HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 23 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
July 23, 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
(7:02:29 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kershner announced that the following items were discussed in the Special
Committee of the Whole and Committee of the Whole meetings today:
1. Executive Louws continues discussion regarding 2014 EMS service (AB2013 -170)
2. Discussion of a proposed ordinance adopting the current State Building Code and
repealing the existing Title 15 of the Whatcom County Code (AB2013 -271)
3. Discussion regarding potential property acquisition for the Flood Control Zone District
(AB2013 -018)
Weimer moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom
County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with and
complete acquisition of nine Marietta parcels for the purchase amounts discussed in
executive session.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
4. Strategy planning discussion and positions to be taken regarding collective
bargaining (AB2013 -018)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE FINALIZING A REVISED SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT FOR
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 (AB2013 -237) (7 :05:07 PM)
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, gave a staff report.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Ben Hickey stated he's seeking clarification. This appears to be a tax increase. The
land on which this tax is paid doesn't need a drainage ditch. He doesn't know what he's
paying for and would like an explanation of why he's being taxed and how the money will be
used. They are asked to approve general funding to be used for anything, not at his
discretion. It's not fair to generally tax everyone for the benefit of certain individuals'
drainage improvement.
Lynn Hickey stated he wants clarification of whether this is a tax increase or a
decrease. There has never been any flooding in that area. He's in District 4. In his district,
no one wants to clean the ditch or dredge the river. The taxes were removed from Scott
Ditch because no one cleaned the ditch. This is the same thing. Nothing will get done. Too
many agencies are involved in the cleaning of ditches.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Cooper stated this is not a tax increase or decrease. Three supervisors set the
annual assessments for the district. They decide how much money to collect. Last year
they collected $2,500. By law, they have to send each district property owner a letter
telling them their assessment per thousand dollars. They also include last year's
assessment method and the proposed new method.
Kershner stated the elected district commissioners set the amount of money
collected for the district. The County role is to just make the rule as to how the assessment
is done. Cooper stated that's correct. The assessment is typically based on land area and
benefit zone.
Brenner stated comments were made that nothing is happening. She asked if
drainage is necessary in this area. Cooper stated the drainage district meets yearly. It has
an annual work program. Without the ditch, they'd have a lot more water. Most of the
drainage districts have done combinations of ditching and planting, so they spend much of
their money on spraying and beaver dam removal.
Crawford stated the lowest total fee per $1,000 of assessed value is 37 cents.
Nothing goes lower than that. The Hickeys' assessment is $6.93 per $1,000 of assessed
value. He asked how the Hickeys' property is different from a property that is assessed only
37 cents per $1,000. Cooper stated in general, this district had a $2,500 assessment and
about 250 parcels. Two years ago, they had a minimum fee of $10 per parcel. The
minimum fee amount was eliminated and reapportioned. Some of the little lots were paying
as much as the big lots. This new method will make it fairer. The possible differences
between the two parcels include different acreages or benefit zones. One of the lots was
several acres, and the other lot was one acre.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Crawford asked if they ended the even assessment and are switching to an
assessment based on benefit. Cooper stated that's correct.
Crawford stated include another column on the spreadsheet that indicates a property
owner's total tax paid.
Brenner asked if the first acre costs more, and each additional acre costs less.
Cooper stated that's incorrect. For small lots that are less than an acre, they are being
charged as if the lot is one acre. The assessment for each lot is based on how much
acreage is in each of the different benefit zones. The geographic information system (GIS)
staff calculate the amount for each lot. The formula calculates how much acreage in a
parcel is in each benefit zone.
Mann asked the specific taxes last year and with this revision for the public hearing
speakers.
Kremen stated the Hickeys will be paying $4.42 less than last year.
Crawford stated there are other Hickey -owned parcels on the list. Cooper stated
every property owner received a letter indicating their old assessment and the new
assessment.
Kershner asked if the district commissioners are aware of this program. Cooper
stated they are. They support it.
Mann stated it looks like the Hickeys are getting a decrease in their assessment.
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW
AGRICULTURAL AREA AMENDMENTS AND RELATED CHANGES AFFECTING
THE AGRICULTURE ZONE (AB2013 -1288) (7:22:21 PM)
Amy Keenan, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
The parcel reconfiguration portion of the original proposal has been removed.
Kershner asked if this went through and had a recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the Council Planning Committee. Keenan stated it has.
Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2013-
252) (7 :25 :37 PM)
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann asked about a correction that was mentioned in the staff memo. Personius
stated the correction had been made.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34 FERRY
RATES (AB2013 -253) (7 :29 :43 PM)
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, gave a staff report.
Brenner asked if the Ferry Task Force recommended this exact language. Abart
stated he couldn't say. The Task Force recommended moving it towards this conclusion.
They noted the Opportunity Council. The ordinance doesn't name the contracting agency,
but the Opportunity Council is the agency they're considering for the contract.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Rhayma Blake stated a recent petition supported the special needs, senior, and
disabled discount fares. The proposal is what the Ferry Task Force recommended. Improve
and adopt the ordinance. Strike the fourth sentence in subsection 10.34.020(K) regarding
the number of needs -based applications processed annually being dependent upon the
constraints of the ferry operations budget. That language needs to be written in every
ordinance the Council adopts or struck from this one. This ordinance doesn't look at the
request for a new fare level, which is a 10 -ride needs based passenger /pedestrian punch
card for about $37. It would replace the 25 -ride card at $92, which is a lump sum out of
reach of low- income budgets. The Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee will bring
forward its fare recommendations later on.
Betsy Schneider stated she supports everything the previous speaker said. It
addresses all the concerns raised about administration of the special needs fare program.
There was a concern about the difficulty of determining current Medicaid eligibility. The
proposed ordinance eliminates the Medicaid category. Those people will hopefully continue
to be eligible under the new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) very low income
guidelines. Another concern was finding an entity to screen for eligibility. The Opportunity
Council has experience screening low- income programs at a lower cost than the County.
She agreed with striking the sentence in 10.34.020(K).
Tip Johnson stated costs unrelated to the provision of service are prohibited from
being included in tolls and fares as a general governmental principle. The major expense
that increased the fares was crossing the tidelands. The federal government may seize
those lands with no compensation and use them for purposes such as the ferry. Continue to
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
investigate that option. People are confused about the policy basis for the decision made
regarding the ferry lease. He made a public disclosure request on that issue. Virtually
every document is protected by attorney - client privilege. Open the record for public review.
The people paying the money should know the basis for decisions made.
Kathleen Gallagher stated the housing market prevents anyone from moving from
the island. People have said that anyone who can't afford to live there should move. That
is hurtful. Senior and low income residents on the island are trying to get by. Fares were
much lower when people moved to the island. Don't cap the low income amount.
Greg Brown stated there is no more Ferry Task Force. There is the Lummi Island
Ferry Advisory Committee, which has discussed this issue. Removing the statement is
probably the right thing to do. He supports the ordinance.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford moved to request that staff bring back an ordinance eliminating the
special needs subsidy. It's important to understand that the fixed cost of operating the
ferry doesn't change, regardless of whether or not the Council does this. The current
operating cost of the ferry is at about $2.4 million per year. That number eclipses any other
road activity, bridge support, or anything else in Whatcom County. The subsidy shifts the
operating cost from the people who want to live on Lummi Island to the rest of the county
taxpayers. The county taxpayers are subsidizing folks who choose to live on Lummi Island.
It is a lifestyle decision that folks have made to go over there and then ask the rest of the
County road tax payers to subsidize. One piece of County road infrastructure takes over ten
percent of the annual road program cost. However, Councilmember Brenner moved to
adopt the ordinance. His motion would probably be out of order.
Crawford withdrew the motion.
Kremen asked the source of the language in section 10.34.020(K) came. Abart
stated the language is a prudent budget activity. He added the language. It will be up to
the Council when it approves the budget. The reason driving the language is because the
County made significant cuts to this area of public service. There were concerns of being
able to meet this. He intends to come forward in the fall and ask for an increase in the
2014 budget for that particular line item.
Kremen moved to amend the ordinance to delete the fourth sentence in section
10.34.020(K).
Kershner asked for the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Abart stated he
doesn't have anything from them.
Kershner asked if there is any indication that the Advisory Committee supports this
ordinance. Generally, the Council receives a recommendation from an advisory committee
that weighs in on an ordinance. They don't have that.
Crawford stated they will not only subsidize the cost, but they are adding another
$50 per application to pay an outside group to look at these applications and see if the
people are qualified. That will not come out of anything else they do with the ferry. The
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
ferry is a fixed cost. It is more added cost that the rest of the taxpayers will pay. He
questions the sense of considering this.
Weimer stated he supports the proposed amendment. Councilmember Crawford's
characterization that the rest of the county is subsidizing this is not correct. The fare
formula is to share the cost between the people who ride the ferry and the rest of the
county. The island residents want to support the ability of low income people to ride the
ferry. They are willing to subsidize this in their 55 percent. One way or another, people on
Lummi Island pay 55 percent of the cost. The small amount of $1,600, which is the
Opportunity Council cost, will be borne by the rest of the people on Lummi Island. He
thanks them for that offer. The Treasurer stated it costs him $5,000 to administer the
program. Moving this to the Opportunity Council is a cost reduction.
Knutzen asked if they are up to 55 percent. It was a goal, but he doesn't know if
they've reached it. Abart stated they have reached it.
Crawford stated the surcharge got them close to the 55 percent.
Mann asked the estimated cost of the needs -based fare at the fare box. Abart stated
the difference between what they pay and what a normal fare cost in 2012 is about
$23,159. That doesn't include any administrative cost.
Kershner asked if the needs -based fare subsidy picked up only by the fare - paying
ticket buyers. Abart stated not exactly. It's 55 percent. The road fund picks up 45
percent. It's part of the operating costs.
Brenner stated the councilmembers voted to approve a lease for millions of dollars
that they didn't have to have. It wasn't the law. It was the path of least resistance. That
cost was on the people of Lummi Island. The County owes it to the people on Lummi Island
to fight the lease. In the meantime, this is a small amount. The Council subsidizes low
income people in many ways.
Weimer stated he talked to the Advisory Committee Chair earlier today. He
indicated the Advisory Committee basically approved this as -is and supports the language
change.
Kershner stated she still prefers to have written support of the ordinance.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Brenner, and Kremen (3)
Nays: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, and Kershner (4)
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO
ALLOW PACKINGHOUSES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT
(AB2012 -300B) (7:58:27 PM)
Josh Fleishman, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and submitted a map of critical aquifer recharge areas and agricultural Comprehensive Plan
designations (on file).
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
John Kirk stated this ordinance is not what the Planning Commission recommended.
It includes open -ended cost items and inserts licensing and groundwater assessments that
threaten unlimited financial impacts on farmers. The ordinance is now toxic for business.
Recognize the conflict between farmers and environmental agencies. Adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation. Remove the extensive controls in the ordinance. Don't
ignore the ideological nexus between Futurewise and County staff.
Matt Petryni, ReSources for Sustainable Communities, stated he is concerned the
ordinance goes too far by opening 88,000 acres of agricultural land to an industrial use. It
doesn't clearly establish the need. He is concerned about cattle being shipped in from other
areas and stored on feedlots. He supports a sustainable local agricultural industry. Balance
the need with the need for clean drinking water. Consider abandoning the ordinance until
the need can be determined. Add protections to ensure water quality is safe.
Melodie Kirk stated she supports allowing packinghouses, but does not support this
ordinance. There is no method for determining which animals are from Whatcom or Skagit
county. Reduce the regulations. Go back to the version from the Planning Commission.
Paul Anderson stated packinghouses use a huge amount of water. They don't know
what will happen with climate change in the future. He is concerned there won't be enough
water for the farmers. Protect the resources for the next seven generations.
Lloyd Elenbaas stated packinghouses would increase the farmgate value for all beef
farms and dairies in the county and would increase value -added product for farmers. It
would allow more choices for county consumers. Packinghouses would keep dollars and
jobs in Whatcom County. There will be no negative impacts from waste management. The
scale proposed is minuscule compared to the average dairy farm. A properly managed beef
fed operation requires no herbicides, pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. If they are going to
eat meat, they must be responsible for it. Farmers are less than two percent of the
population in the United States. They don't know how much food there will be in the future.
They must allow the farmer to survive.
Max Perry stated he supports the ordinance as the Planning Commission
recommended. There is a need in the county for small packinghouses. Adopt a cleaner,
useable ordinance to allow packinghouses in the agricultural zone.
Charles Law stated 88,000 acres of eroded, paved land is a loss to the community.
He is opposed to the ordinance.
Tee King stated the Council is going backward. It takes water and food to raise
cattle for food. Everyone opposes this, but it is moving forward. She is opposed to the
ordinance. These places are icky and aren't regulated. It won't be legal for her to go into it
with a camera because of the level of inhumanity in those places. Pigs will be afraid
because they are smelling their own kind being killed. They get hit in the head with a
baseball bat and lie there for hours while the other animals around them are killed. When
an animal is raised lovingly and organically, and they kill it, they don't eat its fear. Raise
animals humanely and only eat what they need. Stop growing food to feed food. They are
going to run out of water. Eat less meat and stop driving so much.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
53
Larry Helm stated a farmer will not stay around if he can't make a profit. Without
infrastructure, farmers won't succeed. Environmentalists have reasons that may become
problems, but not having the infrastructure they need for cattle process will for sure drive
the farmers away. The agricultural committee spent a lot of time on this. He supports the
ordinance as it was originally proposed.
Knutzen asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended this. Helm
stated they supported the original proposal without the restraints, such as prohibition in
aquifer recharge areas.
Kelly Uusitalo stated she is concerned about water quality. Controls about runoff and
location to other farms are very important. E -coli and other problems have been found in
agricultural produce. Look at the recharge. Farmers can make money in a way that is
sustainable. She agrees with the environmental protections. Many people would approve of
mobile slaughter units that doesn't use up agricultural land.
Tip Johnson stated these facilities need to be connected to publicly -owned water
supplies and wastewater treatment plants to ensure environmental and health safety. He is
not against slaughter. The State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) was not
competent. They must identify the areas where this activity is appropriate. The original
applicant wanted small scale. It has gotten ideologically out of control. Homes, schools,
and churches should not be around slaughterhouses. More competition doesn't work in this
business.
Evelyn Vooge stated a dead cow on Prairie Road will give them different ideas. If
this passes, there won't be money to enforce anything that goes wrong.
Greg Brown stated there he supports the original packinghouse ordinance. There are
problems with the current proposal, including the requirement for 75 percent from Whatcom
and Skagit Counties. The word "immediate" regarding feedlots isn't defined. They have a
right to farm in the county, including odors.
Virginia Watson stated she agrees that this can be done environmentally. Her main
concern is water in the rural areas. Require that a packinghouse applicant have a water
right certificate and /or approval from the water association and proof that the water
association has a water right. This will exacerbate the water rights battle in the county.
Consider the best solution for the best number of people. According to Sherry Keiser, they
could process the cattle if the meat were processed year around and avoid the fall glut that
causes the problem.
Lorraine Newman stated they are looking for a solution to the processing bottleneck.
Farmers deal with the USDA, the State Department of Ecology, the State Department of
Health, and many other State and federal agencies daily. Slaughtering animals for use as
food is a legal activity. The aquifer requirements are too onerous. Allow the farmers to
produce products that sustain lives.
Wendy Harris stated land use policies for farmland should protect long -term viability
of the agricultural economy and the safety of the food supply, rather than property
interests. She is opposed to the ordinance. It will fragment the agricultural land base.
Protect areas with prime soils from converting to an industrial use. The current proposal
doesn't ensure that adequate water is available for farmers to grow food. A facility will be
allowed to use the exempt well provision, which depletes the groundwater supply available
to farmers.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Tony Kuphaldt stated he tries to eat locally, including meat. It's hard to find high
quality, grass -fed beef in Whatcom County. Having a source is important for health
reasons, sustainability, and environmental concerns. A local source is a better solution.
Loss of local vegetable processing has had a negative effect in Whatcom County. The
situation is the same for meat processing. They need to find a compromise between
farmers and the environment.
Jasmine Cline stated he is concerned about effects on water. The local tribes also
seem concerned about effects on water. There will be no profit from poisoning the water.
Krista Kirk stated reconsider the original ordinance recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Roger Bajema stated there will be no problem with the water due to frequent
inspections. There is no concern about water. If they can't make a profit, they will sell the
land. Hauling the cows to the closest packing plant in Stanwood is stressful to the cattle.
They need a packinghouse locally. The meat will be inspected by the USDA. The ordinance
started out better than it is now.
Jessica Elenbaas read from the Growth Management Act (GMA), which references
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.170, and the Comprehensive Plan, which allows
innovative zoning techniques in Whatcom County to sustain agriculture and its support
industries. Packinghouses are as agricultural as berry processing and milking parlors.
John Lesow stated he disagrees with the previous speaker. Innovative zoning
techniques were not meant to address slaughterhouses on 88,000 acres in Whatcom
County. The original small scale slaughterhouse proposal has morphed into something
much bigger. This is a free industrial upzone for a certain segment of the community that
they are willing to placate, particularly during election time. The agricultural land will
eventually be sold to corporations. This proposal is not responsible long -range planning.
Zoning allows slaughter in areas that provide proper water and sewer services. It's
unrealistic that the County can effectively enforce the regulations of these slaughterhouses.
He is against the ordinance. Allow slaughterhouses in RIM zones and reject all other
amendments.
Judy Crnich stated she continues the testimony of Jessica and Ben Elenbaas. The
demand for beef in Whatcom County is huge, and is not met locally. Allow more diversity in
the agricultural zone. Create the infrastructure to connect the existing cattle with the
existing demand for local food. She supports the ordinance. Her land doesn't belong to
anyone else. She pays the taxes on it.
Nicole Brown stated the USDA issued a study in June 2013 and found that local
livestock producers must have better coordination with meat packers, which is more
important than distance to slaughter facilities. Aggregation of livestock and better
communication among farmers are better solutions than new slaughter facilities. The cattle
community claims that 40,000 to 50,000 cattle are shipped out of Whatcom county
annually. That equates to ten mobile units that are all that is needed, not including Keiser.
Keiser has said they don't operate at capacity because of scheduling issues. Everyone
wants to harvest the same time a year. Farmers must schedule better. If each Whatcom
County resident bought and ate twice the amount of local meat recommended by the USDA,
20,000 cattle would still be available for export. Eighty percent of the dairy industry
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
products are exported. She supports a diversified food system that meets a needs analysis.
Vegetable processing doesn't belong on agricultural land, either.
Jeff Voltz stated a 30,000 square foot operation is big, and would exceed local needs.
The population in Whatcom county consumes the equivalent of 26,409 beef cattle per year.
They eat the equivalent of 55,860 hogs per year. There is a big local market. About two
percent of the meat consumed in the county comes from the county. If that were increased
to ten percent, it would create $8 million to $10 million for the economy and about 100
jobs. Mobile units are one of the best solutions available, and have a processing plant in
the industrial zone.
Stephan Michaels asked why they are called packinghouses. They are
slaughterhouses. He asked the conditional use criteria for a 30,000 square foot
packinghouse. They need a better definition regarding holding pens and immediate use.
He asked why up to 25 percent of the animals to be slaughtered can be from out of county.
Nothing in the ordinance speaks to the humane treatment of the animals.
Terry Wechsler stated a 30,000 square foot packinghouse is not small. They must
have a needs analysis and see if it's economically feasible in an industrial area. Most
farmers want mobile units. Conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Bonnie Joy Barker stated consider the future. She wants sustainably- raised meat
that has been raised and butchered humanely. Mass produced meat isn't humane. Her
land value will go down. The quality of this county will go down. Don't pave the way for
the Wal -Mart of meat packing to come into this county. Humanely raised animals and
organic farms can be exported.
Yoshi Revelle stated the purpose of people is to serve each other. People have made
an idol of money. Money is just a piece of paper. Nature or God labors for us all the time.
Joe Knight stated he is opposed to the ordinance. There are at least 18 farms in
Whatcom and Skagit County where people can buy meat. Such facilities already exist.
There is no need for it. First, do no harm. Industrial areas are already prepared for such
uses. Mobile units are better options. Endangering the farmland endangers the agricultural
base of Whatcom County.
Delaine Clizbe stated she is in favor of passing something. It includes a lot of
limiting regulations. They're no longer talking about 88,000 acres and an unlimited use.
Beef must be grown locally and processed locally. Pass the ordinance now, and tweak it
later. The ordinance needs more input from the farmers.
Jeff Margolis stated he sells local beef, Iamb, and other products from his business.
He is very concerned about what happens to the water. People must live within the
limitations.
Kate Blystone, Whatcom Chapter of Futurewise, stated this ordinance started out
very small, allowing seven to ten employees, and now they're talking packinghouses up to
30,000 square feet. Keep the original proposal in mind. She agrees with comments about
water rights and water issues. She referenced and read from her letter about limiting the
size of accessory uses and conditional uses, limiting the size of holding pens, and keeping
farmland for the production of food. Limit the structure to areas with poor soils. They must
reach their goal of 100,000 acres of farmland.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Patrick Alesse stated rural land is supposed to be resource land. Processing food
should be done in an urban area.
Christine (Inaudible) stated slaughterhouse jobs are unskilled and low wage with
poor working conditions. Start small, not big. Put a cap on the number of slaughterhouses
and where they are located. She is worried about water quality and property values. She
won't vote for any elected official in favor of this ordinance.
Carol Follett stated she is opposed to the ordinance. Leave the land for others.
Kris Halterman stated listen to the farmers. The Council must protect and preserve
resource lands. Remove the restriction from aquifer recharge areas. Over - regulation will
drive farmers away. Adopt an ordinance that ensures farmer success.
Peggy Uppiano stated a mobile unit would use the same amount of water and have
the same amount of waste per cow. Packing plants don't have to become monstrous.
There are considerations about scheduling slaughter. Processing locally is more humane.
Shipping out the beef simply places the problem elsewhere. It doesn't solve the problem.
Gabriel Claycamp stated he is the original applicant. Water quality is an issue, but
mobile slaughter isn't the answer. One hundred percent of all waste goes on the ground
with a mobile slaughter unit. It uses the same amount of water as a normal packinghouse.
The rural industrial manufacturing (RIM) zone is an option, but it doesn't have water or
sewer. Only 27 acres are zoned RIM and available for slaughterhouses. There isn't a bunch
of land zoned industrial on which this use can go. He agreed with the comments from Kate
Blystone. To meet Whatcom County needs, at least one 30,000 square foot plant would
provide 20 percent of meat needs. To make a local resilient economy, they need medium
size plants.
Jane Boltenhouse stated delay the decision until the councilmembers can see one of
these places and know what they're talking about.
Ron Reimer stated he wants the Growth Management Act to go away. A bunch of
people aren't going to move here and start building large slaughterhouses. They are
geographically isolated from the country. They don't live in a utopia. He's a businessman
who is trying to make a profit to spend money on things he cares about. Businesses move
south because it's friendlier. Let the farmers be farmers.
Wes Kentch stated he started out in favor of the slaughterhouse ordinance, but is not
anymore. The ordinance now has too many regulations. Grass -fed beef must be USDA -
slaughtered to be legal. He has the option of slaughtering his own animals. The water he
uses is reprocessed, recycled, and purified. If carefully managed, it works well.
Alyssa Sagerston stated she is concerned about the waste from the animals and
about slaughtering facilities tainting nearby produce.
Gary Knause stated he is probably the largest cattle operator in the county. Many
people have no idea what goes on at a farm. If they are worried about clean water, close
the Nooksack River to inner - tubers. The more rules and regulations on a slaughterhouse,
the less it will be. There won't be a bunch of slaughterhouses here. There are not enough
cattle for that. They don't have the facilities to keep cattle indefinitely. When cattle are in a
feedlot, they have to be fed and bedded. People think they will bring in a bunch of cattle in
feedlots, but that's not true. He's under a lot of regulations and is checked often. A
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
slaughterhouse will be USDA inspected. He is constantly watched by regulators and
Resources. If the County isn't going to support agriculture, they will leave. They are not
getting rich. More rules and regulations are going to force agriculture out of here. Every
day he puts a lot of money back into the tax base. Think about the decisions.
Carol Perry stated the Planning Commission did a great job developing an ordinance.
The Council should have accepted the Planning Commission recommendation.
Heather Katandin stated she supports local guidelines to allow small scale family
farmers to contract with locally -owned mobile slaughter units that use and recycle all parts
of the animal. This proposal is not in the best interest of the community and a diverse
family farming system. Water quality and quantity is an issue. The use should be sited in
rural and industrial zones as they are currently permitted. These proposed slaughterhouse
and packinghouse facilities are known polluters of ground and surface water.
Dave Onkels stated a local processing agricultural processing plant is about 30,000
square feet and located on agricultural land. He hopes someone builds a packinghouse that
is equally viable, profitable, and supports as much employment.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(10: 02: 05 PM)
Mann asked where slaughterhouses or packing houses are permitted right now.
Fleischmann stated the uses are clearly permitted in the rural industrial manufacturing
(RIM) zone.
Knutzen stated all the waste from a mobile slaughter unit goes directly into the
ground. He doesn't know how that would be a better serving use, especially in light of what
is going on at Keizer's. All their waste is going into a digester. They use between 8,000
and 10,000 gallons per month. It won't be a huge draw of water. Exempt wells allow a
daily draw of 5,000 gallons. This is less than two days' use for the whole month.
They just heard arguments over regulation. The State Department of Ecology (DOE)
just hired three new agents to check for anyone not adhering to state and federal
regulations regarding the Bertrand watershed. It's farfetched to say there won't be
adequate oversight. It's hypocritical to allow a 10,000 square foot distillery in the
agricultural zone without a solid waste permit. They've also heard arguments this is an
upzone. Someone read in the State code that this should be an accessory use. They've
talked about that over and over. Someone else talked about scheduling. One can't
schedule when to butcher beef. There are economies of scale to consider.
However, he would consider some changes, such as to the size. He moved to adopt
the ordinance. He moved to amend Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.40.114(1)
on Council packet page 370, "The total allowable building is no larger than 10,990 7,000
square feet." They've heard concerns that the 10,000 square feet is too large. He will
compromise with 7,000 square feet.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Knutzen moved to amend WCC section 20.14.164(1) on Council packet page 371,
"The total allowable building area is larger than 19;080 7,000 square feet and no larger than
30,000 20,000 square feet." Some people are concerned that 30,000 square feet is too
large. A packinghouse is different than a slaughterhouse.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to amend WCC section 20.14.114(6) on Council packet page 370,
"The facility shall comply with solid waste handling standards as set forth in WAC 173 -350,
as administered by the Whatcom County Health Department as adopted by reference in
WCC 24.06 unless an approved State waste discharge permit from the Washington State
Department of Ecology that complies with WAC 173 -216 and a disposal plan with an
approved anaerobic digester."
Kershner asked about Health Department concerns over jurisdiction.
Jeff Hegedes, Health Department, stated that a packinghouse would still be subject
to WAC 173 -350, solid waste management, independent of whether or not subsection
.114(6) is in the ordinance. Packinghouses are also subject to WAC 173 -216, the State
waste discharge permit, independent of what might or might not be in the ordinance. WAC
173 -350 is for management of solid waste. WAC 173.216 is for wastewater management.
There is no legal jurisdiction or context in which the Health Department has authority to
approve a waste management plan. The Health Department makes sure they are compliant
with State law regarding management of solid waste. Staff will provide as much technical
assistance as possible about being in compliance with requirements for the management of
solid waste. They don't bring a plan to the Health Department for the department to
approve or disapprove.
Kershner asked if the language, as written in the Council packet, correctly states the
role of the Health Department. Hegedus stated it does. The only entities for which the
Health Department would approve or disapprove a waste management plan are places like a
landfill or transfer station when State law gives the County that legal authority.
Brenner asked who issues approval. Hegedus stated Ecology would approve the
permit for State waste discharge, which is for managing the process of wastewater. There
is no approval or disapproval for solid waste. There are no companies that have to do a
plan that the Health Department would approve or disapprove. Instead, they would look at
whether or not they are complying with State law in how they are managing their solid
waste.
Brenner asked if the Health Department looks at it after it's built. Hegedus stated
that when applying for a permit for State waste discharge from Ecology, the company also
has to submit information on how they are going to manage their solid waste. That plan
can change, as long as the company complies with State law. If they change the plan and
are no longer in compliance, they are in violation of the solid waste handling requirements
over which the Health Department has jurisdiction.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Knutzen asked what jurisdiction the Health Department has over a berry operation, a
dairy, or a distillery. Hegedus stated they all have to comply with WAC 173 -350. The
Health Department is the jurisdictional authority. It would be a health code violation of
local and State law if they were not properly disposing of their solid waste.
Kershner asked if this needs to be in this ordinance. It sounds like it's an existing
regulation, not an additional regulation. Hegedus stated that's correct. Compliance is
already required, but it's also not bad to have the language in this ordinance.
Knutzen withdrew his motion to amend. He moved to amend WCC 20.40.114 on
Council packet page 371 to delete subsection (11), "(11) The paekingheuse is net leeated in
a GFitieal Aquifer Reeharge Area ef a High SEiseeptibility, as identified by the Gritmeal Areas
The County does not require any other agricultural use to adhere to this
regulation. It was done hastily. The implication is that packinghouses would not be an
approved use in over 50 percent of the agricultural zone. The amount of waste coming out
of an anaerobic digester is minimal. Homes have more waste. Other, more hazardous uses
in the agricultural zone are situated on critical aquifer recharge areas.
Brenner asked if a dairy manure lagoon must have a liner. Hegedus stated it doesn't
require a liner.
Brenner stated the manure lagoon with a digester is lined. Hegedus stated digesters
are not packinghouses. They are completely different facilities generating completely
different process wastewaters. They're regulated differently. One generates a wastewater
called digestate that is a nutrient that is allowed to be reapplied to the land as a nutrient.
The other is a wastewater from packinghouses that is not a nutrient. It's disposed of to the
ground. They are two different waste streams. They can't be compared. Regarding the
recharge area, the intent of the State waste discharge permit is to protect surface and
groundwater from all impacts. It is rigorous and expensive. It's not trivial. It's not
foolproof either. When an entity applies for a permit, they typically need an engineering
consultant to develop a very technical program with monitoring and best management
practices.
Knutzen stated that in other jurisdictions, it's handled the same as manure. It's
spread on the ground and used as a nutrient supplement to the soil. The mobile unit in
Skagit County spreads it on the fields. Hegedus stated that's for disposal, not for a soil
amendment.
Knutzen stated there's not that much difference between the nutrient stream from
manure and waste from a cow.
Brenner stated the existing packing plant contains it in a tank. It's piped to a truck
that takes it to a digester.
Knutzen stated that's already being done by Keiser's.
Brenner stated that means there is no offal liquid waste. Hegedus stated the blood
and wash down water can go to an anaerobic digester.
Knutzen stated everything except spinal column, brain, and sheep carcass can go to
a digester.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Kershner asked if the protections from the national pollutant discharge elimination
system (NPDES) permit and the requirements to manage solid waste and water discharge
are so strict that an additional restriction or prohibition in an aquifer recharge area is
another layer the Council must decide whether it wants to impose. Hegedus stated that's
correct.
Knutzen stated the section .114(11) would prohibit the use in 50 percent of the
agricultural land, even if it was next to a digester.
Brenner asked to include wording that it be contained and piped to an approved
disposal facility.
Knutzen stated that's already in subsection .114(7).
Brenner stated it may be good to have that language so people understand it's not
going into the ground.
Crawford asked where this language originally came from.
Brenner stated the committee proposed the language.
Crawford asked if these same questions were asked and why they thought it was
necessary.
Brenner stated she had not visited a plant. Once she did, and saw what they do with
the waste, it made sense. Include language about holding it in a tank.
Mann referenced the language at the end of subsection .114(7) and asked if it's
possible to have a facility that would not need a State waste discharge permit. Hegedus
stated he doesn't think that would be possible. Even with an anaerobic digester, a State
waste discharge permit is required for pre- treatment. There may be some circumstance in
which a permit is not required, so it wouldn't be bad to include the language. The County
can't require an entity to get a permit if the State says the entity doesn't need it.
Kershner stated they're still overseen by the Health Department and would be out of
compliance if discharging waste on the ground without a plan. Hegedus stated that's
correct.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Knutzen moved to amend WCC section 20.40.164(10) on Council packet page 372,
as identified by the Gritmeal Areas GFElinanee n9ap."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(7) on Council packet page 370, "...if
required by the Washington State Department of Ecology with adequate storage where
required that complies with the WACs."
Mann stated it seems redundant. Hegedus stated the State waste discharge permit
allows treatment and storage, after which it could go into the ground. If it went to an
anaerobic digester, it would be stored and then shipped. There are two options. One option
is to pre -treat and infiltrate into the ground.
Brenner stated she likes the idea of the waste being contained and shipped to a
digester.
Kershner stated she is against the motion because the language in the ordinance
already covers the requirement. Adding the new language would be more confusing and
not good legislation.
Mann stated the Council didn't include the language about the WACs and State
requirements to create additional layers of regulation. Those statutes are included so
people who request a permit would know what they must do. The Council wasn't convinced
the communication between staff in various departments was sufficient. It's frustrating to
get contradicting information. This was to make all the information available up front. They
didn't want to add regulations, just list them. He agrees that adding language here that
isn't necessary and will complicate things. He doesn't support the motion.
Brenner stated the biggest concern raised was about water quality. The language
will make it clear, even if it is redundant.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Kershner, Mann and Crawford (3)
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.164(6) on Council packet page 371, "An
approved state waste discharge permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology
with adequate storage where required that complies with WAC...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Kershner and Mann (2)
Crawford stated they shouldn't have one section of the code inconsistent with
another.
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(2) on Council packet page 370, "The
facility processes at least 75 percent agricultural goods produced in Whatcom, eF Skagit,
and /or Island County and that originate from uses permitted in WCC 20.40.051."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.164(2) on Council packet page 371, "The
facility processes at least 75 percent agricultural goods produced in Whatcom, eF Skagit,
and /or Island County and that originate from permitted uses in WCC 20.40.051."
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Kershner moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(3) on Council packet page 370 and
WCC 20.40.164(3) on Council packet page 371, "Holding pens associated with
packinghouses shall be limited to that necessary to accommodate animals intended for
Wn9n,edfate processing within 24 hours."
Knutzen stated that is not enough time.
Crawford suggested a friendly amendment that it be within 48 hours.
Kershner accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner asked to include language that allows a waiver to keep the cows longer if
they are already there, but not accept any more, due to an equipment malfunction, as long
as they call to inform the Health Department. Hegedus stated they still have to have
adequate facilities to manage the livestock during the holding period without impact surface
or groundwater. It's a permit requirement. It would be onerous to require them to call
anyone.
Mann asked an estimate of how many animals would be held in two days. Hegedus
stated Cowlitz County has a facility with an 800 square foot kill floor and can process 300
per day. It's a matter of operational efficiency. He doesn't know the size of the holding
area.
Knutzen stated Keiser is permitted for 2,000 animals per year through their U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) certification.
Crawford stated it seems like a holding facility for 300 cattle would be big. He likes
the idea of a 48 hour limitation. Make sure it's realistic for the size of the facility. He asked
if there is a statement in the code that feedlots are prohibited. Fleischmann stated there
isn't. The code is silent on them in permitted uses.
Kremen asked where the use of the word "immediate" originated. Fleischmann
stated it came from committee.
Mann stated the intent was to avoid feedlots.
Crawford asked for information from a cattleman about how long they hold cows.
Claycamp stated the USDA has a requirement that the animals must be fed if in the
pen more than 24 hours. Almost all slaughterhouses keep them for only 24 hours. A 7,000
square foot slaughterhouse, by most standards, could process 30 beef in 24 hours, or 60 in
48 hours. Sixty beef can be held in a pen that is 600 square feet. Existing slaughterhouses
that do 50 beef per day have pens less than 1,000 square feet total. The common time in a
pen is 24 hours maximum. Slaughterhouses aren't in the businesses of feeding the cattle,
and it creates more waste.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, 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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Weimer asked about Mr. Hegedus's comment about an 800 square foot kill floor that
processes 300 per day. Claycamp stated that contradicts his research. That
slaughterhouse plant is about 30,000 square feet. Packinghouse process much less with the
same square footage
Kershner amended her motion to accommodate animals for 24 hours.
Mann asked if there is anything in the ordinance requiring a packinghouse to be
approved by the USDA. Fleishman stated there is not.
Kershner restated the motion to amend WCC 20.40.114(3) on Council packet
page 370, "Holding pens associated with packinghouses shall be limited to that necessary to
accommodate animals intended for ingffiediate processing within 24 hours."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner moved to amend WCC 20.40.164(3) on Council packet page 371,
"Holding pens associated with packinghouses shall be limited to that necessary to
accommodate animals intended for ate processing within 24 hours."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer asked if a facility can operate with a 5,000 gallon per day exempt well or has
to be hooked up to water service. He asked if a business can run on an exempt well.
Fleischmann stated one could create an exempt well, publicize it, convert it to a group a or
group b. The facility would be limited to 5,000 gallons per day.
Kershner referenced WCC 20.40.114(4) and asked the reason for that language.
Fleischmann stated it's part of a conditional use permit.
Kershner moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(4) on Council packet page 370, "Fef
puFpeses of publie netice, the applieant shall submit stamped envelepes with typed
addFesses fer- eaeh ffepeFty ewner within 1,900 feet ef the external beundaFies ef the
Mann stated it's a compromise because the committee went back and forth between
making the use accessory or conditional use.
Crawford stated it's strange there is a notification, but no process for input.
Fleischmann stated a neighbor could appeal a building permit.
Kremen stated nothing is wrong with disclosure and more transparency.
Kershner stated she agrees with disclosure, but this particular disclosure doesn't
provide an outlet for someone to express a concern, other than to appeal the building
permit.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford stated it's nice to let the neighbors know, but he doesn't know what they're
supposed to do with that information. There needs to be a statement in the letter about
their option.
Kremen stated there is a reason to inform the neighbors. Nothing is wrong with it.
There is potential for a concerned neighbor to have an opportunity to appeal. Leave the
language in.
Kershner withdrew her motion.
Weimer stated the ordinance should specify what the Planning Department is to do
with the envelopes it receives from the applicant.
Mann stated he's thought this use should be a conditional use at all sizes. He
thought the use was allowed in industrial zones. It's not. Based on concerns expressed, he
advocates that the use be approved with an administrative permit. The process is clearer.
The County has more ability to enforce the rules. He moved to change the use to an
administrative approval process rather than allow it as an accessory use.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Kershner left the meeting at 10:59 p.m. and Council
Vice -Chair Knutzen assumed the duties of the Chair.)
Knutzen stated he is against making the use administrative approval. State code
says processing of agricultural projects is an accessory use. This is an accessory use.
Brenner stated the concern is covered with the solid waste language. They covered
the concern about water quality. She doesn't know how else it would get into the ground.
She doesn't have an answer, but other people may. There are many other kinds of crops,
such as organic farms next to other farms where chemicals are used. She doesn't know
what protects them. She feels better about the solid waste permit.
Weimer stated he is concerned that people aren't notified and don't have an
opportunity to provide information before the use is built. He asked if there is opportunity
in the administrative approval process. Fleischmann stated neighbors have an opportunity
to give comment to the technical administrator at the County, who can consider the
comments and talk with the applicant about neighbor concerns.
Weimer stated he will support Councilmember Mann's proposal.
Brenner asked about the differences in the processes. Fleischmann stated the
administrative approval process makes a pre - application meeting more likely. There are
conversations with various County staff to start with a more thoroughly vetted proposal, so
the applicant has a better idea of the regulations and requirements.
Brenner stated the applicants are responsible for doing what they must do.
Fleischmann stated that the administrative approval process includes a notice to neighbors,
who can make comments. The administrator can consider those comments and create
requirements to address concerns.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner asked how much discretion the administrator has.
Crawford stated it all ends up being negotiated.
Knutzen stated State code says processing agriculture products is an accessory use.
Fleischmann described the differences between an approved use, an administrative
approval process, and a conditional use process.
Kremen stated he's inclined to support the administrative approval, but is concerned.
It all depends on the administrator. Administrators have different approaches. Include
language that makes it clear the administrator is to do everything possible to accommodate
the application. Otherwise he won't support the motion.
Brenner stated it's very discretionary in reality. There is no reason to do that.
People with concerns can talk to the administrator. The farmer and neighbor can still
negotiate.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer and Mann (2)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen and Kremen (4)
Absent: Kershner (1)
Crawford moved to remove section 20.40.114(4). He doesn't understand what
message is supposed to be given to the folks. They don't have recourse.
Kremen stated they do have recourse. They can appeal the building permit.
Crawford stated they can only appeal after the building permit is issued, and with a
large fee. There is no deadline to make sure all the neighborhood concerns are met. The
applicant can start construction the day the building permit is issued. It's unrealistic. This
serves no process. It says there is nothing the neighbor can do about it.
Kremen stated that contradicts what Mr. Fleischmann just said.
Brenner stated it allows the neighbor to express a concern to the property owner.
Crawford stated the property owner isn't required to consider the concerns.
Brenner stated that's the way it is, unless there is an administrator.
Knutzen stated the Council will take a break.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 11 :12 p.m. to 11:24 p.m.)
Crawford withdrew his motion to remove item four. He's trying to create some
sense of purpose as to what they'd be notifying the people for. He moved to amend
section 20.40.114(4), "For purposes of public notice, the applicant shall submit stamped
envelopes with typed addresses for each property owner within 1,000 feet of the external
boundaries of the subject property as shown by the records of the County Assessor. A
notice shall be mailed by Planning and Development Services explaining that an application
is being processed for a packinghouse on the subject property as an allowed accessory use,
and that the notice is being provided is a courtesy only. A copy of Whatcom County Code
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
20.14.114 shall be provided with said notice." At least they are telling the Planning
Department what to do with this notification. It's a courtesy only, and a copy of the code is
being provided to let folks know this is an allowed accessory use.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
Brenner moved to forward the ordinance as amended for introduction at the next
County Council meeting.
Crawford stated he would like to allow Planning staff to word the language in his
motion better if necessary.
Frakes stated the public hearing should just be on the changes. Make that clear to
the public so the Council doesn't go through the same type of hearing as it did tonight.
Mann stated he doesn't support that. Frakes stated that legally, the new public
hearing only has to be on the changes made tonight.
Kremen stated Ms. Frakes was out of order to insert herself in the Council's
deliberation. He does not support the suggestion to limit the public hearing. If they are
going to have a public hearing, the public ought to have an opportunity to weigh in on all
aspects of the issue.
Brenner stated she doesn't support it, but is glad that Ms. Frakes spoke. They
wouldn't have known that was a possibility. She likes getting that kind of information from
legal counsel. Whether or not she take counsel's advice is her business.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, and Kremen (5)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Absent: Kershner (1)
OPEN SESSION
(11:30:33 PM)
The following people spoke:
• G
reg Brown spoke about the resolution regarding the Planning Unit.
• D
oralee Booth spoke about the potential of buying and making Edgewater
Resort a County park along Birch Bay Drive.
I
eggy Uppiano spoke about the proposed resolution regarding the Planning
Unit.
• K
ris Halterman spoke about the proposed Lake Whatcom Watershed
stormwater overlay.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
• P
atrick Alesse spoke about the potential of buying and making Edgewater
Resort a County park along Birch Bay Drive.
• K
athy Berg spoke about the potential of buying and making Edgewater Resort
a County park along Birch Bay Drive.
oger Brown, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District General Manager, spoke
about the proposed resolution regarding the Planning Unit.
het Dow, spoke about the proposed resolution regarding the Planning Unit.
CONSENT AGENDA
(11:47:02 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine.
Brenner withdrew items five and six.
The motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through four and seven through
nine carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 911003 AND
APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE LOW BIDDER, MATIA
CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR THE MOSQUITO LAKE ROAD /NORTH FORK
NOOKSACK BRIDGE NO. 332 SCOUR MITIGATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$147,790 (AB2013 -260)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION
OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS TO FUND PERSONNEL TO STAFF THE
REGISTRATION PROGRAM OF SEX OFFENDERS AND KIDNAPPING
OFFENDERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,026.07 (AB2013 -261)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND INTERFAITH COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER FOR A TWO -YEAR PERIOD FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES
TO INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS AND PERSISTENT MENTAL ILLNESS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $76,752 (AB2013 -262)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THRIVE BY FIVE
WASHINGTON TO PROVIDE NURSE HOME VISITORS TO SUPPORT LOW
INCOME FIRST TIME MOTHERS WITH VARIOUS RISK FACTORS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $176,799 (AB2013 -263)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 22
7
C
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
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#13 -50 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOVANDER TRAIL TO THE LOW
BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,444 (AB2013 -264)
(11:48:34 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and moved
to approve the request.
Brenner stated she doesn't support using any real estate excise tax (REET) 2 funds,
which should be used for stormwater facilities in Whatcom County, especially in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. Everyone talks about how the County is running out of money. They
won't have the money when they need it if the Council keeps spending it on other things.
She approves funding the trail from another fund.
Knutzen stated he's also concerned about how the trail will affect the levee and the
Army Corps of Engineers program.
Mann stated this was part of the budget. He realizes that Councilmember Brenner
voted against the budget. The Council considered all the different funds. They can't use
Conservation Futures funds on this item. The engineer's estimate was about $40,000 more
than this bid. Approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Kershner (1)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR SURVEY WORK
AND CLOSING COSTS RELATED TO THE LAKE WHATCOM RECONVEYANCE, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $40,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $331,000 (AB2013 -265) (11:51 :56 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Brenner stated she didn't support the reconveyance and won't support this request
or any future requests regarding the reconveyance.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. They will go over the estimated amounts
for the trails. The loss in revenue will be much higher than projected. This is another
example of how this project will go.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Kershner (1)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HYLAND SOFTWARE, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, SOFTWARE AND INITIAL MAINTENANCE TO
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
IMPLEMENT ELECTRONIC REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX SYSTEM (E- REET), IN
THE AMOUNT OF $145,542.99 (AB2013 -266)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DLR GROUP FOR
PRE - DESIGN AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN WORK FOR THE COURTHOUSE
COURTROOM RENOVATION PROJECT AND A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
HOLDING /RELEASE FOR THE ADULT CORRECTIONS FACILITY, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $257,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $748,902 (AB2013 -267)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF RADIOS USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FROM
VENDOR HARRIS CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,311.17 (AB2013-
276)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.51, LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND RELATED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB2013 -102A) (11:53 :24 PM)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to adopt the
ordinance.
Knutzen asked for answers to the questions he asked this morning regarding
infiltration zones on conservation easement property and whether they can use the
homeowner incentive program (HIP).
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they cannot
use the HIP, which is for retrofitting existing developed lots only. It is a grant from the
Department of Ecology (DOE) to the City of Bellingham only for the Silver Beach Creek
watershed within the Lake Whatcom watershed. It may be used in both incorporated and
unincorporated area of the Lake Whatcom watershed's Silver Beach Creek sub - basin. A
property owner agrees to install facilities, for which the City of Bellingham reimburses the
homeowner. It does not apply to Sudden Valley.
Regarding infiltration zones, some of the lots purchased in Sudden Valley over the
years have restrictive covenants, and some do not. Some are still in common ownership
with development rights. They were bought for the purpose of water quality protection.
There was supposed to be an agreement between Sudden Valley and the County for
management of those lots. That agreement was never finalized. The County has an
interest in those lots because it contributed money. There may be room on some lots for
using those lots without restrictions for water quality.
Brenner stated that if the County has restrictive covenants with the Sudden Valley
Community Association, and both were interested in using those properties, they could
change those restrictions. Personius stated that's correct.
Knutzen asked if a third party is managing the conservation easement on any of the
properties. Personius stated he doesn't know. The purpose of the agreement was about
management, but the agreement was never signed.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen stated he has concerns. It seems to be an unfair burden on a lot of
property owners. He would like more options to give them some help. The County doesn't
have many choices.
Brenner stated she's not thrilled with it. Steve Hood's letter talked about flexibility
and options for the Sudden Valley Community Association. Ecology won't get in the way of
the County finding ways to help people build. They need to do something at this point.
They can review it if it's not working. She doesn't trust Ecology, but she trusts Steve Hood
to tell the truth.
Personius stated there is a scriveners error on page 19 of the Council packet in
section 20.51.420(2)(a)(3), "...Western Washington is required prior to primaFily preliminary
plat approval...."
adopt.
Weimer stated he incorporates the scrivener's error correction into his motion to
Knutzen asked when this ordinance will come up for review again.
Brenner stated it can be reviewed whenever they want.
Mann stated this is just the beginning of their five -year plan to plan for the next 50
years. Council will review it a lot.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $178,129 (AB2013 -254)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she can't support the ordinance because it includes money for the
reconveyance.
Knutzen stated it's odd that the Nesset Trust can't use their own money for the
tractor.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Kershner (1)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -003 (FIRST AMENDMENT)
ESTABLISHING A PROJECT FUND FOR THE NEW JAIL PROJECT 2013 -2014
(AB2013 -255) (12:03:12 AM)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE NESSET FARM RESTORATION PROJECT
FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT -BASED BUDGET FOR THE NESSET
HOUSE RESTORATION PROJECT (AB2013 -256)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen stated he is against this request. It establishes a fund for something that
already has a fund. It's odd they would have to fund something when the Nesset
Foundation has been storing money and collecting interest on money the County gave to
the Foundation.
Mann stated they have to establish project -based funds for project -based budgets.
They are having more specific line items and funds to manage projects.
Knutzen stated the executive of the Nesset Trust has withdrawn money for projects
in the past.
Brenner stated this is more permanent. The place will never be totally restored.
Just do the project under the Nesset Fund itself.
Mann stated they just approved a project fund for a jail project that will never end.
Brenner stated that's a major thing. They don't have a jail fund already.
Knutzen stated the County already set up the Nesset Trust and gave money to the
trust for stuff like this.
Mann stated the Trust is giving the County the money to do this project.
Knutzen stated the County must pay for the project itself. They do an interfund
loan.
Brenner stated they may have to do it that way legally, otherwise it could be
considered the County gifting them money.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Kershner (1)
S. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO FINANCE CASH FLOW
FOR THE NESSET FARM RESTORATION PROJECT FUND (AB2013 -256A)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen stated he is against this ordinance for the same reasons he stated for the
previous item. The County is not their bank.
Brenner stated she would support it except they are setting up another fund.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Kershner (1)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TETRA TECH, INC. FOR
DESIGN ASSISTANCE FOR STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE BIRCH BAY
WATERSHED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $230,947 (AB2013 -259)
(Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of
Supervisors)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen asked if the only reason Seattle firms bid on Birch Bay contracts is because
of local agencies being unproven stormwater contractors.
Mann stated this is a big project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
7. RESOLUTION RESTORING THE WRIA 1 PLANNING UNIT TO ASSIST THE
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL REGARDING WATER RESOURCES (AB2013-
190)
Brenner moved to approve the resolution and moved to amend the resolution with
the change submitted by Roger Brown, 'Section 6: Review and Approval of Watershed
Plans. The County Council requests that the Planning Unit regularly review and approve and
fprovide recommendations as appropriate on} any ongoing assessments of the
current water resource situation, including, but not limited to water availability, instream
flow, water quality, and habitat. As provided...."
Crawford asked if the language should strikeout "regularly review and approve."
Prosecutor Dan Gibson was trying to mimic State law in saying this Planning Unit does not
have approval authority. The County Council has that authority.
Karen Frakes, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated she spoke with Mr. Gibson about
this specifically. He told her that Mr. Brown's language is language that Bob Carmichael
worked on and he'd seen. Mr. Gibson said he could live with that language.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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 that's alright, if Mr. Gibson has looked at it. Having served during
the original Planning Unit, the Planning Unit did not have any authority for final approval.
That always rested with the County Council. Be careful here. He'll accept it's okay with the
words "as appropriate." Make sure the Planning Unit understands they don't have final
approval. Only the County Council can do that, which is consistent with State law. The
elected officials have to be accountable, not planning group appointees.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
S. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SWIFT CREEK SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
ACTION PLAN (SCSMAP) AND SCSMA PHASE 1 PROJECTS PROPOSAL
(AB2013 -111A) (12:16:37 AM)
Mann stated this is contingent upon satisfactory agreement between Whatcom
County, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department
of Ecology, regarding management of the liability issue.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
Knutzen stated he intended to move this item for approval.
9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT
OF DAVID WARREN TO THE BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT (AB2013 -268) (12:18:05 AM)
Mann moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
10. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS OF
JOHN MITCHELL AND JUSTIN POWERS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
VETERAN'S ADVISORY BOARD (AB2013 -269) (12:18 :22 AM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 28
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
Absent: Kershner (1)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(12:18:50 AM)
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Knutzen referenced Council packet page 404.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it's the Funk
Easement. It's item one in the budget amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (1)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, NINTH REQUEST,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,020,100 (AB2013 -270)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 21.05.039 PHASING, EXPIRATION AND TIME
EXTENSION FOR PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AB2013-
272)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20 —
SECTION 20.80.630, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE, RELATING TO WATER
QUALITY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE BIRCH BAY UGA
(AB2013 -273)
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CLOSEOUT — OPPORTUNITY
COUNCIL'S HOUSING REHABILITATION PROJECT (AB2013 -274)
OTHER BUSINESS
Weimer asked if there is any interest in asking the County Executive to look into an
appraisal for buying and making Edgewater Resort a County park along Birch Bay Drive.
Brenner stated she'd like the Executive or someone to talk to the Northwest Parks
and Recreation people. Buying parks is one thing. She asked who would manage it.
Weimer stated Birch Bay folks thought the Northwest Parks people would probably
be willing to take it if the County could help find a way to buy it. It is the gem in the Birch
Bay plan, right in the middle of the commercial district.
Brenner stated she first wants to know if the Northwest Parks and Recreation people
would be interested.
Weimer stated that if they do too many things first, the property will be developed as
condominiums before the County gets to it.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 29
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
Kremen stated it's a great place to have a park. He asked how much money the
County is spending on the berm project in Birch Bay.
Weimer stated they are getting a lot of money.
Kremen stated this is optimum developable property that will be taken off the tax
rolls, which could generate a significant amount of revenue for the County. It's a super -
expensive property. Before getting an appraisal, the Council must decide if it is interested
in pursuing this.
Weimer stated that's what he is asking.
Knutzen stated a property owner has 25 acres with only one development right on
Chuckanut Crest and also has property in the Lake Whatcom watershed with development
rights. He proposes transferring his development rights from his property out of the
watershed and onto his Chuckanut Crest property. The County had a transfer of
development rights (TDR) program from the watershed with a 3 -to -1 ratio of return, but it
was limited to areas that could receive those development rights. He asked if staff has
suggestions or if the Council is interested in considering this proposal.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that under
the current code, the only receiving area is the urban mixed use zone. That market hasn't
been tangible. They don't have or allow rural -to -rural or agricultural -to -rural transfers.
There has been interest in getting a TDR program in the agricultural lands. They must also
reenergize the program in the Lake Whatcom watershed. It will be a good tool as part of
compliance with the total maximum daily load (TMDL). Staff will set aside time at the
Planning Committee to talk about TDRs. He would like to pursue grant money from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Puget Sound Partnership to fund research on
those kinds of market - related tools.
Knutzen asked what would be required to make something like this work. Personius
stated it would take an economic analysis.
Brenner stated they can discuss it in the Planning Committee. It's too late to discuss
now.
Crawford stated they're talking about upzoning property. The property owner is
already clustered, which is why he has a reserve tract.
Knutzen stated he has development rights on the reserve tract.
Crawford stated he has only one development right on the reserve tract. That's the
way subdivision short -plats occur. They're talking about increasing the density on a group
of parcels that is part of a subdivision. That's an upzone.
Knutzen stated the County normally grants a 3 -to -1 ratio. This property owner is
willing to accept a 1 -to -1 transfer.
Crawford stated no code allows that to occur. He would have to go through a very
public process to talk about whether Chuckanut Crest is where they want to increase
density in Whatcom County.
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 30
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
Mann stated it's a great idea, but there isn't an obvious mechanism to make it
happen. It would have to be a lot different than 1 -to -1. He doesn't know enough about
putting houses up there.
Knutzen stated it looks interesting. The current regulations for a TDR program are
only in the urban residential, mixed use zone. He asked how difficult it would be to add
some other zoning regulations. Personius stated it takes some economic work to look at the
market. He would like to pursue grant money to figure that out.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen stated the Whatcom Integration Team (WIT) made a request on
recommended approval for the Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Coordination Board
(ECB). He's been nominated to be an official member of the ECB.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 24, 2013
The Council approved these minutes on September 10, 2013.
ATTEST:
Council Clerk
- Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Kershner, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 7/23/2013, Page 31