated the Council said it
would remove the politics from this process and choose a middle number from the Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and BERK study. They've come up with a result that is close
to that original intent. Adding these statements at the end of the process veers away from
an apolitical discussion of population projection. More importantly, a TDR program has been
on the books for about 15 years, and it is seldom used and very complicated. It's too much
to hold the cities accountable through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. The UGAs are
the most difficult areas to develop. The Cities won't extend water and sewer in the UGAs,
so they are just placeholders for future annexation. This scares the Cities off of doing urban
growth areas. The UGA won't be the spot for development. The Growth Management Act
didn't establish the UGA as a place to not develop. When the tax base developed to make it
attractive to annex, then the City would annex, but the opposite has occurred. There is
development in the rural areas but not the UGAs, because the Cities won't extend water and
sewer service. Don't put TDRs on this proposal right now. It will work against everyone
and the 2016 Comprehensive Plan process.
Kremen stated TDRs have a lot of merit and potential. It's nearly impossible to get
any of the Cities, which claim they don't want urban sprawl, to seriously negotiate receiving
areas for a successful TDR program. If there were high value receiving areas in the cities,
they could have a successful TDR program that would be good for the entire community.
He does not support Councilmember Crawford's motion to amend. Keep the first whereas
statement of the motion and eliminate the second one. He wants to provide an incentive for
the Cities and County to work on, not require, a successful TDR program. Strike the last
whereas statement that requires TDRs with an annexation.
Weimer stated he is against Councilmember Crawford's amendment. It's a
nonbinding resolution. They always talk about how they're going to do a TDR program, but
the County never has the leverage to make anyone do it. This doesn't make anyone want
to do it either. It just states the Council's intent to find a way to start retiring the
thousands of development rights in the county. The Council could allocate no population to
the cities, because the county has enough lots to accommodate everyone. That's a problem
they need to deal with. This doesn't require anything. It just asks the planners to bring
forward a proposal.
Mann stated everyone thinks a TDR program is a good idea in theory, but in practice
no one wants TDRs. This is not something happening at the last minute. He's been talking
about this for six years, but no one has had the courage to make it happen. This is a
market -based mechanism to overlay the County's existing process. It will require winning
participants to enter into an agreement. There are no specifics in this language. He wants
the Cities to work with the County to solve the issue. No one has committed to make a
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
53
viable TDR program happen. This is the County Council's chance to send a message to the
cities about its expectations and hopes. He is opposed to Councilmember Crawford's motion
to amend. He does not want a program that will deter growth in the UGAs, but don't
expand city limits without it being a well- thought out decision. The cities must grow to
accommodate the population, but he doesn't support expanding their UGAs just to make the
projection numbers work. The whereas statements in a nonbinding resolution will send a
message to all the jurisdictions that the County is serious about including a TDR program in
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford (1)
Nays: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Brenner moved to amend the last whereas statement, "Whereas the County
intends to work with the Cities to find opportunities to use transfer or purchase of
development rights." Provide incentives for using TDRs. Use economic development
investment (EDI) money for TDRs and purchases of development rights (PDRs), which
would create jobs and affordable housing. Her amendment softens the language. The cost
of a developable lot is more than she thought.
Mann stated he is against the motion to amend. The language has already been
softened in committee. The Council must be serious about TDRs, and now is the time to tell
people.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to amend. The language in the motion is
similar to another whereas statement. He likes the stronger language since the resolution is
nonbinding. They're asking the planners to come up with a solution.
Buchanan stated he is against the motion to amend. It's important to keep working
on a program that works for the county. The resolution is nonbinding, doesn't mandate
anything, and just states the Council's intent.
Browne stated he is against the motion to amend. The resolution is nonbinding. The
last whereas statement is a proposal, not a mandate for a specific outcome. Other TDR
programs don't necessarily have a one -to -one relationship. The price point doesn't have to
be prohibitive. They must find a price point that works.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Kremen (3)
Nays: Mann, Browne, Buchanan and Weimer (4)
The motion to approve the resolution carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT STATE BUILDING CODE AND
REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 15 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (AB2013-
271 (8:18:21 PM)
Wayne Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
handout (on file), stated he recommends changing the language on Council packet page
292 regarding metrics, and gave a staff report.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
"6. Section 107.2 is amended to include the following: Construction documents may
be submitted in Standard English or Metric measurement. However, the building Official
may require, at his /her discretion, that any Metric construction documents be converted by
the applicant ,
to Standard English measurement
which then may be submitted independently or in tandem with Metric documents."
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated there was
no vote from her organization to endorse this, but they appreciate Mr. Harrison's willingness
to listen to their concerns and effort to make things workable.
Ron Anderson, North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Fire Chief, stated he asks the Council
to support the staff recommendation for appendix B. Three things influence a fire
department's ability to do a job, including response times, adequate personnel, and water
supply. Water supply is critical to fire departments in rural areas to do their jobs.
Gary Honcoop stated fire flow impacts the agricultural industry. The reduction
proposal was to reduce fire flow by 250 gallons per minute across all the categories, which
is a 17 percent reduction at most. As the building gets larger, the percentage gets lower.
There is a half -hour reduction in duration. Sprinklers require fire flow at a higher pressure
and an additional 500 gallons per minute for the hose stream requirement, which is difficult
to accomplish.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance, including the substitute language presented
by Mr. Harrison. It's a good ordinance overall. Most everyone got something out of it. It's
vastly improved. He thanked staff for working on this ordinance to address concerns.
Support the ordinance as submitted.
Brenner asked if this makes the County compliant with State law. Harrison stated
the State adopts the International Fire Code that says jurisdictions will provide fire water. It
doesn't say how the jurisdictions will do that. Whatcom County chose to adopt appendix B,
which tempers that blanket statement. It provides options in the fire flow table by allowing
the fire marshal to make adjustments when warranted. This ordinance amends the
appendix chapter. The concessions are as balanced as possible, especially for agriculture
and agricultural processing buildings.
Browne stated he's concerned they will hamper the agricultural community in a way
that isn't consistent with what other communities are doing. He has more questions. They
are obligated to protect the lives of occupants and first responders and to make rules that
protect neighboring properties. The building owners must assume what level of risk they
want to assume and determine what level of fire protection to install for the protection of
their buildings. He likes everything in the ordinance, except they must do more work to
identify what other jurisdictions are doing to solve this agriculture fire water issue. Harrison
stated the fire marshal's office has worked and will continue to work with owners to identify
every option available to come to a solution on what the fire flow requirements will be.
They will always look for a way to make the project possible and find some kind of balance.
That's the history of the fire marshal's office. The insurance industry attempts to drive their
insurance rates, and the trend will become more conservative. He predicts other
jurisdictions will become more conservative.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
Browne stated he appreciates the fire marshal working with him. He isn't ready to
amend the table. He moved to hold the ordinance in Public Works, Health, and Safety
Committee to look at how other jurisdictions have solved the problem and get a better idea
of the issues.
Brenner stated she supports the motion to hold in committee. She would like to
know if this will cause problems for remote farm buildings. She wants to be sure it doesn't
negatively impact the agricultural community. She's not sure yet.
The motion to hold in committee failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Browne, Mann and Brenner (3)
Nays: Crawford, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Mann stated he is against the ordinance. The codes are driven by the insurance
companies in an attempt to make the world disaster proof. It's too expensive to do that. If
someone wants to build a building they own that is less than disaster proof, they should be
allowed to do that. Make the ordinance more relaxed.
Crawford asked if the County has the latitude to make this more flexible. He needs
to understand if they are able to alter the regulations in the name of promoting agriculture.
Harrison stated the fire marshal's office has looked at this as closely as possible.
They are trying to balance many elements, including economics, insurance issues, the fire
districts, and how they are expected to address the code. His recommendation goes as far
as it is prudent, but the Council may make this a less restrictive ordinance.
Crawford moved to reconsider the motion to hold in committee.
Kremen stated he will not prevent anyone from trying to improve upon the proposed
ordinance.
The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Browne moved to hold in the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee.
The motion to hold in the Public Works Committee carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated that if councilmembers have any other
information they would like on this issue, they should email the request to him or Mr.
Harrison to expedite the process. The administration is waiting for the Council's decision
and would like to provide information.
Browne stated he wants to look specifically at what other rural jurisdictions are
doing.
Brenner stated Gary Honcoop may have information on what other rural counties are
doing. Harrison stated the reductions in the table and system of credit options are based on
ordinances in Pierce County, Kitsap County, and Yakima County.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
4. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE LAKE SAMISH BASIN COMPREHENSIVE
STORMWATER PLAN (AB2012 -227) (8:52 :57 PM)
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Penney Jewett submitted a handout (on file) and stated her shared driveway is listed
as a project, but is incorrectly described. She and others sent a letter to the Council in July
2012. The Council put the item on hold and asked staff to review and comment on her
letter and meet with the community. He has not met with the residents. Because of the
lack of communication with the community, delay the vote until Mr. Olason can meet with
the community to iron out misunderstandings or problems contained in the plan.
Jerry Johnson stated he supports the proposal in principle, but not its adoption
procedure, which is a process for funding. Staff has not met with the community as
directed to resolve issues and discrepancies. He has not contacted the Lake Samish
Association Board. He is concerned about vague financial aspects, including estimated
expenses for projects. Lake Samish residents contribute $199,000 per year for stormwater
management, but those funds aren't used locally. The ordinance allows the Flood Control
Zone District Board to set subzone user fees without approval from the residents. It's not
time to adopt the ordinance. Errors need to be corrected. Funding aspects must be
separated from the plan. Staff needs to meet with the residents about their concerns.
Jim Malin stated he is opposed to the plan. Five to ten percent of property owners in
this basin should be expected to pay the entire cost of the forestland in the region and the
I -5 corridor stormwater issues. The residents are angry about more taxes put upon them.
There is an overlay plan now that was supposed to help protect the water and deal with
stormwater issues. The County has not even cleaned out any culverts. That should be paid
for with County road funds. The Public Works staff will be able to go onto private property
without permission to look for stormwater violations. That goes too far.
David Schneider stated it is a very important and valuable plan, but he has concerns.
Recommendations are to continue ongoing lake level management and to engage in a few
new modest projects and longer -term larger projects. Plan approval allows the County to
seek grant funds for culverts, upgrades, and to protect drinking water. For those reasons,
the plan is important, but there are concerns about the taxing authority. He encourages the
County to clearly establish a process to consult with the community on any large projects.
Don't put the cost of impacts from the freeway on the local residents.
Erick McHenry stated he agrees with previous comments. No one has listened to the
local community. This has moved forward quickly and is unclear. It submits the residents
to unknown tax ramifications. The County is supposed to clean out ditches, not create
another layer of government. Things are going forward just to take advantage of grant
money, which may not be the best thing to do. Reconsider before proceeding.
Wendy Harris stated there is no discussion about land use regulations or restrictions
on recreational use of the lake. Urban quality stormwater runoff contains many pollutants.
The County must take regulatory action. The County cannot regulate public health and
safety through incentives. Restoring an entire lake must include the entire ecosystem,
including native vegetation management on property and control of the use of fertilizers and
pesticides. This doesn't take care of the lake. Start with land use management.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
53
Kraig Olasen, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated there was an
extensive public process. At the final hour, there were a lot of questions. Staff responded
to the questions, and there were additional questions posed. He followed up with Penny
Jewett and tried to set up a meeting. He didn't want to start over with the general public,
but preferred to work with the group that expressed concerns in the letter and signed the
letter. They determined it would be better for him to work through Dan Bult of the Lake
Samish Association. They tried to set up a meeting, but it never happened. He was
available.
Every time this comes up, there is a concern of an automatic fee that goes with
adopting the plan. The plan has estimated costs for a range of programs. It also identifies
what to do without new taxes. That is the phase one program. It doesn't require the Board
to raise fees. If the Board wants to raise fees, staff recommends that they do a funding
rate study, which is what they did for Birch Bay. It took a year and a half of discussions
with the community. The process established how to fine -tune those estimates and come
up with a monthly rate. This plan is based on efforts with Birch Bay and Lake Whatcom. It
provides the Board a list of activities worked out with the community. Those activities can
go on the comprehensive water resource integration project (CWRIP) plan and made
available for funding. Outside this plan, the County can't pick one of those projects.
Each project is at a pre- engineer level of identification. It hasn't gone through pre -
design. There may be issues that may prevent the project. The plan is the representation
of several years of work with multiple public meetings. A website has been available since
2010, where they published everything produced. There has been ample opportunity for
comment.
This is a working document. If the Council adopts the plan, they will always work on
and amend the plan as new information comes forward. The plan creates a place to
reference what is going on in Lake Samish. It was done on request of the community.
They have support from the water district, which requested that this be done based on
concerns of water quality. A comprehensive stormwater plan doesn't deal with how many
boats are on the lake. It's non - regulatory. It's a guide to improve and protect the lake's
water quality.
Brenner asked if none of the residents showed up to the meetings. Olason stated
there were multiple meetings where staff reviewed all the material developed to establish
the issues that created the plan. There was a final meeting where they went over the final
plan. A lot of people came to the final meeting who hadn't been at any of the other
meetings. They were confused about the particulars of the plan, and thought the plan was
a highway to a new fee. That's what they're hearing tonight. Ultimately, it's a document
that identifies the issues at Lake Samish. The plan is non - regulatory, and it can only
address the private developed land. It can't address any of the commercial forestry, which
are under different rules. Their fees are exempt from stormwater fees. When developing
the plan, they worked within the areas in which they have influence. The projects in the
plan reflect those areas.
Mann stated these are the same people who said they weren't contacted or
consulted. He asked about the lack of communication with the these people. Olason stated
he made himself available to these residents, and he doesn't have a problem meeting with
anyone. He didn't set up any meetings. He wanted to meet with the people who had
concerns. He didn't want to have another general public meeting to start the process all
over. There were emails back and forth with Dan Bult, but he didn't respond back. If it was
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
that big of a deal, people would have made time to meet with him. He'll still meet with
people. He doesn't have a problem meeting with anyone, but part of the issue is the fear of
a new fee. He doesn't know if he can resolve that fear. They are looking to the Council and
asking the Council not to do that. It's more about the fee concerns than him meeting with
people about the nuances of the plan.
Kremen stated this issue started back in 2012. There has been ample time to
contact people. There was a significant downzone in that area some years ago, and the
County did away with hundreds of lots in that watershed. The County has done some
significant regulatory action to minimize the contamination and infiltration to protect the
watershed. Much more needs to be done. The Council must do something. The issue is a
fee. There's no getting around it. Funding is required to take remedial action. The claim
can't be made that this snuck up on them. Staff has spent hundreds of hours trying to find
a resolution to the issue.
Browne asked how much an imposed fee would be. Olasen stated it's discussed in
the plan. The fee depends on what work they decide to do and when. This program
involves modest projects and a search for grant funds, all of which do not require an
additional fee. If there is a desire to do more projects, a funding proposal for enhanced
funding is required. That would be a separate action. The Birch Bay subzone residents pay
$60 to $104 per year, not $800 per year. It is a sole water source for people around the
lake, who don't have other options.
Weimer stated he supports moving forward. It mimics efforts in Birch Bay. It
doesn't impose any fees. He asked when they would form an advisory committee. Olason
stated it would be in the second phase. It will get people at the local level some input and
ability to monitor what is going on.
Weimer stated this is a phased plan. The first step is to pass the plan and get on
the list so they can start adding projects to the CWRIP plan and looking for potential
funding, which doesn't cost anything. If the community decides it wants to do work
quicker, they can start looking at forming an advisory committee to steer that option and
hire a consultant to figure out how that fee would be created. He's sorry the communication
hasn't happened, but there's no problem with passing phase one as long as they ensure
that they include the residents more before taking any steps further. Initially people really
wanted this plan. He moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner stated she is against the motion to approve the plan. Many Lake Samish
residents showed up at the Council's hearing. She expected a meeting to happen with the
residents, but it didn't happen. There could have been a communication problem. They
don't have to have another public hearing, but she would like staff to contact people and set
something up. She would like a meeting to happen. There are plenty of things people can
and should do on their property, which could be an incentive for lowering their fee. She
asked if there is an incentive for Birch Bay residents to do low impact development in
exchange for lowered fees. Olason stated that was scuttled when the national pollutant
discharge and elimination system (NPDES) permit requirement was established.
Browne asked if it's safe to say that Mr. Olason wouldn't expect a fee to be greater
than $150, not $800 or $1,500 like people fear. Olasen stated most cities have a fee that is
$60 to $100 per year. However, adopting this plan doesn't impose a fee. That is a
completely other process. It would come before the residents and the Council.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
53
Browne stated that he invites the residents to inform the Council if the fees become
more than that amount. Olason stated that some people here tonight may want to hear
that adopting this plan does not add a fee. They can work out the details of the projects
before the projects are done.
Crawford stated it's clear that no fee is proposed in the plan. There are fee scenarios
that depend on certain projects and when how soon those projects would get done. They
are a long way from adopting any fees. It's unrealistic to promise they are never going to
charge any fees for this program, because there's no point in having a program if they can't
anticipate any funding for it. Be careful not to say they will never fund it.
Kremen stated the public testimony regarding a $1,500 fee was in reference to the
recent Bellingham school levy, which is exorbitant. People are concerned about fees in
general. Because of recently approved levies, his annual property taxes increased will go up
approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per year. He understands with the fear of more taxes.
However, this issue does not specifically include fees. Also, it is a resolution, not an
ordinance. It gives the County an opportunity to move forward and try to rectify, protect,
and improve the water quality of Lake Samish. He supports the resolution. Someday there
will be a requirement for some revenue generation to deal with the problem. Hopefully it
will be equitable, cost - effective, and adequate to protect Lake Samish.
Mann stated he is against the motion to approve because of the lack of
communication with the residents. The Council intentionally asked staff to talk to these
residents with concerns. That should have happened. The plan is fine. To keep the faith
with the community, staff must get together with the residents.
The carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 9:37 p.m. to 9 :44 p.m.)
OPEN SESSION
(9 :44 :54 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Art Reynolds, American Cannabis Resources LLC, spoke about the proposed
interim ordinance allowing marijuana production, processing, and retailing
(AB2014- 074B).
• John Lesow submitted and read from a handout (on file) and spoke about the
request to waive the initiation fee for the Comprehensive Plan docket item to
prohibit radio towers in the Point Roberts Special District (AB2014- 098A).
• Abe Jacobsen submitted a handout (on file) and spoke on the resolution
declaring the Council's intent to create a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067).
• Renee Cole spoke about the request to waive the initiation fee for the
Comprehensive Plan docket item to prohibit radio towers in the Point Roberts
Special District (AB2014- 098A).
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
• Nancy Knapp, Ferndale Food Bank Board of Directors, spoke about the
Council's support to help them fight hunger in Whatcom County.
• Yoshi Revelle spoke about violence in the name of religion and money.
• Marilyn Flint spoke about State House Bill 1888 to allow growing industrial
hemp.
• Jack Ingham spoke about the proposed interim ordinance allowing marijuana
production, processing, and retailing (AB2014- 074B).
• Bob Aegerter spoke on the resolution declaring the Council's intent to create
a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067).
• Max Perry spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding proposal
(AB2014 -118).
• Greg Brown submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the WRIA 1
Watershed Planning Unit funding proposal (AB2014 -118), the resolution
declaring the Council's intent to create a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067),
and the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance financing options (AB2014 -103).
• Dymond Nikon spoke about a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to resort
commercial district in the birch bay area.
• Karen Brown spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding
proposal (AB2014 -118), the ordinance amending the 2014 Whatcom County
Budget, eighth request, in the amount of $9,053,575 (AB2014 -114), and the
proposed interim ordinance allowing marijuana production, processing, and
retailing (AB2014- 074B).
• Kris Halterman spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding
proposal (AB2014 -118) and the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance financing
options (AB2014 -103).
• Tom Armstrong from Sideways Green, submitted a handout (on file) and
spoke about the proposed interim ordinance allowing marijuana production,
processing, and retailing (AB2014- 074B).
• Tawni Burdick spoke about the proposed interim ordinance allowing
marijuana production, processing, and retailing (AB2014- 074B).
• Dochi Beldon spoke about the proposed interim ordinance allowing marijuana
production, processing, and retailing (AB2014- 074B).
• Henry Bierlink spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding
proposal (AB2014 -118).
• Robin Dexter spoke on the resolution declaring the Council's intent to create
a Water Action Plan (AB2014 -067).
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
• Ellen Baker spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding
proposal (AB2014 -118).
• Perry Eskridge spoke about the WRIA 1 Watershed Planning Unit funding
proposal (AB2014 -118).
• Cheta Stremler, spoke about the proposed interim ordinance allowing
marijuana production, processing, and retailing (AB2014- 074B).
CONSENT AGENDA
(10:40:23 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approval Consent Agenda items one through seven.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY (AS THEIR GRANT
ADMINISTRATOR) AND JEFFERSON COUNTY TO FUND THE ADOPTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC POLICIES WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY
RELATED TO SMOKE FREE VENUES, SCHOOL DISTRICT WELLNESS, AND SAFE
ROUTES TO SCHOOL, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 (AB2014-
106)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY (AS THEIR GRANT
ADMINISTRATOR) AND ISLAND COUNTY TO IMPROVE HEALTH OF ISLAND
COUNTY COMMUNITIES, REDUCE CHRONIC DISEASES AND REDUCE HEALTH
DISPARITIES IN ISLAND COUNTY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000
(AB2014 -107)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST EDUCATIONAL
SERVICE DISTRICT #189 FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, IN
AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2014 -108)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NEW WORLD SYSTEMS
CORPORATION FOR CONTINUATION OF THE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE FOR
THE AEGIS PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFACE SOFTWARE, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$60,150 (AB2014 -109)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER,
BIRCH BAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,500 (AB2014 -110)
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE JOINT CITY -
COUNTY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES BOAT INSPECTION PROGRAM AT
LAKE WHATCOM AND LAKE SAMISH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 (AB2014-
075A)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GEOENGINEERS FOR SILVER
BEACH WATERSHED INFILTRATION MAPPING, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$49,986.20 (AB2014 -112)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT TO CREATE A WATER
ACTION PLAN, SPELLING OUT THE VARIOUS WATER QUALITY, QUANTITY,
AND HABITAT ISSUES TO ADDRESS IN THE 2015 -2016 BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS (AB2014 -067) (10:40:50 PM)
Buchanan reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve
the resolution.
Crawford stated he's had concerns about the cost of this, but no one else seems to
have that concern, so he will vote for the resolution, although his concerns are not
alleviated. It's appropriate to express his concerns during the 2015 -2016 budget process.
Weimer stated this resolution doesn't create a plan. It gives the Council information
to prioritize and hopefully fund the easy projects to take action this year during the budget
discussion.
Browne stated a report from the National Intelligence Council lists resource conflicts
as the most likely source of conflicts over the next 25 years, with water being the most
likely cause of those resource conflicts. This issue is very important.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
PRESENTATION OF A WRIA 1 WATERSHED PLANNING UNIT FUNDING PROPOSAL
(AB2014 -118)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Buchanan reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve an
additional $20,000 in funding to continue Planning Unit efforts for six months, finalize the
work plan, and develop an operating process within the group to make decisions more
quickly.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
53
Crawford stated this is to come from the flood fund.
Weimer stated he is against the motion. He supports the Planning Unit and hopes it
will be an active participant in the water action plan. They really need a multi - stakeholder
group. As a member of the Planning Unit for years, he's seen how slowly they operate. The
initiating governments and Department of Ecology won't agree to fund it. A number of
caucuses aren't participating because of the inefficiency of the Planning Unit. He wants the
Planning Unit to work, but none of the other more than 40 advisory committees in the
community get money for facilitation. Staff can facilitate the Planning Unit to change the
operating procedures so the Planning Unit can move forward on issues instead of endlessly
talking about issues. As soon as they change the operating procedures, he will support
funding to continue moving forward.
Browne stated he supports the Planning Unit efforts. It needs better guidance from
the County Council. He would also like to see a change in the procedures and better
representation from the caucuses.
Brenner stated the Joint Board members have repeatedly tried to derail the Planning
Unit. There was total disrespect to begin with when the Planning Unit requested nominal
funding, and the Joint Board refused before the Planning Unit even started. The Council
was irritated with the Joint Board, which finally provided funding. There are many caucuses
and diverse entities. A caucus could try to derail the process by not showing up. The
Planning Unit must work to not need a facilitator, but they must change their procedures
first. She supports the motion.
Mann stated he supports the Planning Unit and wants it to succeed. He's glad to see
Mr. Eskridge's participation and proposal. He will support the $20,000. The Council must
do better in providing more guidance. The Council requested a work plan and budget. The
water action plan will also inform the Planning Unit on issues to work on. The stakeholders
are a diverse group. It may be difficult to get some of those stakeholders to have a
productive meeting, which may be why they need a facilitator for a time. They must have a
functioning Planning Unit.
Kremen stated the Planning Unit deserves enough money to continue to try to get
their voices heard, even though they aren't unanimous. There is a wide spectrum of
ideologies. It's the only forum for County government to adequately represent the people
they're elected to represent on the Joint Board. He's perturbed at the initiating
governments and Joint Board. He takes exception to the fact that the Joint Board can't
come up with some kind of funding to give support to a very important part of the water
resources inventory area (WRIA) planning process. He supports the motion. Although he
prefers a staff person who could do it for much less, it's not an option. The funding will give
county residents an opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he supports funding for the Planning Unit and
suggested to the Planning Unit that they review and change their operating procedures to
make the committee more productive. If that's done, other caucus members will become
more involved and engaged in the process. Staff will facilitate the first meeting in April.
Funding will be scheduled for introduction on April 8 and adoption on April 22. The Planning
Unit will be able to continue their work and report back before the Council must vote on the
$20,000 acquisition. He wants the Planning Unit to work for the future without spending a
lot of time and money going over the past. The Lower Nooksack Plan is in the
implementation stage, but they must augment data. He looks forward to working with the
Planning Unit to get that done. There are plenty of opinions in the community on both sides
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
of the Planning Unit. This gives the Planning Unit an opportunity and burden to be
successful.
Brenner stated the committee discussed a motion, which passed unanimously in
committee, to recommend to the full Council to make a recommendation to the Planning
Unit to use a system of majority rule and to allow the Planning Unit to produce a minority
report in addition to the majority position.
Browne suggested a friendly amendment to: 1. change the Planning Unit
procedures to be more productive, 2. enlist 90 percent of total caucuses to participate, and
3. demonstrate how members represent their caucus constituents, which would be a work
product to be produced before the money runs out.
Kremen stated he would not support the friendly amendment. The requirement for
90 percent participation gives an opportunity for ten percent of the caucuses to void the
Planning Unit by not participating.
Browne stated he would accept a lower number.
Brenner stated she accepts the first and third item, but not a requirement for 90
percent to participate.
Buchanan did not accept the friendly amendment.
Browne moved to amend the motion to: 1. change the Planning Unit procedures to
be more productive, 2. enlist 90 percent of total caucuses to participate, and 3.
demonstrate how members represent their caucus constituents via a work product to be
produced before the money runs out. He's trying to make sure the Planning Unit produces
a valuable product. If there isn't enough caucus representation, it becomes irrelevant. Give
the Planning Unit clear guidance about what they must do to be relevant and produce
something of value.
(Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.)
Buchanan restated the motion for the Council and Board of Supervisors to
request the administration to prepare a budget ordinance to approve an additional $20,000
from the flood fund to continue Planning Unit efforts for at least six months, finalize the
work plan, and develop an operating process within the group to make decisions more
quickly.
Louws stated respect the Planning Unit's autonomy and ask them to look at their
operating procedures, and have them come up with a better way of operating. Getting
specific isn't productive at this time. He expects they can take care of some of these things
more efficiently. He supports Councilmember Buchanan's motion.
Weimer stated it's not correct for the Council to dictate operating procedures to the
Planning Unit, because they have the ability to set their own procedures. Planning Unit
members have heard this discussion. The language is mentioned in the motion.
Browne stated the Planning Unit members are volunteers, and he appreciates their
effort. Make sure their work product is representative of the community so it has credibility.
Also make sure the work product moves forward in a timely fashion.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
Weimer stated he will vote for the motion because the Planning Unit has two more
meetings before they vote to approve this money.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
PRESENTATION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM RECONVEYANCE FINANCING
OPTIONS (AB2014 -103)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved that Council request the administration bring forward an ordinance to replace the
$1.5 million from the conservation futures fund into the parks improvement fund to
establish a fund for the future maintenance of park properties.
Mann stated he really wants to support the reconveyance property. He has a
problem using this money from the conservation futures fund. The money is voter -
approved and allocated for acquisition. They can use a percentage of the money for
operations and maintenance. The $1.5 million was originally something to do with the
coastal wetlands grant. There has also been a powerful push to acquire waterfront land.
He'd like to see this $1.5 million used for acquisition and within the confines of the original
grant requirements. Be true to the intent of the conservation futures fund.
Brenner submitted handouts (on file) and stated a memo went with the contract for
Lily Point, which says that state grant funds would be used to reimburse the conservation
futures fund.
Kremen stated that according to the State auditor, the County Council has the
authority to vote to appropriate that money into a different fund.
Brenner stated she agrees, but it was supposed to be put in the conservation futures
fund. It was not undesignated funds. If the Council wanted, it could have put the money
somewhere else, but it would have disrespected the public vote. Just because the County
can do something doesn't mean it should do something.
Weimer asked how much is in the conservation futures fund now, and how much will
be left if they take out the $1.5 million.
Crawford stated there is $4.8 million, which leaves the County about $3.3 million.
Kremen stated the fund generates $1.185 million per year.
Browne read the State Auditor finding, which says they recommend the funds be
placed in the conservation futures fund or obtain Council approval to maintain the funds in
the parks improvement fund. Either option was fine.
Brenner stated this money was put in the park improvement fund without authority.
The Council voted to put it back into the conservation futures fund. It may be legal, but it's
not ethical to move it back.
Crawford stated information received today from the Executive's Office said the
Council didn't follow it's own process for designating it for the parks improvement fund, and
therefore needs this resolution. He asked if that's the basis on which they're saying it's
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
okay to move the money. It seems the State auditor is not saying that it's okay to move
the money into the parks improvement fund, but is saying that the Council must follow its
process and have a Council vote.
Louws stated the State auditor recommendation says the County didn't break any
State law, and the County originating ordinance said the money would go into the
conservation futures fund when it was reimbursed. That was not done. After much
discussion, the State auditor said there isn't a State requirement that the money be
returned to the conservation futures fund, but the County ordinance says it would be
returned to the conservation futures fund. The Council then decided to put it back into the
conservation futures fund. It's still unallocated funds, but he will use it as part of the
dedicated fund unless directed otherwise. The decision now is whether the Council wants to
move the money out of the conservation futures fund and into the park improvement fund,
which allows operation of the reconveyance land.
Crawford read the State auditor recommendation that the County comply with it's
adopted ordinance or have the Council vote to maintain the funds in the parks improvement
fund. He asked if that's a comment from the State auditor, or a legal statement that turns
the money into undesignated monies. It doesn't say they have reviewed whether the
money can actually be in the parks improvement fund. It's more about the process that the
County did not follow.
Kremen stated the recommendation is that if the Council had originally voted to put
it in the parks improvement fund, it would have been fine, because they were undesignated
funds. The Council voted to put the funds into the conservation futures fund. The State
auditor said that if the Council wants to keep it in the parks improvement fund, then it must
vote to do so.
Crawford stated the recommendation is more ambiguous. He supports the funds
being undesignated. He thought there would be direction that the State auditor checked
into whether or not it's okay to allow the funds to be undesignated.
Kremen stated it's up to the County Council whether the funds go into the parks
improvement fund or the conservation futures fund. The Executive said the $1.5 million
would be used for the reconveyed land. The parks improvement fund has a much broader
spectrum of uses than just for the reconveyed land. If moved, he hopes the parks
improvement fund will provide $23,000 out of the $1.5 million for the reconveyed land. In
future years for more things related to the reconveyed land. It has many legal uses under
the parks improvement fund. A very small portion only will be dedicated to the reconveyed
land.
Brenner stated everyone should read the ballot measure. The Council has the ability
to move the money, but this was a voted on public ballot measure. She's not saying they
can't legally move it. It disrespects the public process, which said it was dedicated and was
only for certain things, and capital improvements was not one of them.
Crawford stated that with the support of the former and current executives, the
Council should move the money.
Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. The voters approved the tax
for preserving parks and open spaces. That's the purpose of the conservation futures fund.
There are many projects which the conservation futures fund can produce. He wants to
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, 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
fund the reconveyed land so it's a beautiful park and natural area. This isn't the way to do
it.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
OTHER ITEMS
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,000 (AB2014 -099) (11:26:14 PM)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated the Council asked a year ago to get a staff person to work on
transfers of development rights (TDRs) and purchases of development rights (PDRs). The
staff person who fills this position should also work on TDRs and PDRs.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated he is
interviewing applicants this week for the PDR Outreach Coordinator position.
Mann asked who is designing the TDR program. Personius stated they applied for a
grant last week to the Department of Ecology. The Council funded through this year the
PDR Outreach Coordinator. It was initially to be tied to the reverse auction program, which
staff is working on this year. There's nothing to be done yet.
Weimer asked if funding for this position will continue to be collected from a number
of funds beyond this year.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he will propose that the position be funded in
2015 and 2016 from some of these funds, and will memorialize the position in the Executive
and Administrative Services budgets. He's identified funding from the emergency medical
services budget in the amount of $50,000 and also the jail fund. The position will work on
the conditional use permit with the City of Ferndale related to the jail. The projects on
which this staff person will work will be charged to the appropriate fund. Some of it will be
general fund, but he'll pull from other funds as much as possible.
Brenner asked if this is work that Dewey Desler would do. Louws stated it's a full -
time position to be a special projects manager. Mr. Desler will continue to work on a part -
time basis. They will put a full -time person in place to work alongside Mr. Desler for two
years as a transition. It is a .5 full -time equivalent (FTE) position more than what was in
place when he took office. Mr. Desler will remain at half -time capacity.
Kremen asked the dollar amount, including benefits. Louws stated the cost is
approximately $46,000 per year plus benefits in the amount of $25,000.
Kremen stated this position is another
was making when he was Executive. The
bones. He will support the request, becaus
especially with the more challenging issues t
has been without a dedicated staff legislative
$95,000. That's more than what Mr. Desler
County Council has been operating on bare
e it will help the Executive do a better job,
iat are coming forward. The County Council
coordinator or policy analyst. The Office has
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 20
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
tried to comply with the Executive's request to pare down its already -bare bones budget.
Adding an expensive FTE at this time is concerning.
Louws stated Mr. Desler made approximately $140,000 in salary and $25,000 in
benefits. His proposal to add a special projects manager adds up to the same amount of
$165,000.
Kremen stated the Council Office is down a staff person.
Louws stated that's a discussion the Council can have. The County has taken on
some huge projects in the last couple of years, including the administrative responsibilities
of the emergency management system and a new jail. He must train new staff on the
budget process alongside the existing staff. There are many natural resources issues
coming forward, and he wants to work directly with the Council. This proposal is
reasonable. All the money to fund this is from dedicated funds other than the general
funds. There isn't an impact to labor issues. Everyone in the organization feels stretched.
This request is in the best interest of the county. It's necessary to do a good job on these
major projects.
Mann stated he sees the need but can't support it at this time. The Council is facing
these same issues, but it doesn't have 800 staff. It has no one to help them on these
issues. He can't create the position outside the two -year budget process. The Council
worked to establish an internal auditor position, but there wasn't enough money to do it.
The timing of this now is not good. With all the needs the Council has, they can't do it now.
Browne stated he supports the request, because the cost of both the full -time and
part -time staff equals the cost of the one previous full -time staff person. Mr. Desler has
tremendous institutional knowledge. It's important that there be a management transition.
Leveraging the Executive's time is valuable. He's concerned that the future salary range of
Mr. Desler's ultimate replacement is comparable. Louws stated staff will be compensated to
the level they earn. He hires the best people possible and is confident they will do a good
job. When Mr. Desler leaves in two years, the new staff person may transition into a deputy
administrator.
Weimer stated the transition plan makes sense, but he is concerned about doing this
outside the budget process. Louws stated he mentioned he would bring this forward when
they went through the 2014 budget amendments.
Brenner stated the Council is getting spoon -fed information. Some councilmembers
don't have time to do as much as others. The Executive already has a lobbyist, which the
previous Executive didn't have. They can't compare the two. It should happen at budget
time. They are losing the check - and - balance of the County government.
Kremen stated he will support the request reluctantly, because he wants to support
the Executive. It's important for the Council and Executive to work collaboratively so there
were no surprises during the budget process. His deputy administrator provided that
connection between the legislative branch daily. That was the justification for eliminating
the Council's policy analyst position. Mr. Desler served that function. That doesn't happen
anymore. The Council needs a staff person dedicated to the councilmembers to understand
what is happening or have someone from the Executive's office who spends time and
communicates with the councilmembers. Communication could be better.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 21
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 agrees, which is why he wants support in the office. When he
became Executive, Mr. Desler was gone. He took over the administration of the
Administrative Services Department. He spends a tremendous amount of time on those
divisions. Mr. Desler was willing to return half -time, but he needs someone available daily
to get things done and do a good job of responding. The half -time and full -time positions
will get them through transition at a cost equal to the previous administration using
dedicated funds. The position will work on specific projects on which they didn't have when
he started. If this isn't approved now, he will hire a full -time staff person by eliminating his
part -time staff. He needs support.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Mann (2)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ON BEHALF OF THE
WCFCZD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND WATERSHED SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE HIGH CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF
$69,758 (AB2014 -105) (11:53 :43 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SHANNON AND
WILSON, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
AND WRITING OF THE SYSTEM -WIDE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $180,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $199,955 (AB2014 -111) (11:54:30 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO WAIVE INITIATION FEE - FILE #
PLN2014- 00006, APPLICATION TO PROHIBIT RADIO TOWERS WITH SIGNAL
STRENGTH OF GREATER THAN 1,500 WATTS IN THE POINT ROBERTS
SPECIAL DISTRICT (AB2014 -098A) (11 :55 :31 PM)
Brenner moved to approve the request.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 22
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
funds.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford asked if anyone looked into whether there are issues with gifts of public
Weimer stated waiving the fee is an option in the code.
4. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE ELECTION OF CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSIONERS AT THE NOVEMBER 2014 GENERAL ELECTION (AB2014-
101) (11:56:12 PM)
Crawford 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)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PRESENTATION BY WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION AND OPENS SPACE PLAN, FOLLOWED BY
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (AB2014 -119) (11 :58 :33 PM)
Mann reported for the Planning and Development Committee. No action was
required. He would like to work with the Parks Director and Planning Division Manager to
figure out the next step to connect the two documents.
Crawford stated the Comprehensive Plan adopts by reference the updated
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. They could soften that language a
bit. The concern is that it didn't go through the same public process as the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mann stated they talked about each plan referencing the other.
Brenner stated the park plan doesn't go through much of a public process. The
Planning Commission is more publicized than the Parks Commission.
Weimer stated the councilmembers don't seem to be opposed to Councilmember
Mann going forward.
Crawford stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) hasn't worked well for the
citizens of Washington State. He would like to remove as much as possible from the
Comprehensive Plan. Disconnect as much as possible from the Comprehensive Plan. When
something goes into the Comprehensive Plan, the County gets challenged, spends a lot of
money defending it, and everything becomes controversial. He doesn't want the Sheriff or
Parks Director making decisions based on the Comprehensive Plan. He prefers for the
Council to make the decision, rather than the Growth Management Hearings Board review
every appeal that comes forward.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 23
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
DISCUSSION OF WRIA JOINT BOARD CONCERNS (AB2014 -120) (12 :02 :41
AM)
Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee and moved
for the Council to recommend to the Planning Unit to use a system of majority rule and to
allow the Planning Unit to produce a minority report in addition to the majority position.
She will write a letter.
Browne stated he's concerned about suggesting that the Planning Unit change
procedures in a way that is in conflict with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Brenner stated it's a recommendation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items, including substitute information
for items four and six and an additional item seven.
Mann withdrew 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 WHATCOM COUNTY CODE REGARDING LOT
CLUSTERING STANDARDS IN THE RURAL (R) DISTRICT (AB2014 -113)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,053,575 (AB2014 -114)
3. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT 2014 BUDGET, SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,700
(AB2014 -115)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors)
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PUBLIC SERVICES GRANT (AB2014 -116)
5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE
ORDINANCE 2012 -043 TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES TO THE AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES WCC 2.27A (AB2014 -117)
6. ORDINANCE ALLOWING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING AND RETAILING AS AUTHORIZED BY WASHINGTON STATE
INITIATIVE 502 AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED
UNDER CHAPTER 69.51A RCW (AB2014 -074B)
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 24
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
Weimer referenced the top of page seven of the substitute Exhibit A and moved to
amend, °(11) Processing of marijuana; provided that the faeolity preeesses at least 50
percent of the marijuana processed is produced in Whatcom County."
Browne asked why they want that restriction.
Crawford stated it's agricultural. The County requires this of any agriculture process.
Make sure the operations occurring in the agricultural zone are not occurring because
they're bringing in products from elsewhere and the use becomes industrial, and not
produced in Whatcom County.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner stated amend to allow exceptions to the setbacks under two conditions: 1. If
there is a protective barrier that would disallow anyone within 300 feet from accessing the
property, such as the freeway or creeks. There are 21 applicants who already pass. She
asked if there is any way the County can allow them to proceed.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated there isn't anything the Council can do
tonight.
Mann stated they talk about how important certainty and predictability are for
economic and business development. Although it's important to get this right, the Council is
violating that principle.
Browne stated there is a question about whether marijuana can be produced, but not
processed, in certain districts. Processing is a minor but critical part of the operation and
business model.
Mann stated the substitute version fixes that issue.
Brenner stated the second exception to setbacks is to allow someone closer than 300
feet if they get a no- protest agreement from the neighbor.
Weimer stated they need the exact language and where the language belongs in the
ordinance before it can be introduced.
Mann asked why they did some setbacks from property lines and some setbacks
from existing residences.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the original
staff discussion with the Sheriff and Health Department was that the setback would be from
the property line to existing residences. When staff looked at the list of applicants to the
State, it became apparent it was too large to allow marijuana operations to move forward,
as discussed in a committee meeting. Setbacks in the county are measured by the property
line or road right -of -way. There are other setbacks in the County code that are measured
from that use, such as a manure lagoon. This ordinance for marijuana shows a setback
from the marijuana facility, as defined to those existing residences.
Mann asked about vacant lots on which people may build a residence in the future.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 25
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
Crawford stated the lot owner can still build, but the marijuana operation would be
grandfathered.
Schroeder stated the setbacks are to make sure that there is a limit to how close this
operation can locate to where an existing property owner lives. In the case of a property
owner who hasn't yet built, there wouldn't be a 300 -foot setback limit.
Browne asked if there is a setback from the property line. Schroeder stated the
setback is from the marijuana facility. There are some 40 -acre properties where marijuana
operations are proposed in a very small area by the road. A house within 300 feet of a
property line could still be 1,500 feet from the facility. A concern of staff is that if setback
requirements are from the property line and become too large, the marijuana facilities
would move into agriculture areas that might be used for actual commercial operations. If
there isn't a setback from a property line, they can be located closer to the road, and other
commercial agricultural operations could continue.
Schroeder read Councilmember Brenner's suggested language to include language in
the setback requirements for natural protective barriers and for agreements written by
property owners with existing residences within 300 feet of marijuana operations are as
follows: .251(2)(b), "except if there is a natural protective barrier and an agreement written
from the neighboring existing residence or residences within 300 feet, providing written
notarized agreement waiving the 300 -foot setback." However, trying to interpret what is a
natural protective barrier would be difficult.
Brenner moved to amend language in the following subsections of Whatcom County
Code section 20.80: .251(2)(b), .251(4)(b), .252(1)(b), .253(1)(b), .253(2)(b), .253(4)(e),
.253(5)(a), .253(6)(a), .255(6), .256(5), and .256(6). The language will say, 'The
minimum separation... shall be 300 feet unless the neighboring existing residence owners
within 300 feet provide a written, notarized agreement waiving the 300 -foot setback;
provided further than no more than...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan and Weimer (6)
Nays: None (0)
Abstains: Kremen (1)
Buchanan moved to introduce as amended.
Crawford asked if the following language about eight residences follows. Personius
stated it does.
Kremen asked if this ordinance would end the moratorium when adopted in two
weeks. Schroeder stated it would.
vote:
The motion to accept the introduction item as amended carried by the following
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHARGES /FEES FOR PROVIDING ADVANCED
LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES IN WHATCOM
COUNTY (AB2014 -121)
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 26
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
(12: 27: 27 AM)
Mann moved to request the County Executive to direct staff to explore the purchase
of park property in Birch Bay for the creation of a park and community center that would
include evaluating a package of funding options and possibly even in the short term an
appraisal of properties that are up there and available.
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to also specify that the Executive
move as soon as possible to appropriate up to $9,000 for an appraisal to tie up a specific
piece of property.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated he has reservations. The Council has received no presentation from
people who advocate for this. The first step is to get a presentation on the public record, so
the public can observe and participate. According to recent survey results presented earlier
today, small community parks are the lowest priority. The County has a parks planning
process. He respects their desire to seize real estate opportunities, but a proposal hasn't
been brought forward to the Council on the record. He doesn't know what this property or
proposal is. There has been no public notice or public meeting. The Parks Director,
Executive, and the administration must be involved and talk about how it fits within the
long -term parks planning process. The presentation about the Lummi Quarry is an example
of presenting it in the right way.
Brenner stated they were all invited and received a packet of information, which is in
the public record. Usually they discuss these things in executive session. This is more open
than usual. This is an excellent park opportunity in a very dense area. It's centrally
located. It's a location where all kinds of people can use the park.
Mann stated he's asked around for the formal process, and there isn't one. He
doesn't believe the process starts here. The Parks Director said there is no formal process,
and the Council could make a request of the County Executive. He just wants to explore the
option and start the public process. A formal process would be important if there were one.
Brenner stated the Planning Director told the people from Birch Bay to come to the
Council to see if the Council is interested.
Kremen stated he was told the Executive told them to go to the Council to see if
there is support. At the minimum, they can't move forward until they find out if the
property is available and, if so, the cost. There are other funding opportunities besides
County funding. There's great potential for a real asset for that community, which would be
the fourth largest city in Whatcom County if incorporated and which has not received any
economic development investment (EDI) funding.
Crawford stated his objection isn't to a specific parks proposal, but to how this is
being done. This is not urgent. The plan says the County will not add any neighborhood
parks to its inventory.
Kremen stated this is a regional park. Birch Bay is a regional destination.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 27
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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Abstains: Crawford (1)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items from councilmembers.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:38 a.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2014.
The Council approved these minutes on April 22, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2014, Page 28