HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 18 20131 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 June 18, 2013
5
6 CALL TO ORDER
7
8 Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council
9 Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
10
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 (7:05:36 PM)
15
16 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
17 Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
18 Absent: None.
19
20
21 FLAG SALUTE
22
23
24 ANNOUNCEMENTS
25
26 Kershner announced the following items were discussed in the Special Committee of
27 the Whole meeting:
28 1. Discussion of a proposed ordinance adopting amendments to the Whatcom
29 County Code to allow agricultural parcel reconfiguration and other changes
30 affecting the Agriculture Zone (AB2013 -128A)
31
32 2. Discussion of a proposed ordinance adopting amendments to the Whatcom
33 County Code to allow packinghouses in the Agriculture Zoning District
34 (AB2012 -300B)
35
36 3. Discussion regarding ongoing issues associated with tubing on the south fork
37 of the Nooksack River (AB2013 -236)
38
39 Kershner announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen
40 Frakes regarding pending litigation, Hirst et al v. Whatcom County, GMHB Case No.
41 12 -2 -0013 (AB2013 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole
42 meeting.
43 Crawford moved to appeal the Growth Management Hearings Board final decision
44 and order in case No. 12 -2 -0013 as it pertains to water quality and water quantity.
45 The motion carried by the following vote:
46 Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
47 Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
48 Absent: None (0)
49
50
51
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR MAY 14, 2013
2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (EXECUTIVE SESSION) FOR MAY 21,
2013
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 21, 2013
4. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (9:15 A.M.) FOR JUNE 4, 2013
5. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 4, 2013
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20 TO
CREATE CHAPTER 20.51, LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT,
AND RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB2013 -102A)
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read from
a presentation (on file).
(7:22:46 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Chris Weitzel submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated the Sudden
Valley community has reduced its density by about 25 percent. They've had water retention
systems since the mid- 1980's with no failures. They are already spending money on
measures for water protection. Exclude Sudden Valley from the ordinance.
Kris Ungern stated the goal to reduce phosphorous by 87 percent isn't reasonable.
Existing homeowners will bear the brunt of the cost to achieve these goals. The use of
septic tanks, periodic storm events, and the ability to measure phosphorus before and after
improvements are not addressed.
Larry Quinlivan stated he agrees with the previous speaker. They are pricing all but
the wealthy out of the watershed. There must be clarity and predictability. This plan
ignores existing septic systems. There are no silt fences along the slope at the County's
park property. The heavy burdens are put all on the property owners.
Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, stated the appraisal
numbers are too high. Per the City's and County's own reports, the Silver Beach
neighborhood deposits about .28 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year into Lake
Whatcom. Smith Creek deposits .11 pounds per acre per year into Lake Whatcom. He
showed the equivalent amount in table salt. It costs $25,000 per property owner to reduce
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
53
that amount of phosphorous. The purpose of this is so the City and County can say they've
done everything possible to prevent anything new from coming into the lake. The City of
Bellingham diversion deposits 300 pounds of phosphorus in three days. All of Austin Creek
for one year deposits 44 pounds. That equals .007 pounds per acre per year for each of the
5300 acres in the Austin Creek sub - basin. The minimum estimate from engineers for these
measures for a homeowner is about $25,000. The average value of a Sudden Valley lot is
about $25,000. Reducing the value by the cost of a system is a functional value of zero.
Reducing private property rights to zero while permitting that to continue through the City
of Bellingham isn't success.
John Hutchings, City of Bellingham Public Works Department, stated he will provide
context about recent public concerns about phosphorus contributions from the City's
diversion into Lake Whatcom. The diversion provides redundancy and supplementation of
the City's primary Lake Whatcom water source through a system of tunnel pipelines and
open channels that move water from the middle fork into Mirror Lake, through the Anderson
Creek watershed, and ultimately into Lake Whatcom at South Bay. The amount and
manner of diversion has changed dramatically over the past years resulting in only a
fraction of the historical diversions under today's highly managed regime. These changes
were caused by a variety of pressures that ranged from changes in the supply and the
needs of the City, the need to keep water in the river during low flows, and phosphorous
loading in Lake Whatcom.
Diversion rates today are about 20 percent less than they were when the total
maximum daily load (TMDL) was developed originally. Additionally, the diversion
management avoids the high sediment loading in the river and coincides with salmon
recovery efforts in the middle fork and when suspended sediments prevent the City from
diverting into Lake Whatcom. The TMDL indicates the diversion contributes a small fraction
of the phosphorous they collectively must address in the watershed. The City leadership
recognizes and is acting to reduce these amounts further.
On the heels of evidence that sediment enters the lake from the Anderson Creek
watershed, which is a combination of what comes out of the watershed itself and the middle
fork, the City began a rigorous monitoring effort and has retained the necessary expertise
to tune up its diversion protocols again. He expects that analysis to be done under the
auspices of the Lake Whatcom management program, with Whatcom County, the Water and
Sewer District, and Sudden Valley participating as always.
In conclusion, the City of Bellingham has a formidable record in pursuit of nutrient
management in the watershed. That record extends to developed lands under the City's
jurisdiction as well as owned facilities. Operation of the diversion, regardless that it's
contribution may be an order of magnitude lower than the sum total of development in the
watershed, needs to continue to come under no less scrutiny than those others. It's their
collective best interest to do so. Through the Lake Whatcom management program, that
discussion will continue.
Brenner asked the City's estimate of what is coming through per acre. Hutchings
stated the TMDL document indicates about 645 pounds per year from the diversion. Be
careful about how they use these numbers. It is based on a small data set. Compare that
to the difference between full build out, for example, in the TMDL roll back, the sum of
development and all the other reductions that need to be made, it's on the order of about
7,300 pounds per acre, or compare the difference between the 2003 level of development
and the full build out scenario, which is about 5,000 pounds per acre per year. When
looking at it that way, they are talking about an order of magnitude difference between the
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
City's diversion, under the TMDL scenario. The diversion is about 20 percent less than that
today and is managed, when operationally possible, around those sediment loads that come
off the glacier in the spring. There's no question the City is committed to improving how it
does business out there. The City will continue its effort to improve its operation of the
facility. That has to happen with public discussion because of all the factors affecting the
lake.
Crawford stated the rough estimate used for the TMDL study was 645 pounds per
year, which loads 61,945 teaspoons per year into Lake Whatcom. The rules they pass
tonight are to remove one teaspoon per lot.
Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, stated that in the past, he suggested that the
County would like to grant relief to small landowners through a water quality offset scheme,
with Department of Ecology support. He no longer believes that's an option they can
unequivocally support. Comments he received from Whatcom County on the TMDL
suggests that meeting the 87 percent reduction from existing development is not considered
feasible. If that's true, if the 87 percent reduction is not feasible, they should look at how
much of that excess capacity should be reserved to address some of the existing
development. Any offset system should consider existing homeowners as well as new
development. Make sure they do the best to support that reduction from both existing
homeowners and new development.
Brenner asked if they have to enact a retrofit program or incentives. Hood stated
eventually consider how to achieve a reduction of 87 percent of excess phosphorous on all
existing properties, assuming they allow no new phosphorous from new development. If
the County believes the 87 percent reduction is not achievable, perhaps excess community
treatment should be best applied to existing property owners. Until they have the full
picture, it's perhaps too early to allocate those over - controlled resources.
Kershner asked if Mr. Hood is saying something better or worse.
Crawford asked if he's saying that they would apply this to the 61,000 teaspoons
coming from the City of Bellingham diversion. Hood stated the City diversion was
considered part of the background. They don't call it a natural condition. They call it an
estimate of a natural condition. A reason they determined the City's diversion would remain
the way it was in both their estimate of a natural condition and in the existing condition
throughout the rollbacks was that a TMDL cannot abrogate a water right. The City is
exercising its water right. Ecology can't tell the City it has to bring only the water, not the
phosphorous, because it's not necessarily feasible.
Crawford asked if a water right grants one a right to pollute with phosphorous. Hood
stated it grants one a right to divert that water and put it into the lake.
Crawford asked if the right allows the water to be diverted with pollutants in it.
Hood stated it does. This is a discussion that's been happening at the Department of
Ecology since he started this project. They don't write permits for diversions of water inter -
basin transfers. That diversion of water, with its naturally- occurring, higher than average
phosphorous for Lake Whatcom, is allowed to be transferred into the lake without a permit
because Washington State doesn't permit inter -basin transfers. It's not considered a
pollutant, because they are not allowed to abrogate their water right. The phosphorous that
is naturally- occurring in the middle fork would not be a pollutant. If someone drops dog
waste in the middle fork, they could regulate it. The phosphorous from the middle fork that
is being diverted is not being regulated by permit at this time.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
That phosphorous was entered in under natural conditions and under existing
conditions. They spent a lot of time discussing whether they should do something different
for the future in terms of the quantity of water. The City has reduced the amount diverted
by about 20 percent. No one really understood what that water right exercise would be, so
they left it static as what it is. If they had knowledge that said it was available to remove
50 percent of the phosphorous, they would say the natural condition would also have that
50 percent phosphorous removed, then they would say they have to remove 50 percent of
the phosphorous and reevaluate where they are against natural conditions.
Kershner asked if they can't use the 20 percent reduction as a credit to meeting the
TMDL. Hood stated that if they counted it as a credit, they would be forced to say that if it
can be removed without interfering with the water right, they'd have to reassess the natural
condition. If they remove half, they get better natural condition and a better target TMDL,
and they would have less phosphorous in the lake, but it would come at the price of what
they have as added phosphorous, would perhaps be very similar.
These are the regulations he has to work with. They are comparing themselves to a
natural condition, but are allowed to put that diversion in as part of that natural condition.
Similarly, the dam on the lake that holds the water up to that elevation was also included.
They did an analysis shown in Volume I on the impact. The diversion was removed. The
withdrawals were removed. There was a natural hydrology evaluation. They can look at
that and try to sort out what that might mean. It's a different lake. It's got a different
amount of water in it over the course of the year.
Knutzen asked if Mr. Hood is familiar with what they did in Clark County. They took
a holistic approach, an entropy -based watershed management. He asked if that is an
option to consider. They have a water quality offset in their model. Hood stated he was
previously happy to look at just new development. The comment that they can't meet the
87 percent reduction changed his mind. The State law allows a water quality offset. They
need to look at where that offset would be best applied and if they are foregoing their ability
to meet the 87 percent reduction from the existing development. If an offset scheme was
holistically looked at and if they are meeting all their obligations, he could support it. If
they're looking at just the new development and not figuring out how to address existing
development, his enthusiasm drops quickly.
Brenner stated that for many billions of dollars, they could divert and clean the water
before it gets into the lake. She asked why the State law says a water right can be dirty
water.
Crawford asked how Ecology determined it was not feasible to remove phosphorous
at the diversion. Hood stated the direction he was given that, if naturally- occurring
phosphorous in the middle fork that is transferred from one basin to another, they do not
regulate that basin if that transfer is being done under a water right. They have looked at
how to reduce how much phosphorous comes with that water. They've not looked at how to
adjust the natural condition to reflect that. Because the natural background is based on the
estimated phosphorous coming from the diversion, if they can change how the diversion
operates and reduce the phosphorous, they may be forced to say the natural condition no
longer reflects the best estimate of natural condition with their diverted water, because their
diverted water is now going to have less phosphorous. They would be back to looking at a
somewhat cleaner estimate of the natural condition, and then try to match a small change
from that cleaner condition. The result for the individual landowner would likely be making
a similar reduction.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
Crawford stated it would, but it wouldn't be 87 percent. Hood stated it might go up.
As the lake gets more and more eutrophic under its natural condition, it becomes more and
more sensitive. It wouldn't increase greatly, but it would be similar or slightly larger.
Brenner asked why the County has any liability or responsibility for doing something
on Swift Creek, which is natural. Hood stated he cannot speak to the Toxic Cleanup
Program. When the natural condition prevents the water quality standard from being met,
the natural condition becomes the criteria. For lakes, they allow a small change from the
natural condition. If they learn a better way to estimate the natural condition, they would
compare whether they are meeting the goal of a small change from that natural condition.
Dan Dahlgren stated he agrees with comments from Councilmember Crawford and
Mr. Eskridge. They are putting a great burden of money on the landowners in the
watershed. How they deal with this issue is arbitrary. Don't make a distinction between
naturally- occurring phosphorous and phosphorous that comes from a developed lot.
Wendy Harris stated create updated stormwater standards. The proposal needs to
go further in protecting Lake Whatcom. Restrict impervious surface development to ten
percent of the lot and impose native tree cover of 65 percent. Emphasize holistic
watershed -based ecosystem processes, not a mechanistic engineered approach. Clean
water is the result of a healthy lake. Stormwater solutions perform limited ecological
functions. If the only limit on watershed growth is the ability to mitigate stormwater
impacts, the watershed will be permitted to exceed its ability to sustain other ecological
functions for a healthy lake. Move beyond a management plan.
Betsy Brinson stated she agrees with comments from Mr. Eskridge and
Councilmember Crawford. There is no difference between naturally- occurring phosphorous
and phosphorous from development. Go after the real problems, which include the
diversion and county roads. Ask homeowners to voluntarily cooperate.
Kris Halterman submitted a handout (on file) and stated the cost per homeowner is a
lot compared to the low benefit received. Lake quality is stable and improving.
Phosphorous levels are going down. Demand recent studies showing the levels of
phosphorous and dissolved oxygen.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom, stated she supports the ordinance. Clusters
should be no more than eight units, not ten units. Her letter suggests changes to
20.51.330(2)(e). She supports the full infiltrate and full dispersion criteria in 20.51.422.
Add a standard of limiting impervious surface to no greater than ten percent of the
developed area. Care for their drinking water source. Generally, she supports the
ordinance.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated
phosphorous studies are taken from the two driest years they've had in the last few
decades. Now she hears that some phosphorous is a pollutant, and some isn't. Her
association is interested in clean drinking water and a clean lake. The question is how clean
is the lake and whether the lake is in fact polluted. If there is a pollution problem, fix it. If
homeowners must pay $25,000 to fix one teaspoon per year, a better option may be
regional collection and treatment, perhaps in cooperation with the City.
Dan Pope stated the proposal bans land from being used for food production, which
is not in the public interest.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
Jeanne Quinlivan stated they are just going after the homeowners. They can't
separate out the phosphorous coming out of the diversion.
Dave Onkels referenced the 2012 Lake Whatcom Report from the Institute for
Watershed Studies and stated 13.7 percent of the inputs into the lake comes from the
diversion. Total phosphorous median concentrations in the summer have declined by more
than half in basins one and two, and have declined in basins three and four. Median
summer near surface chlorophyll concentrations have declined by almost half for two years.
Median summer near surface algae counts have declined for several years. There are many
other declining pollutant factors. For 20 years there has been no trend in minimum
dissolved oxygen in August in basins one and two. The first four data points appear to be
outliers. Their inclusion is a mystery.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(8:16:38 PM)
Brenner stated have a discussion in committee or Committee of the Whole for more
clarification from staff. She moved to refer to the Natural Resources Committee.
Crawford asked if it's urgent to adopt the ordinance and if there has been a surge in
applications. He asked about issues with adhering to this prescription for complying with
the TMDL. Gill stated they aren't doing this just because of the TMDL. They want better
code for how to deal with stormwater runoff. The code is bifurcated and confusing. It
would be nice if the rules were in effect for the building season around Lake Whatcom. The
Lake Whatcom moratorium on subdivisions would have to be extended if the Council doesn't
work on this tonight. There are no reasons to adopt it tonight.
Kremen asked if there are problems with addressing it in Natural Resources
Committee in the next few weeks. Gill stated he doesn't think there are. He doesn't know
about the Hearings Board compliance order.
Mann asked what specific information they want more of.
Kershner stated a lot of information was presented tonight that they may want to
ask questions about, including the diversion issue, the amount of phosphorous they're
saving, the requirements to comply with the TMDL and national pollutant discharge
elimination system (NPDES), the low impact development (LID) standards, and regulations
on existing development.
Crawford stated also look at the language referenced by Futurewise regarding
section 20.51.330(2)(e). Have a discussion with Mr. Hood to get clarity on what he said
about reducing the background level through the middle fork division, and what that means
per lot. Incrementally, they would have to go through the mathematical exercise to
understand if that significant of a reduction in phosphorous means that the percentage of
reduction in phosphorous from development would need to be reduced the same or go up.
Staff presented information on Assessor values in the Silver Beach neighborhood, which is
new information to him. Hand that information over to the real estate professionals.
Compare the impact to a $15,000 Sudden Valley lot with the impact to a $200,000 Silver
Beach lot.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
Weimer stated he is against the motion. They did hear some new things this
evening. He'd like to understand if there is a way to deal with the diversion. However, they
didn't hear anything tonight that should make them not want to pass this tonight. There is
no new surprise. This is dealing with new development, which is a small portion of the
problem in the lake. They promised the City and Ecology the Council would do this two
years ago. This is a small piece of the fix. If they took out all 600 pounds from diversion
plus this, they still have to deal with existing development. None of this is new.
Brenner stated that when the Council
it wouldn't be a big deal or be expensive.
They heard information tonight that pollution
the first four years in the calculation.
made that promise to Ecology, they were told
Ecology is now saying that this isn't feasible.
levels are trending better if they don't include
Kremen stated he prefers to deal with the issue sooner rather than later. He can
vote on this tonight. Because a lot of information has come forward tonight, he is willing to
support the amendment if they commit to voting on this at the next council meeting in three
weeks. He suggested a friendly amendment for the Council to commit to voting on this
in three weeks.
Brenner did not accept the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated they were told tonight, based on the current questions that have
been brought up about the middle fork diversion, that the City is now engaging in
consultants to look at it. He asked if they would still do this if they knew they had good
methods for having a greater effect and many more benefits for the money spent with other
plans. The situation is evolving. Look at the single source they can dam, filter, control, and
mitigate. Go after the diversion, which will have a bigger impact on the lake. There is no
urgency tonight. Continue to press those questions. Do something to impact the lake
more than one teaspoon at a time.
Mann asked about 87 percent not being feasible. Hood stated Whatcom County told
him they didn't believe that 87 percent was feasible. His support for the offsets was based
on the County attacking the 87 percent after they dealt with the new development. The
idea of addressing the new development first was to not dig them into a deeper hole. After
that, go after the 87 percent. It's a good idea to put the resources where they will do the
best. However, in light of the concern they might not meet the 87 percent, look at the
whole picture, not just new development.
Mann asked if Mr. Hood said that Ecology doesn't have jurisdiction over the
diversion's phosphorous. Hood stated they don't regulate inter -basin transfers.
Phosphorous is a pollutant, but is also necessary to a certain level. Match the natural level
of phosphorous. The phosphorous from the middle fork is different. It's mostly inorganic
phosphorous attached to minerals. It's not taken up as easily. It takes longer and more
energy than the organic phosphorous. On the warm summer days when the phosphorous
comes in from the diversion, the water is really cold. It's glacier water. As it flows into the
lake, it sinks down and goes to the bottom. It's not in the photic zone, and it's probably not
as active. Over the long term, the diversion quantity dropped and water quality declined.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified the middle fork diversion as the
biggest potential for a water quality trade. Ecology said it isn't available for trade. If they
can reduce the phosphorous in that diversion, it should adjust the natural condition.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the TMDL study started in 2009. County
interaction with Ecology since 2009 was sporadic until the report was released a few months
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
ago. The County sent a letter recently that said they need answers to questions before they
can figure out whether it can come into compliance with the TMDL. They also had a
meeting of various departments and Ecology staff. The Director indicated Ecology would
work with Whatcom County as they work through these issues, before issuing a final report
on TMDL. He would like the opportunity to talk to Mr. Hood and Ecology representatives
about the TMDL report.
Crawford stated the current annual loading is 8,708 pounds of phosphorous going
into the lake from development and natural conditions. The target of natural conditions is
5,575 pounds. The requested reduction is 3,133 pounds.
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the County commented on the TMDL
first draft in 2009. The County raised technical and procedural issues that were
complicated. Those comments were largely not addressed by Ecology in 2009. The
comments staff resubmitted last month were essentially the same. The comment letter
asked for Ecology to sit down with the County and work through these very technical
questions and address them. Don't gloss over them. That will maximize the County's
chance of implementing the TMDL successfully. Certain technical issues need to be
resolved. They asked the Director of Ecology to commit to sitting down with the County, not
sending out a comment sheet that largely ignores the County's comments and sending it on
to EPA for finalizing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SUPERIOR COURT FOURTH JUDGE
COURTROOM RENOVATION PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED
BUDGET FOR THE FOURTH JUDGE COURTROOM RENOVATION PROJECT
(AB2013 -208) (8:43:13 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, gave a staff report and stated the fourth judge is
planned to begin by January 1, 2015.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke:
Ellen Baker stated she supports the ordinance and hopes this moves forward quickly.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(8 :45:42 PM)
Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she has mixed feelings if the County doesn't receive money from the
State, but they still have to make improvements.
Crawford stated the Bar Association pushed for this a number of years ago. Look
into whether the National Bar Association has available grants.
Louws stated typically the local jurisdiction provides facilities and support staff for
each judge. The State pays half the wages and the entire benefit package. The County
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
won't get state funding to help with construction. The Governor will select the first judge
until the election cycle.
Kremen stated the County will be able to realize economic benefits by reducing one
or two commissioners. Louws stated they aren't planning to reduce the number of
commissioners. The judges have committed to video- and audio - recording to reduce staff
levels.
Kremen stated take a look at how many commissioners they need compared to the
population base. They may be able to reduce by at least one commissioner.
Brenner stated the County has jobs that go away by attrition. If some jobs are not
as essential as this job, the County must reconsider and balance its priorities, which may
allow them to make it revenue neutral by the time the new judge is installed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAPS, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATED TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2013 -180) (8 :50:30 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a staff report.
Knutzen asked if the prohibition of service connections along a water transmission
main is for existing hookups. Davis stated he would look into it.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Laura Lee Brakke stated use the money the County is spending to fight growth
management on the new Superior Court judge instead. Don't spend any more taxpayer
money fighting a good law. Give the Growth Management Act (GMA) a chance to work.
She is a party to Hirst, et al. It's not a special interest. A special interest is when your
property is listed in the body of an ordinance, and a lawyer is fighting on your behalf. Most
citizens can't keep up with this process. She's not a special interest. Protect Whatcom
County. Make sure laws are followed and salmon come back to the streams.
Brad Swanson, Belcher Swanson Law Firm, stated he speaks on behalf of Doug
Pullar, the Boulos property, and the Smith Gardens property. Mr. Pullar submitted his
supplemental declaration to the Council for its consideration. Adopt the ordinance.
Crawford asked how the correspondence today regarding Mr. Pullar ties with the
Growth Management Act. Swanson stated Mr. Pullar is perfecting his record in case there is
an appeal.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom, referenced the letter she submitted today. She
has concerns about rezones from rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A) to rural, one unit per
five acres (R5A). She suggested adding criteria for the rezones to higher densities. The
added criteria will protect rural character, as the Hearings Board ordered the County to do.
Adopt staff's recommendation for the rural neighborhoods and limited areas of more intense
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
rural development (LAMIRDs). Clusters should not be greater than eight lots. She supports
an extension of time for compliance.
David Stalheim stated he's offended by comments the Council has made about him
in public settings and by not listening to comments or reading materials. He is also
perfecting his record. He submitted information on takings issues with respect to property
owned by Mr. Boulos, who has chosen litigation over an optional compliance path. The
Council chose building sizes in the Guide Meridian area that cause challenges. Get an
extension and take time to work this out.
Wendy Harris stated they can't opt out of the laws, which the Council majority does
repeatedly. The Council must comply with and respect government at all levels. The
Council ridicules the Hearings Board and those who challenge the Council. The Council
mocks the system of government under which the councilmembers were elected. The
Council is doing all this with someone else's money. It's time to stop protecting developers'
attempts to avoid laws that are meant to protect public health and safety. It's time to come
into compliance with the GMA.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(9:14:57 PM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. He moved to amend the ordinance,
section 20.36.305(3) to include an exclusion from lot clustering if served by water and
sewer, '...reserve unless public water and sewer are available." Someone left out an
exception to being required to cluster if there is water and sewer. The Hearings Board did
not comment on it and it was not part of the response to the Hearings Board. This will
impact practically no one. The concern was brought up by lot owners who have been put on
hold indefinitely. It is almost impossible for them to develop.
Brenner asked if that would be a substantive change.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she doesn't know right now. This has taken
her by surprise.
Davis asked if the motion is the same or the opposite of what existed before.
Crawford stated it is the same as what was in place for short -term planning areas.
Those property owners that had ten acres or more were not required to cluster if they had
water and sewer. Now, those property owners would have to cluster, and they don't talk
about whether or not they have water and sewer.
Frakes asked if the motion is a change from what exists right now.
Crawford stated that is his intent.
Davis stated they no longer have short -term planning areas.
Frakes stated the urban growth area reserves are not the same thing as short -term
planning areas.
Crawford stated some are the same.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
Davis stated this used to be part of the UGA. Now it's not. It's part of an urban
reserve. Short -term planning areas no longer exist.
Crawford amended his motion and moved to amend the ordinance,
20.36.305(3) to include an exclusion from lot clustering if served by water and sewer,
"...reserve, public water and sewer are not available, and the property was previously
contained within a designated "short-term planning area. "" Crawford stated someone tried
to require clustering in long -term planning areas. Then short -term areas without public
water and sewer were added. The property owners who contacted him believe they have an
agreement with the City of Bellingham to extend services to the existing zoning. Under the
old rule, they did not have to cluster. This change allows them to except out of the
clustering requirement.
Davis stated a cluster reserve area can be developed after it goes into an urban
growth area. The reserve area exists only as long as it's in the rural area.
Frakes stated short -term planning areas don't exist, and haven't existed for some
time. That particular criteria hasn't had any meaning, and they're bringing that meaning
back to life. It does change things. It's a substantive change.
Crawford withdrew the motion to amend. It's a change to the situation for real
people in Whatcom County. It's a change that has not been required by the Hearings Board
and has not been appealed to the Hearings Board. It is not responsive to the Hearings
Board orders. The past zoning criteria happened to be in today's code. They're talking
about language that currently exists. He can't think of a way to allow the exception, and
they have a deadline to get this passed.
(9:47:25 PM)
Mann stated consider mediation. More may be gained in this process by sitting down
with folks and finding a path to compliance. They might get more than what they want
through mediation than through fighting.
Knutzen stated he does not support mediation, but may support arbitration.
Brenner stated they can still do mediation or arbitration. Don't allow the clock to run
out.
Mann stated they offered tonight to allow the County to extend the deadline, which
would allow the County to look into Councilmember Crawford's concern. They may get a
negotiated settlement with the Pullar and Boulos properties in.
Kershner stated the County has worked collaboratively. They've gone from 24 issues
to eight issues. They aren't fighting. They are trying to come into compliance. Talk about
the issues before an appeal deadline looms ahead. The Council needs to pass this, which
takes care of the latest round of appeals. They are at the end of the process, not the
beginning of the process.
Mann stated he's been advocating this approach for a long time. This ordinance
won't get the County into compliance.
Kremen stated he was approached a long time ago by Mr. Stalheim to mediate this.
At the time, he was receptive to mediation. Unfortunately, the will of the Council at that
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
time was not conducive to mediation. There wasn't enough support to go that route. He
agrees with Councilmember Kershner, they have tried to be reasonable and strike a
balance. They've achieved those things. He agrees with Councilmember Mann and has
doubts that this document will pass the Hearings Board. Whatcom County has tried to get
into compliance with the Growth Management Act, despite everyone's perceptions. He
worked closely with Mr. Stalheim when he was Planning Director. The Council passed
something different than what the administration put forward. He had asked Mr. Stalheim
why it's so hard for people to work with and get their permits from the Planning
Department. Mr. Stalheim told him that Whatcom County has the strictest land use
regulations in the state of Washington. The County has really tried to be more receptive
and get into compliance. The State legislature had no idea the hearings boards would
become unbridled with no accountability. This particular Hearings Board has overstepped
its bounds and been unreasonable. Despite all that, there may be merit and potential to
work with Futurewise and those opposing the County ordinances. They may be willing to
compromise and get into compliance with the Growth Management Act.
Brenner stated she agrees with working with opponents, but it won't take that much
time to submit the appeal. Don't allow this to keep dragging on. The County is in
compliance with the Growth Management Act right now. The County is not in compliance
with the political decision from a political board. They were supposed to be a mediation
board. Deference is supposed to be given to the County unless it is clearly out of
compliance. She's never said anything rude to Futurewise or anyone else, and resents
those comments. She said the Hearings Board is a political body, which it is. That's a fact.
She feels a threat was made tonight. She would like to work things out with them, but the
County has given away people's concerns and promises. She doesn't want to try and work
with them without filing the appeal, in case they can't work it out and have to wait another
six months.
Weimer stated they aren't talking about an appeal here. They are trying to meet a
compliance deadline with this ordinance. He agrees with Councilmembers Mann and
Kremen about delaying the compliance deadline and having a discussion with them to find
out what they can. He can't vote for this tonight. The County will be found out of
compliance on a couple of the issues in the ordinance. The County is spending money going
back and forth. It makes more sense to have a conversation.
Mann stated he would like the Pullar, Boulos, and Smith Garden properties included,
but the County will be voted out of compliance if they are included. If they had a
settlement talk, he hopes they would be included.
Brenner stated the County won any time it appealed the Hearings Board to Superior
Court. The County is in compliance with the GMA, not with the Hearings Board.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen,
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
OPEN SESSION
(10:06:04 PM)
Kershner and Kremen (5)
The following people spoke:
• John Lesow spoke about the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
• David Stalheim spoke about his past comments and the Growth Management
Hearings Board.
• Ellen Baker spoke about appealing the Growth Management Hearings Board
decision regarding water resources.
• Peggy Uppiano spoke about the Growth Management Hearings Board.
• Kris Halterman spoke about the intent of the Growth Management Act.
• Lorraine Newman spoke about mediation on growth management issues.
CONSENT AGENDA
(10:18:21 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through 14.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Weimer (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen (out of the room) (1)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO APPLY LEASE, RENT, AND USER FEES FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE EAST WHATCOM REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER TO THE
PURCHASE OF NEEDED EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS AND PROGRAMMING
AT THE CENTER (AB2013 -218)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL
SERVICES TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $741,899 (AB2013 -219)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON VOCATIONAL
SERVICES TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE $6,205 (AB2013 -220)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
ON AGING TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE $23,365 (AB2013 -221)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES,
INC. TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY ACCESS
SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE $375,450 (AB2013 -222)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
53
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WORK OPPORTUNITIES TO
PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES
TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN AMOUNT
ESTIMATED TO BE $293,266 (AB2013 -223)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED
EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE $749,599 (AB2013 -224)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ADVANCEMENT NORTHWEST
TO PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY ACCESS
SERVICES TO ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN
AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE $7,584 (AB2013 -225)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FHB
CONSULTING FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT PHASE II OF THE
AG- WATERSHED PILOT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,560, FOR A
TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $218,519 (AB2013 -226)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING FOR
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE CORONADO - FREEMONT
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,783
(AB2013 -227)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND STREMLER GRAVEL, INC., AS
LOW BIDDER, FOR THE CORONADO - FREMONT STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $595,238.40 (AB2013 -228)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST
YOUTH SERVICES FOR HOUSING SERVICES TO HOMELESS YOUTH, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $20,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $146,600 (AB2013 -229)
13. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP #912004 AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL
FUNDS FOR THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
CULBERTSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION, AS LOW BIDDER, FOR THE
GOOSEBERRY POINT FERRY WINGWALL REPLACEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$651,326.59 (AB2013 -230)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SARGENT
ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF THE HANNEGAN ROAD TEN -MILE CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 236 REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,456
(AB2013 -231)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY AGRICULTURAL LAND
COVER ANALYSIS AND REVISIONS OF THE RURAL LAND STUDY AREAS
(DISCUSSION TO INCLUDE AN AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES) (AB2013 -110)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Kershner and Weimer (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford and Kremen (both out of the room) (2)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.08, PURCHASING
SYSTEM (AB2013 -206)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford moved to amend section 3.08.100, 'Contracts for professional services
exceeding $9 $20,000 and bids exceeding $999 $50,000..."
Jack Louws, County Executive, gave a staff report. He submitted information
requested during committee about the savings realized as the ordinance is amended. He
suggested a compromise to double the amounts to $30,000 and $70,000.
Kremen stated he thanks the Executive for bringing this forward. The compromise
is prudent. The previous limit equaled the buying power in 1996, when the current amounts
were set. Today, the equivalent value is probably about $40,000. Given cost of living and
consumer price index (CPI) increases, the request is reasonable. He suggested a friendly
amendment to amend section 3.08.100, 'Contracts for professional services exceeding
$15,999 $30,000 and bids exceeding $35999 $70,000..."
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. There is merit to raising the
amounts incrementally. The value of $15,000 in 1996 equals $21,671 in 2012, per the
consumer price index. There is no question Executive Louws is trying to run an efficient
government. However, he benefits from having a check - and - balance review of these items.
He's willing to raise the amount a bit, but the councilmembers needs that review. Of the
$176,000 cost savings, he suspects a considerable portion is from releasing the County staff
from bid requirements, which the Council did agree to today. Part of the cost is the extra
month it takes the Council to go through the process. Other than the $176,000 cost
savings, nothing with the system is broken. The track record the Executive uses to say how
effective things work has to do with the Council oversight. They can look at it again in
another year to consider another increase if they are seeing that much of a benefit.
Brenner stated she doesn't support increasing the threshold at all. There must be a
check - and - balance. The public trust is more important than efficiency. The Council won't
know what questions to ask if it doesn't see the items. This Council keeps giving away
those checks and balances. Get rid of the slush fund. It's all public money, and it shouldn't
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
53
be handled like a business. It should be handled like a public benefit so the public knows
what's going on. There is less public trust now than in 1996.
Crawford stated the bid limit of $35,000 in 1996 equals $50,567 in 2012. His
proposal follows the inflation factor almost precisely. Louws stated a big portion of the cost
savings is raising the bid limit to the State guidelines. He and staff appreciate that. The
new process will reduce the schedule by ten days. The elected leaders appreciate any
increase. He is only asking for reasonable limits that make government efficient and
responsive.
Brenner asked to whom the administration will become more efficient and
responsive. Everyone wants to know more, not less. She often depends on members of the
public to find things that are buried deep in budget materials. This is a big mistake. The
efficiency problems aren't solved by giving the administrative branch more authority. She'd
rather look for efficiencies in how administrative staff get things to the Council.
Kershner stated she will support the motion to amend. The Charter says the
Executive has the power to sign all contracts. The legislative branch has the power to set
the budget. There is also an ordinance for the purchasing process. There may be a
disparity with the Charter.
Brenner stated it's not a disparity. They used to have annual budgets. Now the
budget is biennial. The Council used to meet every Tuesday, and now meets every other
Tuesday. They keep giving away the Council's ability to be a check - and - balance. The
Executive signs the contracts, but the Council approves the contracts.
Kremen stated the people of Whatcom County voted 68 percent to go to a biennial
budget. It wasn't something the County did on its own. The people want the County to
have a biennial budget because it's more efficient, saves taxpayer money, and enables the
administration to do a better job.
Brenner stated they agreed to reconsider it if it didn't work after one biennium. No
one was willing to reconsider it. They keep making things so convenient, but it's not in the
public good. This isn't about inflation.
Kremen stated this is about efficiency in government. The Executive is trying to
make his administration be more efficient. The State Auditor audits Whatcom County
government every year. Things aren't being hidden from the public. The people of this
county voted to have a part -time County Council. They can't expect a part -time County
Council to delve into bills that are $500.
Knutzen stated they always find things hidden in the budget when they delve into it,
including premium pay, a $1.5 million transfer that no one could explain, and a boater
safety fund that disappeared and then reappeared. He will support the ordinance with the
understanding that they use the money saved to support an internal auditor position.
Louws stated they will engage an internal auditor position. It will be hard to cut real dollars
from each department budget and move $172,000 into a pot. There will be money
available in the Auditor's Office for about .5 full -time equivalent (FTE). They will have to
decide if they have resources to hire that position and create a good job description.
Brenner stated the State Auditor isn't as thorough as Councilmember Kremen said.
They did not find the $1.5 million. She found it and told them about it.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
52
53
Kremen stated the Council discussed the $1.5 million, but Councilmember Brenner
just doesn't remember.
Brenner stated that's not true.
Kremen stated it was discussed twice, and administrative staff will corroborate that.
Brenner stated Councilmember Kremen is not right. Anything the Council does and
any decision it makes about the placement of monies is written in the public record.
Nothing is written in the public record other than that money was to go back into the
conservation futures fund, which did not happen.
Mann stated voting against the motion to amend is a vote in favor of the Executive's
proposal to raise the limits.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Weimer (5)
Nays: Mann and Kremen (2)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.10, PROCEDURES FOR
MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF COUNTY -OWNED PERSONAL AND REAL
PROPERTY (AB2013 -207) (10:50:41 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. He 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)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2012 -053 (AMENDMENT #1)
ESTABLISHING THE RURAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM FUND AND
ESTABLISHING A PROJECT -BASED BUDGET FOR THE RURAL ROAD SAFETY
PROGRAM (AB2013 -209) (10:52 :14 PM)
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, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,069 (AB2013 -210) (10 :52 :53 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. He moved
to adopt the ordinance. He moved to amend to remove the $40,000 funding for additional
legal assistance, item two in the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Weimer (2)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
6. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, THIRD REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $211,682
(AB2013 -211) (10:56:28 PM)
(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 approve the resolution.
Knutzen asked about interfund transfers from the road fund and solid waste fund.
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated that money from the solid waste
fund and road fund is included in this position to reflect the duties of this, related to noxious
weed, which is a road fund issue, and solid waste. Those allocations are already contained
in his allocations. Since he will be doing less of that, those allocations are switched between
the two.
Knutzen stated there should be information in the packet reflecting those amounts.
Crawford stated the information is on Council packet page 130.
Knutzen stated they are crediting $3,362, but it doesn't show from where the money
has been subtracted from the road fund or solid waste fund. Brueske stated it's a
reallocation within the exiting budget authority. It's not new money out of solid waste or
road funds. It's money that has already been allocated for those functions in the existing
2013 budget. He will work less on roads, so his allocation to the road fund will go down.
This allocation to the road will go up.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated they're talking about the
Flood Control Zone District budget adjustment. If there is another offset in the solid waste
and road fund, he has to check if it's in that supplemental.
Brenner stated some of the things provided should be for the Planning Unit. They
were to hold it until the Planning Unit could be restarted.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the desire is to restart the Planning Unit. The
Public Works Department needs help to make that happen. Postponing the hiring of this
position until they get the Planning Unit going will require more time to become efficient
with handling water issues. He encourages the Council to continue to move forward. The
Council made a decision a few months ago to not have the Public Utility District (PUD)
handle the water supply plan and do that work within County government. They will need
to augment staff to make that happen. It's an important position to fill. This position will
handle specific jobs.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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 ask if approval of this will expedite restarting the Planning Unit. Louws
stated this person will work on water issues, specifically with the Planning Unit. It will help
expedite the process.
Knutzen stated he commends staff for getting grant funding to help with water
quality issues and for dealing with water quantity issues through this position.
Brenner stated the information should include language that the position will work
with the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Louws stated he's not sure that language should
be in the job description, but will make sure that work happens. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee functions through the Planning Department. This is a Public Works Department
position. There are times that the person will engage the Agricultural Advisory Committee,
but don't burden the job description at this time. It is an evolving process.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIRST
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF ($2,496) (AB2013 -212) (11:08:30 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated it's strange to do a 2014 budget amendment in 2013.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated this allows them to finalize decisions regarding
eliminating closure days.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
8. ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE 87 -86 AND CLOSING THE DRUG TASK
FORCE REVOLVING BANK ACCOUNT (AB2013 -213) (11:10:24 PM)
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, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND REICHHARDT & EBE
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE COTTONWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN BIRCH BAY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,962.93
(AB2013 -216)
(Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of
Supervisors)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
53
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LEN HONCOOP GRAVEL, INC.,
AS LOW BIDDER, FOR THE COTTONWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN BIRCH BAY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $467,646.42
(AB2013 -217) (11:11:35 PM)
(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 approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
11. REQUEST APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT
NO. 201212020, A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND VAN NESS
FELDMAN GORDONDERR, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, TO ASSIST IN
REPRESENTING WHATCOM COUNTY IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS
BOARD CASES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,000 (AB2012 -422B) (11 :12 :14 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. The
committee made no recommendation. He moved to approve the request.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that given the Council's decision to appeal,
the Council should amend the scope of work to allow the attorney to assist them to work on
appeal 12 -2 -0013. She proposed an amendment to this contract amendment. Make the
maximum consideration item one, and add a new number two, "2. Exhibit A as amended
previously shall be replaced with the attached Exhibit A.1." Exhibit A.1 says, "The
contractor shall represent Whatcom County and assist in the preparation of its legal defense
in Growth Management Hearings Board case #12 -2 -0013 to the extent any of the issues
raised in case #12 -2 -0013 are addressed in the Board's compliance order in case #11-2 -
0010C. Contractor scope of work will additionally include assisting the County in the
preparation of its legal defense on those issues in case #11- 2- 0010C. In addition, the
contractor shall represent Whatcom County and assist in the appeals of Growth
Management case #11- 2 -0010C and #12 -2- 0013."
Crawford moved to amend per the recommendation of Ms. Frakes.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
12. APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE JACK LOUWS TO SERVE AS
WHATCOM COUNTY'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE WASHINGTON STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WITH COUNCIL CHAIR
KATHY KERSHNER SERVING AS ALTERNATE (AB2013 -214)
Knutzen moved to appoint Jack Louws and Kathy Kershner.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
13. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
RICHARD STURGILL TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
(AB2013 -232) (11 :17 :23 PM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
14. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
LARRY COLLIER TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY APPEALS BOARD (AB2013 -233)
(11 :17: SO PM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(11 :18 :17 PM)
Crawford moved to accept Introduction Items one through three, five, and an
additional item regarding the interim moratorium. Item four will be introduced on July 9,
2013.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF BOUNDARY ROAD (AB2013 -202)
2. ORDINANCE TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO MITIGATE
FOR WETLAND BUFFER FILL IN ORDER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL PARKING
PURSUANT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2012 -00001 (AB2013 -234)
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
3. ORDINANCE ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF LIMESTONE ROAD EAST OF
TILBURY ROAD (AB2013 -235)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW
PACKINGHOUSES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300B)
S. ORDINANCE FINALIZING A REVISED SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT FOR
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 (AB2013 -237)
6. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS
SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AB2012 -040C)
OTHER BUSINESS
Knutzen stated over an acre of a strawberry farmer's farm has washed away in the
past year. The levee has deteriorated and washed out. The clay bank is dissolving rapidly.
The river continues to eat into the bank. The County needs to do something.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he has been briefed on the situation and will
meet with staff. He will do what the County can within its code and policies to resolve the
situation. A meeting is scheduled next week.
Crawford stated he made a comment earlier today about investment in a milk
powder plant being more valuable to agriculture than all of the County's tools. Henry
Bierlink said that Darigold would not have made that investment if Whatcom County wasn't
seriously invested in agricultural protection. That is a good point that Mr. Bierlink made
about the interdependence of Darigold's investment decision and the County's agricultural
preservation efforts. He also made a comment today about an inmate's claim for missing
jewelry at the jail. He incorrectly thought the County was paying the claim for the missing
ring. The claim was filed and will be subject to review and verification. The Chief of
Corrections explained the claims process to him.
Brenner stated a comment was made that the County lost the Goldstar case. The
County didn't lose the Goldstar case. The County won the bright -line part of the case.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated there were issues on which the county
prevailed.
Brenner stated there were other issues that came back for more discussion. The
main issue was the bright line of what's rural at five acres. It can be lower or higher than
that, depending on circumstances.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen reported that his committee talked about tubing on the south fork of the
Nooksack River. That conversation will continue.
Whatcom County Council, 6/18/2013, 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
Mann stated he had a meeting with the Bellingham firefighters and Fire District 7
firefighters. The meeting was productive. They discussed a wide range of issues. He was
encouraged. He hopes that discussion will continue as they work through emergency
medical service (EMS) and Medic One issues.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m.
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, 6/18/2013, Page 24