HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 16 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
54
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
September 16, 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
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Carl Weimer, Pete Kremen,
Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
MINUTES CONSENT
Mann 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. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR JUNE 24, 2014
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 8, 2014
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON
NORTHWEST DRIVE AT SLATER ROAD (AB2014 -283)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Brenner 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 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON
AIRPORT DRIVE (AB2014 -284)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
Brenner 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 AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.13, TO TRANSFER
SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO THE
HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB2014 -285)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Browne 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)
4. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND POLL BOOK, ESTABLISHING
BOUNDARIES, OFFICIALLY NAMING, AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE DRAYTON WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (AB2014-
224B)
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, gave a staff report, explained the process, and
explained the Council's role and limitations. The Council may remove property that will not
benefit from the district. Other than that, the Council doesn't have discretion to change the
district's boundaries. If the district is formed after an election, people are able to request
from the district that their property be removed if they don't benefit from the district.
During the Board of Equalization assessment process, people can make the argument that
they don't benefit from the district. They wouldn't be assessed, but would still be a part of
the district.
Weimer asked how the Boundary Review Board will be involved in the process.
Frakes stated the proponents would file a notice of intention with the Boundary Review
Board. Once the notice is filed, someone has to invoke jurisdiction. It's likely that this will
come before the Boundary Review Board, but the Board may not actually review it.
Brenner stated this is a State law. The Council's hands are tied. She asked why the
County can't make the State decide. The Council is getting blamed for creating these
districts. She asked if the Council has no choice but to approve it. Frakes stated the
statute directs the County's role. The State statute tells the County what it must do.
Frakes stated the State often dictates what the County is supposed to do regarding growth
management planning.
Weimer stated the State Department of Ecology (DOE) delivered its report to the
Council today. The Department of Ecology report indicates that they approve.
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Robert Perry stated the County has done a very poor job of advertising. The district
can collect money per acre from the property owners. The voting process is not fair. Small
farmers don't get representation. Only a few large property owners can decide this for
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
everyone. No one on Harksell Road knows about this. There should be an exact map and
advertising.
Crawford stated people who weren't notified need to contact the Council Office,
which is supposed to send out information.
Kremen asked Mr. Perry to clarify the vote per acreage. Perry stated there are two
votes per five acres. Someone with 300 acres would get 600 votes. That's not right. The
vote structure should be one vote per person.
Weimer stated this is a State law that the County must follow.
Dale Buss stated nobody on Pole Road, Aldrich Road, and the whole area was notified
about this. This is not fair. They don't know how they will benefit. They should not be
taxed to pay for other farms to have all the water. The County must investigate this more.
He owns 20 acres.
Bill Clark, Agricultural District Coalition attorney, stated the reason and purpose for
the formation of the districts is because it allows agricultural landowners to address water
quality, habitat, drainage, and water supply issues with the Department of Ecology, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tribes, and with counties. Now, there is no structure for
the agriculture industry to solve these problems. The problems will not solve themselves.
The owners of almost 30,000 acres of land have supported these petitions.
The County's role is limited. The process for creating the districts is in State law.
The State gives the role to the landowners, who get to decide if they want these districts.
They've held a number of public workshops over the past year. A number of people
have come to understand the purpose of these districts. Today's letter from DOE says that
creating the districts does not take away their authority. All water right permitting decisions
still have to be made by the agency. The districts don't get around the water right process.
Also, these districts will have no authority over other people's water rights.
The process of including versus excluding acreage is something that the statute
allows the Boards to do.
Brenner asked about the special election process and whether the election could
have been held during the general election. Clark stated the State law requires a separate
ballot. It could possibly be structured to hold the election at the same time, but it still has
to be a separate ballot. A ballot separate from the general election will not get lost in the
shuffle. It stands out more for the voters.
Kremen asked where all the water is coming from. This seems too good to be true.
Clark stated there are limits to the available water. He's not saying more water will be
available. This is a process to work within the existing legal system to come up with
mitigation plans so they can get more water rights without impacting senior tribal or senior
municipal rights. A single agricultural land owner does not have the wherewithal to come
up with a complicated mitigation plan. The concept is to allow a district to come up with a
groundwater model and mitigation plan on behalf of landowners within the district in case
they want to pursue water rights.
Bob Burr stated he asks the Council to delay or keep open the public hearings for
another two weeks. The public didn't receive the letter from DOE today like the Council did.
They should have time to look over the letter before the hearing is ended. The DOE report
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
was supposed to work on the source and sufficiency of the water. The petition to form the
districts should have addressed these topics, but didn't. There are questions about whether
the criteria have been met.
Randy Honcoop stated he is a raspberry grower on about 45 to 50 acres of
raspberries. Agriculture has had water issues for many years. There have been some
attempts to address some of the issues, including the issue of water supply. Nine farmers
began meeting to come up with solutions and explore options for organizing the production
agriculture industry. They have not had a place at the table to deal with policy. This
statute allows them to legally organize and develop a stable funding source from the
landowners, people who are affected by these issues. They've been pursuing this option for
over a year. They've had public meetings and have worked to get the information out as
much as possible.
Tom Thorton stated he is a 40 -acre farmer who is one of the nine farmers who have
been working to come up with solutions to problems that face the agricultural industry.
Water has been an issue for many years. This process is critical to agriculture. Now, they
have no legal standing on any issue. They need the watershed improvement districts
(WIDs) to address the water issues. These water issues affect all types of farmers. If
farmers don't have water, they can't make a living in the agricultural industry. Water issues
are too complicated and expensive for one farmer to address individually. The industry
must work together. This is the process that gives them the opportunity to bring the
agricultural industry together. The process is democratic. The two existing WIDs in the
county have been flexible with landowners. If landowners are not specifically affected, they
aren't taxed.
Karen Brown stated she supports the agricultural community, but is opposed to the
districts. The agricultural community has a place on the Planning Unit. The letter from the
Department of Ecology says there is adequate supply of water for the proposed districts
because no water is needed for the purpose of the WIDs. Ecology is sidestepping the issue
that no one knows how much water is in Whatcom County. She submitted a letter to the
Council. Once the WIDs are formed, all the taxpayers in the WID have a vote, including
corporations that do not reside in the United States. There are a number of those who are
big landowners. They will lose local control.
Wendy Harris stated she is opposed to forming the districts. The scope is not
restricted to determining the name and boundaries. The petition requirements include a
statement of the probable source or sources of water supply for this proposed irrigation
district. The farmers are not using the right mechanism to address their problem. The
petition is procedurally flawed.
The petition is also required to identify any other matter deemed material. The
Council has more authority than it is being told. The Council has the right to expand the
scope of the hearing, address other things, or control how this moves forward.
Henry Bierlink, Agriculture District Coalition, stated this is important for the future of
agriculture. They've held public meetings to give people a chance to ask questions, give
suggestions, and address concerns. They've been trying to find a way to address the issues
of water rights, drainage, water quality, and other issues for many years. They all know
they will be stronger working together than working individually. He described the history
of the Agricultural Preservation Committee nonprofit organization, a proposed countywide
irrigation district in 1995, and the Bertrand and North Lynden WIDs. This process creates a
way for farmers to work together on these issues. They are always open to suggestions.
They've tried to get the word out as much as possible.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
Ryan Ericson, Futurewise Whatcom, stated his organization supports forming the
WIDs. It will help prevent more intense development in rural areas. It is to ensure a viable
local agriculture economy. The WIDs are proven to work. The agriculture industry can use
economy of scale for implementing irrigation efficiencies, exploring best management
practices for water quality, and providing an opportunity to work together on water quantity
issues. Ideas to explore include mitigation, water banking, and transfers of water rights
within a WID. The Council may also add properties to the districts if they will benefit from
the WID. The Bertrand WID goes down to two and a half acres. He asks Council to look at
the smaller agriculture owners for inclusion in the WID.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution. He asked the benefit to a landowner
who does not farm or a well owner. Clark said the benefits would include representation by
the WID for habitat protection, drainage issues, water quality problems, and groundwater
issues to properties with an agricultural zone. Landowners can ask to be excluded from the
WID if they don't receive a benefit. The County doesn't have a role in parcel -by- parcel
review. If a property needs to be adequately drained, properties with wells can benefit.
Brenner asked what the total limit of assessment per acre would be. The boards for
the WIDs can decide the amount of the assessment. She was told there is no limit. Clark
stated the assessment level must equal the benefit received by the landowner. If a project
doesn't benefit all the landowners, only the landowners who benefit from the project have to
pay for the project.
Brenner asked who makes the decision about benefits received. Clark stated the
district board makes that decision.
Browne stated they've excluded any parcels not in designated agricultural open
space. All parcels less than four and a half acres in size are excluded. Many parcels started
as five acres, but had to surrender land for right -of -way. Those parcels between four and a
half acres and five acres are subject to the district, but would have no votes. Clark stated
there can be fractional voting that allows those people to vote.
Brenner asked if anyone, regardless of their open space designation, can be in the
boundary. Bierlink stated all four of these districts exclude any properties without an
agricultural open space designation from the assessment roll and vote.
Mann asked if that exemption would explain why some people didn't get the
informational mailing. Clark stated that's possible.
Bierlink stated some parcels were removed if they don't demonstrate a clear benefit.
It's possible that some people such as Mr. Buss aren't included in the district boundary,
because either the boundaries were drawn around him, or his property doesn't have an
agricultural open space designation.
Mann stated that people who are not in the agricultural open space program are not
in the district, are not eligible to get taxed, and would not have received the information
letter.
Crawford stated he supports the resolution. He supports the farmers. He is
sympathetic to the problem of a lack of long -term water security for farming in Whatcom
County. The legal environment has allowed agriculture to thrive, but this will ensure that
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
farmers have a legal standing in the future. He shares much of the skepticism of the well
owners who don't see the benefit of this and don't feel informed. Give this the opportunity
to go to the voters. The Council only has the legal role it is assigned.
Weimer read from the letter from the DOE regarding water rights.
Brenner stated she was not going to support it until she learned that only properties
with the open space agriculture designation are included. She disagrees with the voting
structure. It's not democratic. People are being taxed without equal representation. The
better alternative is for someone to challenge the law. It's been in place for many years.
Water issues are coming to the forefront, which is why there is so much controversy.
However, those with the agricultural open space designation are already receiving tax
benefits. She supports the motives of the proponents, but isn't sure this is the right
process. People can appeal, but they have to go before the district's board. The people
with more land have the power. It's hard to believe someone will be elected to the board
that doesn't have lots of land.
Kremen stated the majority of the farms don't have a legal water right. That won't
be allowed to continue forever. He will support the resolution only because it is the only
process to address the water availability problem for agriculture. It isn't the process he
prefers. He doesn't question the intention of the proponents. He hopes they're not creating
winners and losers. He hopes this will create a winning situation for everyone.
Weimer stated he will support the resolution. He is excited to see the agriculture
industry come together to creatively engage in the water process. Many water quality
issues can originate in agricultural land. This process will give them the responsibility to
deal with those issues. He's glad the citizens are organizing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: The Council reconsidered the vote on this item after Public Hearing
#5.)
S. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND POLL BOOK, ESTABLISHING
BOUNDARIES, OFFICIALLY NAMING, AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE LAUREL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (AB2014-
225B)
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Wendy Harris stated she opposes the districts. The requirements for a valid petition
have not been met. They are not complying with the law. The DOE letter emphasized the
fact that the districts have no water. The irrigation district purpose is to move water and
create the infrastructure to move water. It can't do that with no water. This goes beyond
the scope of an irrigation district. This effort is to secure water for farmers. The district will
be entitled to engage in private negotiations with the State and federal government that are
not transparent and do not involve public process. The public has a right to be involved in
an open and transparent process. Don't give special privileges to the few. The districts will
gain power, such as resolving tribal treaty rights, which has historically caused great
problems. They often use assessment revenue to pay for litigation.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
Karen Brown stated it looks like very large land owners would run for election to the
board and would have control of the district. There is possible nitrate pollution by berry
farmers who will be on the boards and have the most power.
Bob Burr stated he is opposed to a flawed public process. Give the public more time
to digest the information. Have a conversation with the Council's legal counsel about
potential violation of the petition.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner asked to meet with Council's attorney in executive session. She would like
legal counsel to address the two points brought up.
Crawford asked if legal counsel has reviewed these items and if the requirements are
being met.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that she has reviewed the items. The
requirements are being met.
Kremen stated he is satisfied that requirements have been met, and the County
won't be subject to a legal challenge.
Brenner referenced the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and asked if there is a
requirement that the petitions have to show they have water. She asked what the sources
of water are. Frakes stated the RCW allows these proposed purposes for a WID. Given the
proposed purpose of these specific WIDs, they met the requirements of the statute. This
issue came up when the petitions were first presented. At this hearing, they are beyond
that. They are looking at the issues specifically outlined in the statute.
Brenner stated the statute asks for a general statement of the probable sources of
water supply. Frakes stated there is a statement in the petitions that meets the intent of
that requirement.
Weimer stated there was a statement in the petition that addressed that
requirement. The statute is clear that WIDs can also be formed for various watershed
improvement activities, which do not include the need for water.
Clark stated this statute was written in 1889, when irrigation districts had very
limited purposes. Since then, the purpose of the districts has been expanded to include
water quality, habitat protection, and other things. The districts can be formed and have
been formed to create a water supply. The petitions reflect the purpose of the district by
identifying sources of water such as water banking, mitigation, and other things of that
nature. The letter from DOE indicates that is sufficient for DOE, and that any water rights
obtained through a transfer mitigation plan or water right decision have to be made by DOE.
Weimer read from the petition for the formation of the Drayton WID that talks about
the proposed water use.
Brenner asked the consequence of delaying for two weeks so people can read the
letter from the State Department of Ecology. Frakes stated there is no effect on the
election if the Council delays these items for two weeks, according to the conversation she
had with Treasurer Steve Oliver.
Brenner moved to hold in Council for two weeks.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
Crawford stated he is against the motion to hold in Council. The letter from Ecology
is available and simple. Move on with these items.
Brenner stated the letter just came out today. There must be transparency. A delay
won't hurt anything. Allow people who haven't seen it feel more comfortable.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to hold. The Council had no control over
whether people had an opportunity to see the letter and has little control over this process.
He's not sure the letter is pertinent to these decisions, which are about naming the districts
and their boundaries.
Kremen stated he supports the motion to hold in Council to provide transparency,
since there is no harm in delaying these items for two weeks. It would demonstrate to
everyone that the Council is sincere and dedicated to transparency. He asked Henry
Bierlink if a two -week delay would create an obstacle.
Bierlink stated there are two issues. The first is the timeline. County Treasurer
Steve Oliver has been gracious in terms of assessment role. Normally, the assessment
roles for these districts are given to the Treasurer by the middle of October. The Treasurer
has allowed them to get the assessment roles to him by December 15. Delaying this two
weeks will push that deadline back to December 29, considering everything they need to do
to run the elections, count votes, certify ballots, swear in new board members, develop the
assessment role, and complete the Board of Equalization process. Treasurer Oliver is being
gracious by saying it's doable, but it is a tight timeline for them over the holiday season.
He urged the Council not to do this without a very good reason. Regarding the issue of
transparency, the question is who needs to deal with this now except for the farmers and
landowners who will vote on this. They will have months to look at that letter from Ecology
and anything else.
Kremen stated it's an issue of perception, which means a lot. It's not just the
affected farmers and landowners whom these decisions effect. If members of the public
think the Council is pushing through something that they think is significant, it affects how
the public views County government.
Bill Clark stated another step they have to go through is the Boundary Review Board
process. This statute doesn't neatly fit that process. The sooner they can start that process
the better. He agrees with Mr. Bierlink that the point of needing additional time is if there
were some lack of information. They have met the statutory requirement as best they can
and in a way that satisfies State requirements.
Brenner stated some people are just finding out about this process, which is quick.
Just because they have met State statutes doesn't mean the process is adequate. It may
be legally adequate. She's concerned that some people on the list don't know they received
notification. Postponing this for two weeks can give them an opportunity to set out a
pro /con discussion of both sides of the issue. Allow two weeks for people to get the letter
from Ecology and to allow the County to send out pro and con information. Regarding the
special election, many fewer people vote in special elections than in regular general
elections.
Mann stated he is uncomfortable having two of the proponents speaking to them,
even though the Council asked them to speak. Regarding the motion, don't delay two more
weeks. Most of his questions and concerns have been answered, especially about who is
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
exempted from this tax. Many haven't heard about it because they aren't eligible to be
taxed.
Browne stated he has a concern about whether the requirement has been met
regarding the source of water. Because he's also concerned about government
transparency, he supports the motion to hold.
Buchanan stated he agrees with Councilmember Browne. He asked about leaving
open the public hearing.
Brenner stated leave the written public record open for comment.
Browne stated he supports the concept of the districts.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to hold. Questions have been asked and
answered adequately. In this case, he has no concern that they haven't been transparent.
The Council's role is limited. Nothing is going to change. Often, the cry of transparency is a
cry for delay. They ought to make the decision this evening.
Crawford stated this discussion would be justified if the Department of Ecology had
pointed out a deficiency or flaw in the law. That's not what they said. The Council Office is
not sending out information in the next two weeks with pro and con statements.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he would encourage the Council to not hold
this item in Council. This action by the farmers is admirable. A challenge he's had is
figuring out a way to engage the farming community cooperatively in terms of water
quantity and water quality as they move forward. If there is no compelling reason for
councilmembers to change their votes on these four ordinances, take the vote tonight. He
supports these districts. The proponents have put a tremendous amount of work into the
process. The timelines are extremely tight right now.
Debbie Adelstein, County Auditor, stated a delay tonight will cause the WID ballots to
be mailed out the same time as the general election ballots. There may be some confusion
about where the ballots can be delivered.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Mann (3)
4. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND POLL BOOK, ESTABLISHING
BOUNDARIES, OFFICIALLY NAMING, AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE DRAYTON WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (AB2014-
224B)
Brenner moved to reconsider the vote on the resolution. She doesn't want
another public hearing. Keep the written record open to 4:30 on September 25, 2014.
The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Mann (3)
Weimer moved to hold in Council.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
The motion to hold in Council carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Mann (3)
6. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND POLL BOOK, ESTABLISHING
BOUNDARIES, OFFICIALLY NAMING, AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE SOUTH LYNDEN WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
(AB2014 -226B)
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Wendy Harris stated she is offended by the comment that these are delay tactics.
She's been concerned since she learned about this. She's been in contact with the State
Department of Ecology. She didn't get a copy of their letter until late this afternoon. The
agenda bill doesn't give clear information about the properties and voters. She doesn't
know if the resolutions are the same as the petitions. That is a problem. The process is
unclear. The process should be an ordinance, not a resolution. The State law requires the
Council to make an order, which may require an ordinance and different notice
requirements. This is not the farmers' water. It is the public's water. They all have a right
to decide how it's used. They don't know how much water is available to divide up among
all the shareholders. This lets the irrigation districts get in line for first dibs on water.
That's not fair. All of the water issues should be resolved comprehensively with everyone
involved.
Robert Perry stated each member should have one vote.
Joe Elenbaas stated he received the information packet but didn't open it for a week
or two because it came from the courthouse. Nothing good comes from the courthouse.
There are procedural issues to determine whether people have gotten the materials.
Simplify the situation. Water isn't available to the public because government agencies
haven't fulfilled their duty to make sure that everyone has their share. Ninety percent of
the properties involved don't know this will take place. Get the word out.
Todd Kelsey stated he supports forming the districts. They are very successful
statewide for industry stakeholders. The number of votes correlates to the risk involved to
the industry stakeholders. He's disappointed that all seven councilmembers voted the first
time, and then one person's grandstanding changed three other votes.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to hold for two weeks and continue to take written comments until
4:30 p.m. on September 25, 2014.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Mann (3)
7. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND POLL BOOK, ESTABLISHING
BOUNDARIES, OFFICIALLY NAMING, AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE FORMATION OF A PROPOSED IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE SUMAS WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (AB2014-
227B)
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Wendy Harris stated irrigation districts are used as a solution in other places. Once
there is an irrigation district, work can be done on water, habitat, and restoration. Those
places already had a supply of water. They must meet the legal requirements to have
water. The petition didn't address the Council's right to raise other matters deemed
material, which include irrigation boundaries not equaling watershed boundaries. Don't
compare these watershed improvement districts with the Bertrand watershed improvement
district, which was formed to address water quality issues.
John Kirk stated he was within the boundary of the first proposal, but not within the
boundary after it was redrawn. He asked if the Council has the power to turn down these
petitions.
Weimer stated legal counsel indicates that the Council's role is only to approve the
name and determine if the boundary meets the legal obligations.
Brenner stated a resolution has no force of law. Frakes stated the decision shouldn't
be made by ordinance because the Council isn't adopting a law. The natural, logical process
is by resolution. They could also just call it an order. It doesn't matter what they call it.
It's not an ordinance. The process required for a resolution is different from the process
required for an ordinance. The process for a resolution and an order would not be different,
because there isn't a process for a Council order. The process for making an order is not
adoption of a law.
Tom Thornton stated the Ag District Coalition has talked to property owners who own
30,000 acres of the total 50,000 acres subject to these districts.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Buchanan asked about the nomination process for the directors of the boards.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated petitioners submitted five names per
proposed district. People can fill out and submit a candidate form for names that will also
be included on the ballot. They've received approximately two additional names per district.
Weimer moved to hold in Council.
The motion to hold in Council carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Browne, Buchanan and Kremen (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Mann (3)
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
• Christopher Bruce Diele submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about
appropriate methods for bear deterrence.
• Greg Brown spoke about not using flood funds to pay for the Water Action
Plan.
• Paul Schissler, Purchase of Development Rights Committee, spoke about the
resolution affirming the PDR Oversight Committee ranking and
authorizing Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
Administration and Whatcom County Executive to proceed with the
acquisition process for 2014 applications (AB2014 -288).
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through three.
Brenner stated the lease amount in Consent Agenda item one is at market value.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TED
SELLERS FOR THE SILVER LAKE APARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $670 PER
MONTH (AB2014 -290)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THRIVE BY FIVE
WASHINGTON TO IMPLEMENT THE NURSE - FAMILY PARTNERSHIP (NFP)
PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,799 (AB2014 -291)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELEMENT SOLUTIONS TO
SATISFY MINERAL RESOURCE ACTION PLAN ITEM #10 OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS TO BUDGET FOR AND UPDATE THE
AGGREGATE RESOURCE INVENTORY STUDY TO DOCUMENT SHORT AND
LONG RANGE AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF QUALITY MINERAL
RESOURCES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2014 -292)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR
OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT FOR LANDS LOCATED WITHIN
UNINCORPORATED WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2014 -272)
Buchanan reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve
the substitute resolution.
Brenner stated the representative of the timber land next to Lake Whatcom told the
committee that the land would be used as a buffer for other timberland, which is a good
use, instead of being harvested.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
2. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PDR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING AND
AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
ADMINISTRATION AND WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PROCEED WITH
THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR 2014 APPLICATIONS (AB2014 -288)
Buchanan reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve
the resolution.
Crawford stated he is against the motion because the County will not receive
matching funds. There's no harm in waiting until the 2015 cycle. He suspects the
landowners will not do any kind of development in the next 12 months. They have
historically used matching funds, which are no longer available. The purchase would be
paid for solely with local taxpayer dollars.
Brenner asked if they can do the property valuation now, and still apply matching
funds from the federal government in 2015.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that would
work. The next cycle will begin in March 2015. If the Council authorizes the administration
to move forward with the appraisal process tonight, those would get done about that time.
They could go through the cycle next year and know whether the County will receive
matching funds.
Brenner stated she supports moving forward. If the County doesn't get funding in
2015, they haven't held anything up. The properties are appropriate for this program.
Browne stated he's not sure this is the most efficient use of these funds. He would
rather find a way to leverage the funds.
Crawford stated he's always questioned whether this program is the best use of
funds even when the County receives matching dollars.
Weimer stated moving forward with the appraisals will inform them of the property
values. The Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Coordinator is looking for other sources
of funds.
Kremen asked the estimated value of the three parcels. The cost of agricultural land
is as high now as it has ever been.
Weimer stated the high estimate is $500,000.
Personius stated that they won't know the value until the appraisals are done. The
cost of agricultural land is high, but that lowers the value of the development right.
Browne stated the committee discussed whether the easement allows up to two
percent of the property area to be impervious surface for agricultural - related purposes. He
asked if that includes a farmhouse. Personius stated it can include a farmhouse.
Sometimes a farmhouse is separated from the easement.
Browne stated he is concerned that someone can still put a farmhouse in the
easement.
Crawford stated the easement agreement extinguishes the ability to build a
residence. The impervious surface is for an agricultural building, not a residence.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
Brenner stated they are extinguishing a developable area for a residence.
Kremen referenced the 66 -acre parcel with one development right and asked what
the easement will provide and what the County would lose if the Council doesn't purchase
the easement, in terms of agricultural value. Personius stated that parcel scored low based
on soil classification, however that parcel is very productive. The farming activity is raising
vegetables. Because it is flood plain and next to the river, there is an assumption that the
soil may be better than the soil survey indicated. The administration is going to have
someone test the soil.
Kremen asked what the other acreage would be used for if one house was built on
that property. Personius stated that is one of the few parcels that is up against an urban
growth area (UGA). It is between the river and the UGA boundary. Part of it is in the flood
plain. A portion of it is zoned light industrial within the UGA.
Kremen stated they need to know if the City of Everson is unlikely to develop the
section of the parcel that is zoned for light industrial. He doesn't see a compelling argument
for including this parcel in the PDR program.
Brenner moved to include the 66 -acre parcel in the PDR Program only if the City of
Everson indicates the City has no problem losing the industrial section in the urban growth
area (UGA).
Crawford stated a portion of the property is already in the Everson UGA. It already
has industrial development on it.
Chris Elder, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
topographical map (on file). Currently there are no structures in the light industrial area. It
is just being farmed. Another option is to draw the easement so it excludes the area zoned
light industrial. Mr. Harper indicated he had no problem with including the full property in
the easement. He's asked Mr. Harper to provide that information in writing. The light
industrial area could also be used for agricultural buildings. The property owner indicated
that area can have a barn or agricultural processing facility. That is another potential
agricultural use for the property.
Weimer stated that once they remove the one development right, the property is
guaranteed to stay in an agricultural use. Otherwise, someone could put a large house on
the upland property with a big lawn that goes all the way to the river.
Browne proposed to appraise the total property both with and without the light
industrial area. Elder stated that is possible.
Brenner withdrew her motion to defer to Councilmember Browne's proposal.
Crawford asked how many acres of this parcel are being farmed. Elder stated
approximately 59 acres are being farmed. There is a small wetland forested zone along the
edge of the river. The property is currently home to three small farms that sell at the
farmer's market. About ten to 15 acres are in vegetables, and the rest is used for growing
hay. There are also blueberries, asparagus, and walnut trees. Since agricultural hay and
pastures support dairy farms, it's hard to put a lesser value on hay production than on
vegetable production. Mr. Williams has the option to grow more vegetables should he
desire. The soils are good enough to support that use. At this point, the style of the
operation is as a small farm. The option exists to become more mechanized.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
Browne stated there is a big difference in the value of agricultural land based on
access to water and soil quality, which is reflected in the market. Land value can range
from $3,000 per acre to $25,000 per acre, depending on soil quality and the type of crop
that can grow on it. Make sure that fact is reflected in any appraisal. There can be a
difference in what the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map says and
the actual soil type. If the land is used for hay, that's probably the best crop that can grow
in the soil. Elder stated the NRCS statement is that the owner has likely improved the
quality of the soil. They have not had the opportunity to test the soils. The majority of the
pasture ground is comprised of prime soils, and the vegetables are growing in the 119
Pilchuck soil, which is rated a lower quality.
Browne stated the valuation needs to reflect the true value of the farmland. Elder
stated the County is purchasing the development right versus the value of the agricultural
property.
Weimer stated the current motion is to approve all three parcels with the
conditions that the Council wants to see written confirmation from the City of Everson about
the portion of the 66 -acre parcel that is in the UGA, and that the Council wants a dual
appraisal of the 66 -acre parcel, one with the light industrial UGA property and one without.
The Council concurred.
Kremen stated the appraisal will contain the soil borings to assess the soil. Elder
stated he's already made a request to the NRCS to fly a soil scientist to Washington to
perform that soil review. They should get the data at about the same time that the appraisal
is done.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND VAN NESS
FELDMAN, LLP, TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD CASES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,000 (AB2014 -136A)
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 and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL OF AN INSURANCE POLICY EXTENSION FOR THE
WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY (AB2014 -289)
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)
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ICON ENTERPRISES, INC.
(D /B /A CIVICPLUS), FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO REDESIGN AND
MIGRATE THE MAIN WHATCOM COUNTY WEBSITE TO THEIR HOSTED WEB
CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,840 (AB2014-
293)
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)
6. APPOINTMENT OF ONE COUNCILMEMBER TO THE BELLINGHAM / WHATCOM
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS A
LIAISON (AB2014 -286)
Weimer moved to nominate and appoint Councilmember Browne.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
1. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
JOHN LESOW TO THE POINT ROBERTS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(AB2014 -296)
Buchanan moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS TO
THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WCC CHAPTER 2.22 (AB2014 -297)
Crawford moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
54
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2009 AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 23 — SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2014 -287)
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR WATER RESOURCES IMPROVEMENT
PLAN (WRIP) FOR THE YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2020 (AB2014 -298)
(Council Acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of
Supervisors)
3. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT'S INTENTION TO LEASE PROPERTY ON RIVER ROAD (AB2014-
299)
(Council Acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of
Supervisors)
4. ORDINANCE TERMINATING OPEN SPACE TIMBER LAND CLASSIFICATION
AND CONSOLIDATING TIMBER LAND CLASSIFICATION WITH DESIGNATED
FOREST LAND CLASSIFICATION AND DECLARING LAND PREVIOUSLY
CLASSIFIED AS TIMBER LAND TO BE DESIGNATED FOREST LAND (AB2014-
300)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTEENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $349,100 (AB2014 -301)
6. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FOR THE YEARS 2015
THROUGH 2020 (AB2014 -294)
COMMITTEE REPORTS, OTHER ITEMS, AND COUNCILMEMBER UPDATES
Mann reported for the Planning and Development Committee on the discussion of
possible options for regulation of vacation rental uses in Whatcom County
(AB2014 -295) Staff will prepare an ordinance with option two that will go to the Planning
Commission next year.
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee regarding
scheduling a Council tour of County facilities at the Northwest Annex and State Street. One
potential tour date is next Tuesday after the Surface Water Work Session.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he will work with Council staff to schedule a
tour from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., beginning at the Northwest Annex.
Crawford also reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee on
the discussion of outreach options for the update of the Comprehensive Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (AB2014- 266A). There was general committee
consensus that they don't need to move further on any particular outreach effort beyond
what the administration has already approved.
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, 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
Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee on the
discussion of a proposed resolution approving the Whatcom County Six -Year
Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2015 through 2020 (AB2014-
294).
She also reported for the Committee on the discussion regarding the Council's
desire for additional information related to the County's herbicide spray program
(AB2014 -221). Public Works Department Director Frank Abart asked councilmembers to
submit to him their questions regarding the herbicide program.
She reported that she talked with people who work to stop human trafficking here.
They hope for a Council and Executive proclamation to designate a day or week to recognize
and try to prevent human trafficking. Last, she attended a banquet for veterans suffering
from post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They must correctly name the issue of mental
health instead of masking the issues by calling them behavioral health issues.
Kremen reported National Association of Counties (NACo) and Washington State
Association of Counties (WSAC) have asked him to participate on behalf of Washington
State in a payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) program fly -in at Washington, D.C. Whatcom
County receives $1.5 million to $2 million annually in PILT funds. It's possible the County
can lose that money. Other Washington state counties receive more. Congress is
threatening to eliminate the program. WSAC and NACo are paying for his trip. The
representatives have one day of meetings with key Congressional leadership. The next
morning they will meet with a variety of federal administrative departments.
Weimer reported he was invited to attend an emergency response on an oil train spill
simulation hosted by the County Department of Emergency Management.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on October 14, 2014.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 9/16/2014, Page 18