HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 29 20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
January 29, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(7:02:32 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner and Pete Kremen.
Absent: Carl Weimer.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
(7:03:02 PM)
Kershner announced there was a discussion of forestry management planning
for the Lake Whatcom trust lands proposed for reconveyance (AB2012 -066F)
(second of three meetings to be scheduled to discuss various aspects of the
reconveyance proposal) during the morning Special Committee of the Whole.
Kershner also announced there was discussion on a property issue with
Executive Jack Louws and legal council related to Growth Management Act UGA
(AB2013 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Mann moved to authorize the Council Chair to sign a letter on behalf of Whatcom
County citizens to the U.S. Department of Interior in opposition to the proposed transfer of
Whatcom County land into trust for the Lummi Nation.
Kershner read the letter into the record.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION REGARDING A PETITION FOR THE VACATION OF
BRIDGEWATER STREET (SHIPYARD ROAD) AND DEARBORN AVENUE, FILED
BY JAYME GILDAY AND JEAN ALLEN, ET AL (AB2012 -272A) (7:08:12 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Jayme Gilday submitted a handout (on file) and stated she is the co -owner of the
property and co- petitioner for the vacation of the road right -of -way. The right -of -way is
larger than that of other roads. The road has no center line, isn't widely traveled, and is in
the same location as it has been since it was platted in 1896. The unusually large right -of-
way qualifies it for this proposed road vacation. The house was originally built in 1910, and
remodeled in the footprint in 2004 and 2005, without knowledge that it was on the right -of-
way. They discovered the right -of -way during a survey in 2006.
County Engineer Joe Rutan was not able to recommend the vacation based on the
possibility that the property could be annexed to Blaine, since it's in the urban growth area.
Blaine's Director of Public Works has addressed that concern and provides conditions under
which the City could agree to the vacation. She proposed a revised vacation in compliance
with Director's guidelines. Approve the compromise.
Bill Bullock, City of Blaine Assistant Public Works Director, submitted a handout (on
file) and stated the City of Blaine has evaluated the property and offered an alternative to
extend the north property line to about five feet beyond the building. The revision would
accommodate all existing utilities and power lines, including clear zones from the power
lines. The vacation would clear the cloud of title on the property, and still maintains the
maximum level of right -of -way that may be needed it the future.
Kershner asked if this is in the urban growth area, not the Blaine city limits. Bullock
stated that's correct.
Kershner asked how the remodel permits went through. Bullock stated that was a
County process.
Kremen asked if the City discussed it's revision with the proponent. Bullock stated
he has. The proponent's compromise is similar to, but not exactly the same, as the City's
proposed revision. The proponents compromise would work, but this proposed revision is
much simpler.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated the road vacation report focus is very
narrow. It addresses only whether it is a public benefit. In this case, there is not a public
benefit. There is risk to the house being in the right -of -way. His recommendation was not
based on Blaine's comments. The redesign that is being proposed would not change his
report to deny the vacation.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution as presented in the Council packet, for
discussion purposes.
Brenner asked what the Planning Department staff recommended in their memo.
She tends to agree with the proposal brought forward by the City of Blaine. Rutan stated
the Planning Department supports a vacation.
Brenner stated she met with Joe Rutan and Jayme Gilday about this. She was not
supportive of the vacation because it's in the urban growth area (UGA) and will be part of
the city at some point. However, it looks like their just talking about adding a small piece to
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
make the house whole and also not impede on Blaine's future plans for the road. It seems
like the compromise will, benefit everyone.
Kershner asked how this house was remodeled in 2004 when it was in the right -of-
way. Rutan stated the property wasn't surveyed in 1910 when the house was originally
built. Someone used the road as a monument and built back from it. However, the road is
very off center of the right -of -way. A remodel permit doesn't require a survey. The owner
surveyed the property to deal with other lines and found out about the right -of -way, and is
now seeking resolution.
Kershner asked the cost of the application fee. Gilday stated the fee is $682.
Crawford asked about the public benefit. The County vacates roads for public
benefit. He asked for an example of when there would be a public benefit. Rutan stated
the most recent was the reconstruction of Saxon Road away from the eroding bank. There
have not been many vacation requests in the past ten years.
Crawford asked if public benefit is defined. Rutan stated the Council and Public
Works Committee have discussed that question. He's tried to make his recommendations
consistent.
Crawford asked the legal status of the owner if the County does not vacate the right -
of -way. Rutan stated it has not been a problem for the County or the owner. Things are
developing out there, including a sewer line and new houses. It's hard to predict the future.
The County would not make the owner move. The County won't do any development in the
right -of -way, but as properties around it develop, there could be a need for right -of -way for
utilities.
Crawford asked if Whatcom County has ever made a residence move out of the
right -of -way. Rutan stated County has found unpermitted structures built in the right -of-
way, and the County will require the owner to remove the structure. When he worked for
the Department of Transportation, a structure in the right -of -way was a residence. In this
case, only half of the residence is in the right -of -way, so the Department had to pay for only
half of the relocation cost. Whatcom County has not made someone leave their home, to
his knowledge.
Brenner asked if Mr. Rutan would have a problem if the area were vacated. Rutan
stated he will not have a problem if his recommendation were overruled. He thought it very
important that the Council hear the comments from the City of Blaine because the property
is in the UGA, and any development would be the City's problem.
Crawford asked if they can amend the vacation without charging another fee. Rutan
stated that because the proposed vacation area is larger than what is being considered, it
would not need a new public hearing.
Crawford stated he will vote against the vacation, but encourages staff to work with
the applicant without additional cost to the applicant and bring forward a new vacation
proposal similar to what the City of Blaine recommends.
Brenner stated it would be easier to hold this item and ask staff to prepare an
amended resolution. Rutan stated the applicant would have to produce this, not the Public
Works staff. They will have to hire a surveyor to survey and map the proposal. He won't
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
have to write a new engineer's report. He will work with the applicant and surveyor, but not
produce the application.
Brenner asked if the Council must vote against this resolution or is able to hold it and
modify it.
Crawford stated he is more comfortable supporting that if the surveyor provides
exact lines. There will be a minimal cost to the person to have the map redrawn, but it
won't be much. If Blaine is proposing an actual corner, their staff would probably want a
marker on that corner. In the future, everyone needs to know where that spot is.
Kershner stated she is ready to vote in favor of the applicant's map.
Brenner stated having the whole area in the vacation could produce problems for the
County or City of Blaine in the future. The City would have to buy property back if it needed
to do anything. The Council must remember all the taxpayers.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the Council could ask Public Works staff,
applicant, and City of Blaine to prepare a modified proposal for Council consideration at a
later date.
Kershner asked how much extra it will cost the applicant.
Crawford stated the applicant will probably have to pay another $400 to get a new
sketch from the surveyor.
Kremen stated he finds it hard to swallow the fact that the County has been
collecting property taxes on a residence for over 100 years, indicating to him that the
residence is a legal residence. Now, the County is saying it's not a legal residence. It's a
poor reflection of the way the County operates. If this were between two civil parties, there
would be prescriptive rights. He's not encouraged by this whole issue. He'd like to see an
amicable solution, so the property owner is made whole.
Brenner stated she understands, and the proponent is sympathetic. However,
buyer's must beware. It's terrible that it happened, but sometimes things happen. There
was never a survey. It's not the County's job to go out and survey property. It's
unfortunate this happened. They are coming to an amicable solution.
Gilday stated her great aunt bought the property in 1918. She eventually inherited
the property. No one was culpable for not having the property surveyed.
Brenner stated she had her property surveyed when she remodeled her 100 -year old
farmhouse. It's not the County's job to do the survey, and it's not the owner's fault she
didn't know.
Crawford withdrew his motion to approve and moved to postpone consideration
until the Council receives further information.
Kershner asked if the councilmembers are willing to accept the proposed revision.
Crawford stated that the councilmembers seem to indicate they are willing, it will
always be speculative and based on the information that is submitted.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Kershner stated she's ready to vote to approve the vacation as presented, so she will
vote against the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, and Mann (5)
Nays: Kershner (1)
Absent: Weimer (1)
OPEN SESSION
(7 :42:43 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Yoshi Revelle spoke about school safety.
• Kris Ungern spoke about the proposed resolution designating the Parks
Improvement Fund to receive grant proceeds generated by the purchase of
the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013 -050).
• Larry Helm spoke about Introduction Item two (AB2013 -074) and about
public views regarding gun control.
• Lorraine Newman submitted and read from a handout (on file) about a
proposed resolution designating the Parks Improvement Fund to receive grant
proceeds generated by the purchase of the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013-
050).
• Gary Lysne submitted and read from a handout (on file) about the proposed
resolution designating the Parks Improvement Fund to receive grant proceeds
generated by the purchase of the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013 -050).
• Carl Olsen submitted and read from a handout (on file) about the proposed
resolution designating the Parks Improvement Fund to receive grant proceeds
generated by the purchase of the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013 -050).
• Dan McShane spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Skip Richards spoke about Introduction Item 2, a budget amendment
regarding water supply plan.
• Joe Erickson submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about proposed sites for
Whatcom County jail.
• Donna Clark spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Rudd Browne submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the Lake
Whatcom reconveyance.
• Ellen Baker submitted and read from a handout (on file) about the proposed
resolution designating the Parks Improvement Fund to receive grant proceeds
generated by the purchase of the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013 -050) and
about the Planning Unit.
• Kris Halterman submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the Lake
Whatcom reconveyance, the Whatcom Integration Team (WIT), and the
proposed resolution designating the Parks Improvement Fund to receive grant
proceeds generated by the purchase of the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013-
050).
• Rand Jack spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Jean Quinlivan spoke about the proposed resolution designating the Parks
Improvement Fund to receive grant proceeds generated by the purchase of
the Lily Point Marine Park (AB2013 -050).
• Chet Dow spoke about Introduction Item two (AB2013 -074) and the Planning
Unit.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Ray Baribeau spoke about the jail planning process.
Jason Reimer spoke about the Planning Unit and the Lake Whatcom
reconveyance.
CONSENT AGENDA
(8:26 :41 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items two, three, and five through 22. He withdrew Consent
Agenda items one and four. Item four is held in committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL LOAN AND GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF LYNDEN TO PROVIDE FUNDING FROM THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF LYNDEN'S WATER
TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000,000 (AB2013 -036)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request. He stated that he is, however, strongly against the request. The
Economic Development Investment (EDI) fund dollars are for economic development. The
City of Lynden asked the County to loan them $4 million and give them $2 million for a new
water treatment plant. This request doesn't meet the criteria for an EDI handout. It would
be the biggest EDI gift ever for an infrastructure item the County won't be involved with.
Giving $2 million to 12,000 people is a lot. It's a small segment of the population, and
there is no nexus with economic development. Arguments for water in terms of economic
development could be extrapolated to the entire county, so they might as well give $60
million to the City of Bellingham for Lake Whatcom. One can justify anything with that
logic.
He also doesn't like this because the City of Lynden put a hold on building permits
because it didn't have enough water. This is about the issue of who pays for growth. This
is a good example of how development costs all the people of the county. Impact fees
never cover the cost of development. The population at large is asked to fund growth in a
small area. He asked people on the far left and far right of the political spectrum, and no
one thought it was a good idea. He doesn't understand why people think this is a legitimate
request. Let the ratepayers pay for their own water. He won't support the request.
Brenner stated she respectfully disagrees with Councilmember Mann. The EDI fund
is dedicated to economic development. The majority of the benefit would be for economic
development in Lynden. They've used the EDI fund money for things that have much less
impact on economic development. They are spending millions of dollars on Lake Whatcom.
Part of an area in Lynden has a lot of potential for industrial development, but it was put on
hold due to the water issue. The Mayor of Lynden said they're working with the State,
which says it can move ahead. This is an opportunity for Lynden's economic development.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Absent: Weimer (1)
2. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TREASURER'S LIST OF PETITIONS FOR
PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS (AB2013 -051)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER FOOTHILLS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PROMOTION OF
THE OPERATION OF THEIR VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER AND THEIR
MISSION TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND OVERNIGHT STAYS IN WHATCOM
COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,505 (AB2013 -052)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER FOOTHILLS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PROMOTION OF
THE BAKER — BIRCH BAY TOURISM PROMOTION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $123,500 (AB2013 -053)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
this item is held in committee pending the receipt of information from the Chamber of
Commerce and the Whatcom County Tourism Bureau. Make sure the various agencies
aren't duplicating services.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELLIOTT BAY DESIGN GROUP,
LLC FOR ON -CALL SUPPORT FOR THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY SYSTEM, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2013 -054)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BENNETT
ENGINEERING FOR LANDFILL MONITORING SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$8,045, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $104,335
(AB2013 -055)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY NETWORK FOR BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2013 -056)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ASSIST IN
COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND PREPARING DATA AND REPORTS
RELEVANT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTIES AND TENANTS AS
WELL AS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THE CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $55,650 (AB2013 -057)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
ANNUAL PURCHASE OF RADIO EQUIPMENT IN 2013 FOR SHERIFF'S
VEHICLES USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
MOTOROLA FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND VENDOR COMMUNICATIONS
NORTHWEST FOR THE INSTALLATION, IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$50,000 (AB2013 -058)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE 2013 — 2014 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF LIGNOSITE FROM
MEENDERINCK, LLC, A SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, IN AN APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $50,000 PER YEAR (AB2013 -059)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
2013 — 2014 ANNUAL PURCHASE OF GUARDRAIL AND RELATED REPAIR
PARTS AND SUPPLIES USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM
VENDOR CORAL SALES, IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $40,000 PER
YEAR (AB2013 -060)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE 2013 — 2014 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF AUTO PARTS, USING
THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM LOCAL VENDORS, IN AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $80,000 PER YEAR (AB2013 -061)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF LUBRICANTS USING THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR REISNER DISTRIBUTOR,
INC., IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $35,000 (AB2013 -062)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE 2013 — 2014 ANNUAL AUTOBODY REPAIR SERVICES
USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR CEI GROUP
WITH GITT'S AUTOBODY OF FERNDALE DOING THE ACTUAL REPAIRS, IN AN
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $80,000 PER YEAR (AB2013 -063)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF WATERBORNE TRAFFIC LINE PAINT FOR 2013 USING AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEWIS COUNTY FROM VENDOR SHERWIN
WILLIAMS, INC. (AB2013 -064)
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF WATERBORNE TRAFFIC LINE PAINT FOR 2013 USING AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE COUNTY FROM VENDOR ENNIS
PAINT (AB2013 -065)
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF WATERBORNE TRAFFIC LINE PAINT FOR 2013 USING THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR, ALPINE PRODUCTS INC.
(AB2013 -066)
18. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #12 -82
TO THE LOW BIDDER, TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY, FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY
OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,208.31 PER YEAR
FOR UP TO THREE RENEWALS (AB2013 -067)
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN 2013 FOR PATROL
VEHICLES USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR
AUTO ADDITIONS, INC. IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $70,000
(AB2013 -068)
20. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE 2013 — 2014 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF TIRES, TUBES AND
SERVICE USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT FROM LOCAL
VENDORS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 PER YEAR (AB2013 -069)
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL
SUPPLY OF GLASS BEADS FOR TRAFFIC MARKING PAINT USING THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDOR ALPINE PRODUCTS, IN AN
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $100,000 (AB2013 -070)
22. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ASPHALT PRODUCTS USING THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM VENDORS ALBINA ASPHALT,
ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES, LIQUID
CONCRETE, PARTNER CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, SPECIAL ASPHALT
PRODUCTS, SOUND REFINING, WILLIAMS FORM ENGINEERING, AND
CRAFCO, IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $40,000 (AB2013 -071)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE CLOSING THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE LEGACY PETTY CASH FUND
(AB2013 -041) (8 :36:26 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROJECT FUND FOR THE NEW JAIL PROJECT
2013 -2014 (AB2013 -042) (8 :37 :15 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the substitute ordinance with the correct figures.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIRST
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,944 (AB2013 -043) (8:38:43 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she is against the item dedicated to paths and trails. The money to
fund the park river walk is from the real estate excise tax (REET) II fund. That money can
also be used for stormwater facilities and roads, both of which the County will need for the
jail facility. There isn't enough money in the REET II fund to pay for that jail infrastructure.
Instead, those funds can come from the park improvement fund and a trail and walk fund
that is embedded in the road fund. The REET II funds should be used for essential costs
associated with the new jail. Otherwise the County will have to ask the public to pay more
money for it. Be tight with any money that be used on the new jail.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated this is funding carried forward from 2012 and
is to complete a project that has already started. Work had been held up due to permitting.
Don't hold up this item. He hasn't had the opportunity to do any research on the trail fund
embedded in the road fund, to find out if the transfer of those funds would be appropriate
for this project. Many projects are planned for the next few years that would be able to use
those funds. He recommends approval.
Kershner asked why it was originally funded by REET II instead of the park
improvement fund. Louws stated he doesn't know what the original plans were.
Brenner stated she asked back then to do it, but no one agreed with her.
Crawford stated the Parks Department forwarded maps of the project. The design
work is good.
Mann asked if it's possible to use EDI funds for the jail.
Kremen stated it is not. Unfortunately, the Port of Bellingham and City of Bellingham
went to the legislature. The County was able to, up to a few years ago, but the Port and
City collaborated to prevent the use of EDI funds for any correctional facility.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Absent: Weimer (1)
4. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10
(AB2013 -049) (8:44:09 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
Brenner stated she doesn't usually vote for items that are put out for surplus for no
reason other than mileage, but they received a reason for the surplus. The property is in
terrible shape. She supports the motion.
Crawford stated the dog will not be put up for sale. It is going to a good home.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Kremen stated the dog in question served the County citizens for seven years. She
has hip dysplasia and is going to a very caring and loving home.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
5. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND TO RECEIVE
GRANT PROCEEDS GENERATED BY THE PURCHASE OF THE LILY POINT
MARINE PARK (AB2013 -050) (8:45:52 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated this is an exit recommendation of the State
Auditor. The money has not been spent. He read the exit recommendation. He would like
clarification from the Council of where the money should go. If there is no action or a
negative vote on the resolution, he will see that the money goes back into the conservation
futures fund. This is the appropriate approach to resolving the problem once and for all.
Knutzen asked if the interest earned on the money is also being transferred. Louws
stated that if they can identify the interest, he will instruct the Finance Division. County
policy is that interest in all the funds goes into the general fund.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution for the purpose of allowing discussion.
Brenner stated she was shocked the State Auditor didn't make this situation a
finding. She contacted the Attorney General's Office and Municipal Research Service. They
were both surprised it wasn't listed as a finding. She doesn't think it was intentional, but
the resolution implies that the Council may have informally moved the funds. The Council
voted in the ordinance to reimburse the conservation futures fund. It didn't have anything
to do with the Attorney General not restricting the funds. She is opposed to the resolution.
Crawford stated he thanks Chet Dow for his perspective and good questions. The
community has a good reason for feeling this wasn't handled well. After much thought, he
is against the resolution to put the funds into the parks fund. However, the return of this
money is a problem. The ongoing accumulation of millions of dollars in the conservation
futures fund creates more financial pressure to keep acquire rights and interests in property
around Whatcom County, while doing little to nothing to address the management of these
properties. In the purchase of development rights program, the County addresses this
problem by passing the management of those properties to the Whatcom Land Trust. The
community would not want the County to hand off management of park properties to the
Land Trust, and he agrees. He supports having flexibility to use the conservation futures
funds on management and improvements to County park assets. He asked if the $1.5
million could be earmarked for something other than park purchases, such as management
and other purposes, while it's in the conservation futures fund.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated they discussed the
question with the Auditor. The question is whether this grant from the State is subject to
the restrictions specifically to the conservation futures tax levy. According to the Auditor,
there are not those restrictions to these grant funds. The conclusion is that the money
doesn't have the restriction that it must be used to acquire more parks. He understands
that the Council could have the money in the conservation futures fund without restrictions
that are applied to funds levied by the fund.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Crawford stated he favors that approach. Vote against the resolution, and ask the
administration to bring forward another resolution reflecting the flexibility of that money.
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
this resolution came from committee with no recommendation. A vote against this
resolution just says that the Council does what it promised with County money. The Council
said the money would go into the conservation futures fund. He doesn't care about
earmarking the money. It's nice to have more flexibility with money, but it's not right to
move the money into another fund. He is against the motion to approve the resolution.
Find a way to earmark money within the fund separately from this action.
Kremen stated the accusations and charges made tonight are without merit. People
have a right to have their own opinion and be against the reconveyance. According to
County staff, there was a budget retreat he did not attend on or about 2010 where the issue
was brought up. No one on the Council expressed a concern about it. There was never an
attempt to do anything improper. It was his proposal, with the approval of the County
Council, to reduce in half the amount of money generated by the conservation futures fund,
which ended last year due to a Council vote. At the time, the conservation futures fund had
the largest balance it ever had. The fund enabled the County to acquire 21 parks, at $.30
on the dollar, while he was Executive. It was more important to generate additional
revenues for the general fund and continue to add to a very healthy conservation futures
fund. The Council went along with it for two years. Last year, the Council decided to revert
back to doubling the amount of money that went to the conservation futures fund. If the
Council decides to put the $1.5 million in the conservation futures fund, it will have
restrictions. The conservation futures fund is now about $4.5 million. This change will bring
the balance to $6 million and add another $1.1 million annually. The money in the parks
fund would best be used and is most needed in the general fund. Right now, State Senator
Erickson is sponsoring a bill in the legislature that will give counties more flexibility to use
the people's money. All the money belongs to the people, regardless of which fund it's in.
That money should be used where it's needed the most.
Brenner stated this is about a Council action that was ignored, intentionally or
otherwise. Funding for the project was requested through the conservation futures fund on
January 28, 2010. The conservation futures funding was to be reimbursed with State grant
funding upon completion of the project. The Council said the money from the State would
go into the conservation futures fund. It's about the law and transparency. None of the
councilmembers knew at the retreat in 2010 that the money had been put in another fund.
The Council doesn't have its own financial person. The Council depends on the
administration to give the Council honest, transparent information. She found about this
when the Parks Director gave the Council information about $1.5 million in a park
improvement fund. When she asked where the money came from, no one answered her. It
took her four months to find out that it was money in an ordinance. The process is what
matters. They must be able to trust the process.
Kremen stated the budget retreats matter. According to his administrative staff, the
issue was brought up at a budget retreat, and the Council expressed no concerns. The
purpose of a budget retreat is to get direction from the Council. He was not at the retreat.
His staff are honest individuals. The implication that things weren't done properly isn't
correct. That's why the State Auditor did not issue a finding or a management letter.
Whatcom County received a clean audit from the State Auditor at it's last budget review.
He's proud of that fact. Everything was done with good intentions.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
Knutzen stated he doesn't remember this being said in the budget retreat. There
should be minutes that show the conversation.
Bennett stated it's not specifically referenced in the minutes. They have to listen to
all the meetings where the budget was discussed. He looked through the minutes and
couldn't find a reference to this specific subject. Someone would have to listen to the audio.
Knutzen stated his biggest concern is how this happened and whether it's happened
with other accounts. A number of people said the trust was broken, and have concerns
about government. He wants to know if other similar instances have happened. Bennett
stated they always try to make all the information available. They take it seriously. The
audits and records show that. This misunderstanding is unfortunate.
Knutzen stated all councilmembers have the same misunderstanding. It doesn't
seen anyone remembers the discussion during the budget retreat.
Mann stated the Council relies on the Finance Department and staff. The County has
a lot of staff with integrity and great professional standards. What was done was wrong and
wasn't a good idea. It's not helpful to say that it was a good idea or that the Council
approved it. Vote against the motion. This is not the time or place for any further
investigation. He commends Councilmember Brenner for her efforts.
Brenner stated she's never missed a retreat. If this had been mentioned, she would
have addressed it right away. She leaves it to the public to decide if it was mentioned at
the retreat. Regardless, the Council doesn't do things like this during a retreat. The
administration still has to bring it forward and go before the public.
Kershner stated it's important that the administration and Council work together.
There must be transparency. In the future, she asked the staff to know that it's
disrespectful to the councilmembers to try and hide things or make things appear differently
than they are. Commit to transparency in government. When items are brought forward to
the Council, the entire truth must be brought forward so the Council can make good
decisions. She does not support the motion.
Kremen stated there were no budget retreats before he became County Executive.
The previous County Executive put together a budget in a vacuum with her staff. Other
counties with a county executive and county council don't have budget retreats, and the
branches don't work together. He created the budget retreats in response to his time as a
former legislator and having budgets given to him by the governors under which he served.
It was a poor way to govern. A more collaborative approach is preferable and more
productive. He's proud of establishing that collaboration with the legislative branch. He will
not recuse himself from the vote, because there is no legal basis to do so. He was elected
by the people of Whatcom County, and he will exercise his right to vote as long as he is
legally able. He cares about working with the legislative body. Now that it's clear the
County Council does not want the $1.5 million in the park improvement fund and wants to
put it in the conservation futures fund, he will vote that way. He wants to be on the same
page as his colleagues. He will vote against the resolution.
Brenner stated she thanks Councilmember Kremen for setting up the budget
retreats. They have been helpful to her. However, that's not the issue.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: None (0)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Absent: Weimer (1)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DLR GROUP, INC. TO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO PLAN FOR THE NEW WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE JAIL FACILITY. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED IN THREE PHASES.
PHASE I TO INCLUDE THE REVIEW, ACCESS, CONDITION AND
METHODOLOGY OF PLANNING FOR THE NEW JAIL FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $243,470. UPON EXECUTIVE AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENCE WITH
PHASE II AND III AFTER INITIAL PROPERTY REVIEW BY DLR, THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL BE
CONDUCTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,986. ITEMIZED COST FOR ALL THREE
PHASES IS $404,456 PLUS $40,446 IN CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL COST
OF $444,902 (AB2013 -042A) (9 :26:01 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Brenner stated she thanks Councilmember Knutzen for finding inconsistencies in the
figures.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
7. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO THE CITY
OF NOOKSACK — REQ. #TR2012 -01 (FROM 1/15) (AB2012 -413A) (9 :27 :35
PM)
Crawford moved to approve the resolution. He asked about changing the dollar
amount.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the law requires that the amount be no less
than the principal amount of unpaid taxes, which was approximately $495. The figure must
be more than that amount.
Crawford asked if they can specify the sale directly to the City of Nooksack, or if
someone else will be able to bid $501. Frakes stated this has gone out for bid before, and
no one was interested. The law provides that the County can enter into negotiations with
another governmental entity, as long as the County sets a minimum price no less than the
unpaid principal amount of taxes. It won't go out for public bid.
Crawford moved to amend the line 19 of the resolution, "Now, Therefore, be It
Resolved that it is in the best interest of the County to sell: Parcel No.
400429.334247.1111/PID139186 Village of Nooksack Tract E TWN 40N RGE 04E SEC 29 By
negotiation for no less than $2,449.69 � $500."
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
Brenner stated the property could end up being a burden on the County. It is a
narrow strip of land that the City is maintaining and mowing. At any time, the City can
start charging the County for the work.
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
8. ANNUAL COUNTY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON
VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES: VARIOUS
APPLICANTS (APPOINTMENTS TAKE EFFECT ON FEBRUARY 1, 2013)
(AB2012 -358) (9:31 :22 PM)
Brenner moved to appoint Gerald Vekved to the vacancy for Planning Commission
District 3.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
Knutzen moved to appoint Dale Yoder to the vacancy on the Noxious Weed Control
Board for District 1.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(9:32:29 PM)
Brenner moved to accept Introduction Items one and three through five. She
withdrew item two.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Weimer (1)
1. ORDINANCE FINALIZING A REVISED SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT FOR
CONSOLIDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 (AB2013 -073)
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $000 916,635 (AB2013 -074)
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the original request came in for $255,000.
The request was modified to $916,635, which would accommodate the Sheriff's Office
records management system contract. The vendor is holding a spot for the County to begin
implementation. If the County doesn't approve the contract at the next Council meeting, it
will put things out of sorts. He encourages the Council to introduce this item regarding the
records management system. Also approve the funds for the Public Utility District (PUD)
contract so they can have an open and engaged discussion of the fate of that contract and
the direction of Whatcom County regarding water rights. Not introducing the item would
postpone the discussion. Introduction doesn't bind the Council to a positive vote in two
weeks.
Crawford moved to accept Introduction Item two.
Brenner stated she is opposed to Introducing this item. The Executive has the option
to remove the $255,000 for the public utilities improvement fund. She will support the
ordinance without that item. Louws stated he will leave the ordinance as it is.
Kershner stated introducing the ordinance is the only way the Council is allowed to
discuss the item and figure out which way to go. She will support introduction so the
Council can discuss it.
Brenner stated don't introduce that item. The Planning Unit has to be done. The
contract with the PUD is a conflict of interest. The PUD is in direct competition with all the
other water associations and water districts. There are many things on the agenda. Put
together the Planning Unit before they start these contracts.
Kershner stated introduction is the process for having that discussion.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner's concerns, but he also
agrees that the item should be introduced. The Council must critically look at the concerns,
but the Council can't do that without introducing the item.
Kershner asked if this item can be discussed in the Public Works, Health, and Safety
Committee in two weeks.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the items will be scheduled in the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee.
Brenner stated they can still have the discussion without this item being on the
agenda. The Council can have its own discussion. Louws stated it's in the best interest of
the community for the Council to take action on this one way or another. He's receiving
pressure from the community, including the farming community, to begin providing
direction on land use and water. This is the contract that the Joint Board put together. He
will leave the $255,000 in the ordinance.
Brenner stated she understands the concerns from the agricultural community about
water issues. That's the exact reason why this item shouldn't be in the ordinance. They
must start at the beginning with the Planning Unit. A lot of farmers won't be happy if they
see where that contract is going, because they belong to associations and districts that are
in direct competition with the PUD.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Absent: Weimer (1)
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2013 -049A)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2012 -054, ESTABLISHING THE
SHERIFF'S RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT FUND AND
ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR PHASE 1 OF THE SHERIFF'S
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT (AB2013 -075)
5. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO FINANCE A PORTION
OF THE COST OF REPLACING THE SHERIFF AND JAIL RECORDS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AB2013 -076)
OTHER BUSINESS
(9:42:46 PM)
Kershner asked what is the Whatcom Integration Team (WIT).
Jack Louws, County Executive, said he will have Chris Brueske give a presentation at
the next Council meeting on the purpose of the WIT and how and why it was established.
Crawford stated the WIT determined that climate change was the biggest problem
for Whatcom County farmers getting water, and had no option regarding Tribal issues. That
is directly inverse to everything he's heard from the agricultural community about water
issues. He's interested to find out what exactly the WIT is doing.
Kershner stated she wants to know how the WIT is funded and what role it has in the
County water decisions.
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated there was
a presentation from Perry Eskridge two weeks ago regarding the code scrub. He asked the
status of the committee that will address it and whether Mr. Eskridge can participate.
Louws stated the committee has met, and they agreed that Perry Eskridge would
take a portion of the code from the code scrub committee and rewrite it in plain language.
The committee will then decide whether Mr. Eskridge's services will work out.
Crawford stated he and Councilmember Mann are on that committee. The
Committee is willing now to look at anything.
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, 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
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
(9:46:52 PM)
Mann reported he missed the first Council meeting of the year because he was on a
family vacation in Costa Rica. The roads were terrible, the police and justice system is
nonexistent, and corruption is rampant. It's still a great place to go on vacation. He
learned how much he appreciates the government here.
Brenner reported she attended the installation of officers at the Board of Realtors
annual dinner. She was impressed. A politically diverse group of people attended the
event, and everyone got along. At the beginning of the meeting, at ethics proclamation was
read. Their job is to maintain the highest levels of integrity.
Kremen reported he attended the Local Emergency Planning Council during which
British Petroleum (BP) gave a presentation about everything it's done in this community.
They have put in impressive resources to make the pipeline more safe. They are also very
collaborative and helpful with their personnel and their money. The City of Bellingham,
Whatcom County, and Port of Bellingham are working jointly to work out a deal with the
federal government to use the Olympic emergency center. It would enable all local
emergency management efforts from all jurisdictions to work in one of the top three
facilities in the country. He compliments the Sheriff's Office for trying to acquire that
facility. It would be a tremendous asset for every citizen in the county.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on February 26, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 1/29/2013, Page 18