HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 12 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
March 12, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kershner announced there was a strategy planning discussion and positions to
be taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2013 -018) in executive session during
the Special Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
page.
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items, including the substitute
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 15, 2013 (12:30 P.M.)
2. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2013
3. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2013 (1:30 P.M.)
4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2013
S. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2013
6. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2013
7. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2013
8. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2013
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
Crawford moved to adjust the agenda so all items except the public hearing be
addressed before the public hearing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
• Larry Helm spoke about reserve funds and increased property taxes.
• Hugh Beattie spoke on invasive species from float planes that land on Lake
Whatcom.
• Greg Brown spoke about renaming the proposed slaughterhouse ordinance.
• Bob Burr spoke about the proposed site for the new jail.
• Shane Roth spoke about the proposed slaughterhouse ordinance.
• Riley Sweeney spoke about the proposed new jail.
• Delaine Clizbe spoke about the South Side Metropolitan Park District.
• Joy Gilfillan spoke about the proposed new jail.
• Matthew Goggins spoke about float planes on Lake Whatcom.
Brenner asked if the float planes are cleaned before they land on Lake Whatcom.
Goggins stated they would have to ask the staff.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one and two.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
FUNDING FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PERSONNEL AND
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,035 (AB2013 -103)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PARK USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION AND THE BELLINGHAM HIGHLAND GAMES ASSOCIATION FOR
THE USE OF HOVANDER HOMESTEAD PARK IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$4,980 (AB2013 -104)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Kershner stated item five was withdrawn from the agenda.
Crawford moved to accept Introduction Items one through four.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FOURTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,410 (AB2013 -105)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS
(AB2013 -106)
3. RESOLUTION REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDING FOR NEW OR EXPANDED DIRECT SERVICES TO PERSONS WITH
LOW AND MODERATE INCOMES IN ISLAND, SAN JUAN AND WHATCOM
COUNTIES WITH THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL AS SUBRECIPIENT AND
WHATCOM COUNTY AS LEAD AGENCY (AB2013 -107)
4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FORESTRY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (AB2013 -098)
5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW
AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING
DISTRICT (AB2012 -300A)
OTHER BUSINESS
Kershner stated the Council must appoint one or more councilmembers to represent
the Council during four informal meetings to discuss growth planning and urban growth area
review. The meetings will be held around the County. The first meeting is scheduled on
March 19 in Lynden. The second meeting is June 5 in Blaine. The third meeting is
September 3 in Ferndale. The fourth meeting is December 3 here at the County
Courthouse.
Sam Crawford volunteered to attend.
Kershner asked that the Clerk resend the e -mail to the councilmembers.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Kremen stated he and the County Executive accomplished many substantive things
during their recent trip to Washington D.C. He will give a fuller report at a Council meeting
in two weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 8,844
ACRES OF STATE FOREST LAND MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES TO WHATCOM COUNTY FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES
(AB2012 -066C)
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
Michael McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, gave a staff report on
the history, purpose, and process of the reconveyance. He described proposed activities
that the County would develop on the land and proposed revenue and expenditures
attached to the park.
Mann asked the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Board of Natural Resources'
process for responding if the Council approves the resolution tonight. McFarlane stated the
Board's staff will review the County's proposal for consistency with the Statewide Outdoor
Comprehensive Plan, which he's already seen. The State staff will also review for
consistency with the Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan and confirm
the lands are proper trust lands. If consistent with all those items, the Board will approve
the reconveyance.
Mann asked if all these folks won't have to testify again before the Board of Natural
Resources. McFarlane stated the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) says that the Board
will convey as long as it meets those items. The Board already reviewed and approved the
parcels, real estate transactions, and value- for -value exchange.
Knutzen asked if the cost estimate of the trail development is $500,000 for 55 miles
of trails. McFarlane stated the cost estimate was a range based on per mile of trail. A trail
could be level, use existing roads and trails at a lower cost, or could be more expensive due
to new trail development or development over buffer zones. The total cost is determined
when they get into the actual park plan and trail design. It's very difficult to apply a cost
per mile of trail, and expect it to remain the same across the board. The range was $5,000
to $15,000 per mile. If contracted, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per mile or more. Using
volunteers or force accounts, the cost could be zero to $5,000 per mile. Most trails the
County builds are through volunteers or force accounts, which are the in -house staff. It
reduces the cost on a per mile basis. They're built over a long period of time, as grants,
donations, and partners step forward. They could hire a professional trail builder, the
Washington Trails Association, or another organization that does this. There would be a
wide range of costs based on construction and permitting. Crossing bodies of water and
buffer zones require mitigation and engineering costs. At this stage, he tries to provide a
range of costs based on experience with other projects.
Knutzen stated the DNR estimate was $180,000 per mile for trails through steep,
unstable slopes. That's what most of this area is. McFarlane stated that estimate is within
the range of trail costs, if the trail includes a bridge or goes through critical areas. He tried
to give an average cost of all the 55 miles of trails, knowing there are nine miles of roads
that will probably not be used to any great degree. They can be converted to a trail. They
already have a base, are level, and have drainage. Making nine miles of trails from them is
very inexpensive. The State gave an estimate of $180,000, but also indicated they could
build trails for much less or much more if bridges are required. A detailed design would
have to be done to get a decent estimate. Trail projects are generally done piece -by- piece.
They all agree that some trail sections are very expensive, and other sections are very
inexpensive. It all depends on where the trails are developed.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Jack Weiss, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the City Council has supported
the reconveyance since 2008. The City Council sent letters to the DNR and the County
Council supporting the reconveyance. The City Council reaffirmed its support last night.
Personally, he supports the resolution and reconveyance.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
ballot.
Max Perry spoke on the timber industry and against the reconveyance. Put it on the
Marc Perry spoke about the timber industry and against the reconveyance.
Ted Wood spoke against the reconveyance.
Chet Dow spoke against the reconveyance and about the amount of existing County
parkland.
Nick Saling spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about land stewardship.
Carole Jacobson spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Matt Christman spoke in favor of the reconveyance, about opportunities for
recreation, and the effects of logging on sensitive lands.
Pinky Vargas spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Shane Roth spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about councilmembers
representing all constituents.
Bill Hinely spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about protecting natural
resources.
Jay Saxton spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Paul Orlowski spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about recreational
opportunities.
Jakob Perry spoke about motorized recreation.
Steve Irving spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Kristina Coyne- McHugh spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Casey McHugh spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality and
recreation.
Kelsey Taylor spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Lawrence Quinlivan spoke against the reconveyance and about roads and costs. Put
it on the ballot.
Alan Fritzberg spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about the timber industry.
Colin Tobin spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about local control.
Aubrey Stargell spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Melodie Kirk spoke against the reconveyance and about the amount of parkland, and
stated put it on the ballot.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
David Wallin spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about timber harvesting.
John Kirk spoke against the reconveyance and about Land Trust management, and
stated put it on the ballot.
Rodd Pemble spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about recreation.
Abe Jacobson spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Mitch Freeman spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Karl Uppiano spoke against the reconveyance and about the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) managing recreation, and stated put it on the ballot.
Dick Whitmore spoke against the reconveyance and about the timber industry.
Peggy Uppiano spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Robin Dexter spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Liz Vennos spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Klaus Klix spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Daniel Probst spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Dan McShane spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about the landscape plan.
Aaron Fitts spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Eileen Turk spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Julia Labadie spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Suzanne Lundberg spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Steve Hensen spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about economic development.
John Viechnicui spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about trail systems.
Greg Brown spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Tom Westergreen spoke against the reconveyance and spoke about the timber
industry.
Laurence Brown, Sudden Valley Board, spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about
water quality and flooding.
Delaine Clizbe spoke against the reconveyance, about park planning and the Land
Trust, and stated it put it on the ballot.
Jacob Lesser spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Bob Burr spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Karen Brown spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Sharon Westergreen spoke against the reconveyance and about cost to the County.
J. Riley Sweeney spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Wes Kentch spoke against the reconveyance and about increasing taxes.
Krista Kirk spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Jordon Westerholm spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Jackie Pettit spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Linda Rae Gardner spoke against the reconveyance and about new taxes, and stated
put it on the ballot.
Mel Monkelis spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Todd Citron spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Jeff Margolis spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
Mathew Dunn spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about economic development.
Scott Hackett, Whatcom County- Pomona Grange, spoke against the reconveyance.
Phil Morgan spoke against the reconveyance and about tax increases.
Hue Beatty spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Rand Jack spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Eric Brown spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about local control and
recreation.
Mike Gleeson spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Arlen Bogaards spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about recreation.
Barbara Christensen spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Lorraine Newman spoke against the reconveyance and about the costs of a park.
Kris Halterman spoke against the reconveyance.
Larry Helm spoke against the reconveyance and about compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA) and water quality.
Linda Morelle spoke against the reconveyance and stated put it on the ballot.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
Tom Fenton spoke against the reconveyance and about water quality.
Joy Gilfilen spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about water quality.
John LaMonte spoke against the reconveyance.
Doug Campbell spoke against the reconveyance.
Jasmine Minbashian spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Noah Crozier spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Mathew Goggins spoke against the reconveyance.
Maggie Matheson - Hanson spoke in favor of the reconveyance.
Carole Perry spoke against the reconveyance.
Rudd Brown spoke in favor of the reconveyance and about economic development.
(9:34:17 p.m.)
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Kershner stated the total number of people who signed the public hearing sign -in
form but didn't speak included 57 people in favor of the reconveyance and seven people
against the conveyance.
Kremen moved to approve the resolution.
Knutzen moved to put this on the ballot. He asked for that six months ago. If the
Council approved his request then, they would not be having this conversation now. They
heard that people wanted it to go on the ballot. The City of Bellingham voted on whether
they wanted to finance a 90 -acre park. This Council is asking the residents of Whatcom
County on their opinion on 8,800 acres. He hopes the Council would give the citizens that
same right. Let the voters decide.
Mann stated he is against putting the issue on the ballot. The Councilmembers are
elected to study these issues and make hard decisions. They are not paid to just vote
unanimously on easy decisions. He doesn't like punting the controversial decisions. In
general, it seems that councilmembers inevitably ask for more studies or a vote of the
people when they are about to lose a vote. They should do their job, explain their votes,
and vote now, as they were elected to do.
Brenner stated she disagrees with Councilmember Mann, who voted in favor of
putting the Salary Commission question on the ballot because he didn't want to approve it.
Mann stated it was required by the Charter to be on the ballot.
Brenner stated it wasn't required to be on the ballot if the Council didn't create the
commission. Those are hard decisions. They are elected to make hard decisions. They
have also taken advisory votes from the public on things that could be very costly. The
Council never got the information it wanted. They got information that keeps changing.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
53
Her main interest is water quality. She said she would support the reconveyance if
someone could show her evidence that water quality would be significantly improved. She's
not beholden to any special interest. The Council has the right to ask the public what it
thinks. It's just as credible. They've done it in the past, especially on park - related issues.
Kremen withdrew his motion to allow the Council to consider Councilmember
Knutzen's motion and vote whether or not the Council should send this motion to the
voters. That said, he adamantly opposes the motion to send it to the voters. He agrees
with Councilmember Mann. Councilmembers are elected to make tough decisions. Both
Councilmember Crawford and he were public and consistent about their support of the
reconveyance during their last campaigns for Council.
Crawford stated he is against the motion to put the question on the ballot. He would
only put on the ballot a property tax increase or a Charter amendment. He won't punt on
any decision here. The voters unfortunately can't decide this issue. Only the Council can
decide. Any ballot vote would be advisory. It would still be up to the County Council, which
would not be bound by the election result.
Kershner stated she supports putting the question on the ballot. The community has
become extremely divided, and has had a difficult time getting information and feeling
heard. If it's on the ballot, the campaign can occur publicly. Supporters and non -
supporters both can campaign for it and convince their neighbors. The Council would get an
advisory vote of the people. However, she's not afraid to make the tough decision and will
do so tonight if this fails. She supports allowing the people to give the Council advice.
Weimer stated he's against the motion to put the question on the ballot. They've
heard about this for more than six years. They've heard the information repeatedly. All the
elected bodies with any authority over water quality and land use in the watershed have
voted in favor of this, including the Bellingham City Council, the Lake Whatcom Water and
Sewer District, and Sudden Valley Board. They all represent the people, and have all
spoken. The Council needs to make this decision.
Knutzen stated a number of other bodies have weighed in with the opposite view,
including the Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Cattleman's Association, and a number
of other entities. The letter from Sudden Valley thinks the reconveyance is good as long as
it's low- impact and non - intrusive.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen, and Kershner (3)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, and Mann (4)
Kremen moved to approve the resolution.
Knutzen stated they heard promises that there was nothing to be concerned about
regarding ownership or subcontracting the management to another entity. He moved to
add language to the resolution, "Now, therefore, be it resolved that Whatcom County
intends to fully manage all aspects of the property and retain all resources and rights of
ownership exclusively, including mineral and timber rights and any conservation easements,
unless the property is conveyed back to the Department of Natural Resources." The
Whatcom County administration would handle all aspects of ownership.
Weimer asked if the Parks Department or legal counsel has reviewed the language.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
Knutzen stated he contacted legal counsel about the amendment.
Mann asked if Councilmember Knutzen discussed the amendment with the DNR.
Knutzen stated he has not.
Kremen asked what is the intent of the motion.
Knutzen stated he would like to make sure the management of the property is done
by Whatcom County rather than another organization.
Kremen stated he concurs with the intent of the motion. His concern is that the
resolution has been reviewed by the DNR, and that any changes or modifications may
jeopardize DNR's approval of the reconveyance. He asked if the language in the motion
would jeopardize the DNR's approval. He doesn't want to approve any changes that would
cause the DNR to vote against or not approve the reconveyance.
McFarlane stated the DNR retained or reserved the mineral and gas rights for the
benefit of the State on a number of transfers the County received from the State. He's not
aware those would need to be transferred to use it for park purposes and the State may
retain those, under the reconveyance. Whether or not they could transfer the mineral and
gas rights is a question. The only thing the County can reserve for itself is whatever rights
or interests it receives in the property.
Kershner asked if the Council could add language such as "unless specifically
reserved by the State." McFarlane stated he believes they can. The County will get title
only for what the State conveys to the County.
Kershner stated the intent of the motion, which they want to make clear, is that the
County is not transferring any rights or conservation easements or management of the land
to any other organization or entity, other than Whatcom County.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated putting the Council's intent into a
resolution doesn't legally bind other people. The resolution doesn't have force of law. It's
just a policy statement.
Crawford stated nothing about that binds any future Council from taking any action it
wants. Buckingham stated that's correct. He told that to Councilmember Knutzen. The
actions they take tonight can be undone by future councils.
Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Kremen and the intent. Rand Jack
emailed a proposal to the Parks Director a few years ago. The proposal was produced
through a public disclosure request. The whole community seems to be conveying that this
will all fall under the Land Trust. His experience with the Land Trust has generally been
positive. However, the Land Trust partially or completely brokered other deals, such as the
Olsen property, in which a condition of the deal was that the Land Trust receive a
conservation easement. In this particular case, the County has spent the last three months
thoroughly reviewing the future of this park in terms of parks management, forestry
management, and financing. It would be simplistic for the County to assume that a
conservation easement in the hands of the Land Trust would be appropriate. He won't
support that at this time. There may be portions of this about which he would like to keep
an open mind and understand the benefits of conservation easements and why the Land
Trust loves to have those easements bind the County. He will keep an open mind that a
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
conservation easement may have some public benefit to consider. He's not sure what that
is now. Resolving to never put a third -party conservation easement on the land would not
accomplish anything. If approved, he would like to be involved in creating the forestry
management plan.
Mann stated he does not oppose the intent, but is reluctant to change any part of the
resolution. If changed, the resolution would go back to the DNR and evaluate everything
for technicalities and make sure it's correct. Knowing the DNR already vetted the
resolution, he's reluctant to change any part of it now.
Also, it's been frustrating having to listen to testimony that somehow the Whatcom
Land Trust is getting rich off the reconveyance. That's preposterous. He does not intend to
give this land over to any non - governmental organization (NGO). That's not part of this
proposal. If it ever comes to him, he would vote against it. They could pass another
resolution saying so. He won't mess with the legal technicalities from DNR. Stick with the
document as written and start to work on a plan.
Knutzen stated he's hearing a lot of shallow excuses from councilmembers who
earlier stated they were concerned about this, asked the Land Trust, and heard from the
Land Trust that it has no intent of doing this, even though it submitted the letter to the
Parks Director. This is the responsible thing to do if they are concerned about another
entity running this property. Some of the councilmembers saying they are against it are the
same ones who asked the question and assured him this would never be an issue as long as
they were on the Council. Now they're stating that they don't want to do this. He's
confused about why this would be controversial if they are serious about not letting another
entity run the parks besides the Parks Department.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to amend. He's not sure he has any
problems with the language. His main concern is that this was already crafted by staff and
the DNR. He doesn't know the repercussions of a change. He doesn't want to sit here a
month from now having another hearing because they have to change the wording one
more time. The reality is that in the past six years, the idea of conservation easements has
come up a couple of times. The City of Bellingham mentioned at one point a conservation
easement for which they may be willing to pay the County, as a way to fund the park. None
of those things got any serious traction. He never remembers any discussion of giving over
management to anyone else. He doesn't have a big concern. If they want to address it, the
time would be after the reconveyance, when they start developing the park plan.
Kremen stated this issue came up a couple of years ago, when he was County
Executive. When the Land Trust proposal came to his attention, he firmly decided that the
reconveyance and its destiny would be controlled by Whatcom County. That's his position
now.
(10:04:32 p.m.)
Brenner stated she doesn't want to make light of the good work the Whatcom Land
Trust has done. She's voted twice for them to help the County with management. Once,
the Land Trust said the park would have public access so the Council voted for it, but it
didn't have public access. It cost the County a lot of money to get public access. Another
time she voted for the Land Trust to manage a property that was supposed to have public
access, but the neighbors said there was only Land Trust access. There are reasons people
may want the County to be totally in charge of something, rather than any other entity.
The County must make sure it's in charge of every decision if this passes.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
Knutzen stated if DNR has ever seen this resolution, which is from the Parks
Department. McFarlane stated this resolution was written in collaboration with DNR staff in
Olympia to ensure consistency with their requirements. It is a Council resolution, written
with the input from that staff who will be reviewing it.
Kremen stated the motion is well- intended, but he will oppose it. Be consistent and
pass the resolution as it was written jointly by the DNR and Whatcom County.
Kershner stated she has no intention of ever voting to give any conservation
easement to any outside group. She is interested in looking more at the project done in
Anacortes, where the City is selling its own conservation easements to its own citizens, and
raising a pot of money to be used for maintenance and other things. Whatcom County can
do that. The citizens can take care of this park and other parks and projects.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen, and Kershner (3)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, and Mann (4)
Knutzen stated he is against the resolution. Parks Department projects usually have
incorrect, low project estimates. The Lake Samish dock is such an example. It seems like
they purposely made the reconveyance sound like it will be something it won't be.
They heard the purpose is for water quality and for recreation opportunities. He
asked the Department of Ecology if it will fix water quality, and was told it will not. He
would love to hear it if someone knows something different. If the County no longer needs
to consider the Department of Ecology's opinion on water quality, he questions why the
County has to pay attention to the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and other issues.
The recreation opportunities exist now, and the DNR is more than willing to work
with the County on some of these things. The County hasn't made any effort to take
advantage of that. The DNR would have reopened the north fork if recreation was
important enough for the County to contribute funding.
The County will lose revenue, and the County will have expenses for maintenance.
The numbers they are hearing are contrary to what really will happen. He won't support the
reconveyance.
Crawford stated there is no proposal to raise taxes for this. The County received a
letter from Hart Hodges and other economists who evaluated this. They predict a positive
benefit for the County government and the local economy.
The DNR has to go through a big public process. Their desire to create a recreational
amenity in Whatcom County is due to lobbying of the off -road users group. The Council will
hear a lot about that this summer.
Someone tonight referenced the Crawford proposal. He reviewed the maps and
hazardous area last year on behalf of the timber community to remove portions of the area
to keep them in DNR management to assure potential harvest. He will withdraw that
proposal. It's not on the table. Revenue will come to the County from the cell and
communication towers, which will offset the County's annual cost by close to $100,000.
There is value to keeping the towers in the reconveyance area. He described his proposal,
which is not on the table. He appreciates that DNR staff from Olympia presented to the
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
County Council recently, but the local DNR staff aren't as receptive to talking about a
Whatcom County recreation plan. In the next few months, they'll hear more about DNR
developing an off -road vehicle park.
Mann stated some of the arguments they've heard tonight, such as the Whatcom
Land Trust taking over the conservation easement, are not on the table. It's not an option.
The DNR presentation did not impress him. The DNR has no money for this type of
thing. It has less experience and less motivation to do it. If the DNR ever did get around to
developing a plan in Whatcom County, they want it to be multiuse, with motorized vehicles,
which he would support. They aren't going to put that in the watershed. DNR is not the
recreational alternative. The DNR came here with no plan and no money.
He understands some of the fear that it will cost the County some money, and the
County will lose some timber harvest. He understands the timber industry doesn't like that.
It's their livelihood and culture. He did not call Dick Whitmore an anarchist. He's heard
other accusations and hyperbole that the County could seize other private land next. The
County isn't seizing private property. This is County land being managed by the State, and
the County is asking for it back.
This will be a net positive for recreation, economic development, and water quality.
It will not solve water quality problems in Lake Whatcom. Development is a much bigger
problem, but it's still better. Logging roads and mass wasting events are serious issues.
The most important reason he's supporting this reconveyance is because he wants
Whatcom County to control its own destiny, which also requires they write their own checks.
He doesn't ever want to be in the position again of having to sue one State agency to
protect the drinking water, at the same time another State agency is sanctioning the County
for not doing enough to protect the drinking water.
Whatcom County is up to the challenge of managing the land for its benefit. Even
though he disagrees with some people, there is no animosity. There is an awesome sense
of community in Whatcom County. He supports the reconveyance for the children of
Whatcom County.
Brenner stated she doesn't support the reconveyance. Her issue is lake water
quality. She asked a local DNR employee whether the reconveyance would afford any
significant water quality improvement in the lake. He said he could not tell her that would
happen. The biggest problem in Lake Whatcom is pollution, which is caused by
development. The Department of Ecology will make the County spend millions to fix it.
There are many other things the County must do to encourage people to retrofit. Those are
the big costs and big benefits. If another tree was never cut in the watershed, there would
still be landslides and mass wasting. The last one caused by logging was many years ago.
The State laws have changed since then.
Whatcom County passed the landscape plan. The State was concerned that it be
reimbursed for costs, which was mediated. It was the best plan anywhere in the country.
Whatcom County has complete local control with the landscape plan. If someone isn't doing
something right, the County steps in with the landscape plan. The landslides and mass
wasting that will happen are very expensive, and will become the County's liability.
She was very upset with DNR when it closed the north fork trail system. She learned
that the DNR had been in negotiations with the mountain biking community since 2007 to
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
stop building illegal trails in that area. The illegal building kept happening, so the DNR
closed it down. Members of the mountain biking community admitted during the meeting
that it was doing illegal building. If the County allows illegal trails, it becomes liable. She
had asked if the County was absolved of liability if the area is a public park, and was told
that it won't matter before a jury. She would rather the County spend money fixing big
problems in the watershed.
She's scared they will end up losing access to Galbraith Mountain, which has been
maintained. She asked for an approximate number of trails for mountain bikes, but was
told that will be determined with the park plan. The Council has received much more
specific information up front about other parks. The mountain bikers have been loyal
supports of the reconveyance, but they will end up losing. She hopes she's wrong about
that.
The main reason for the reconveyance has to do with steep slopes in the watershed.
The landscape plan says no one can log in critical areas near unstable steep slopes. The
protection exists right now.
They do have an economic problem in Whatcom County. More money has gone out
of County government than has come in for many years. Even after they passed the
budget, now they have to cut more. The County doesn't have money. She likes the idea of
getting the users to pay, but trail construction still costs a lot of money and time. Money
they need won't be available to take care of the big problems in the watershed that
everyone agrees about.
Kremen stated he's been chastised over the last several months because of his early
involvement in and support of the reconveyance, which will benefit this community for
centuries. He understands some of the opposition. He supports the reconveyance because
it is a rare opportunity to acquire one - quarter to one -third of the entire watershed at a cost
of $32.90 per acre, which they already mostly spent.
The reconveyance area will become an old growth forest. An old growth canopy will
be the most effective way to minimize the infiltration of significant amounts of rainfall every
year. That rainfall increases phosphorous loading in the watershed, which is the biggest
problem with Lake Whatcom. Logging is not nearly the biggest culprit of phosphorous
loading, but it is important to reduce that loading.
Another benefit is the rare recreational opportunities so close to an urban area. The
benefit and value will be forever. It will provide connectivity to the Olsen reserve and
Stimson. Whatcom County will control it forever. That is the same vision that created
Central Park in New York, on a much grander scale. They need clean, safe drinking water
for businesses and a viable economy. The benefits are great. This is a rare opportunity.
He's sensitive to the impacts to the logging industry. He has many friends involved
in the logging industry who are vocal opponents of the reconveyance. However, logging
3,500 acres on a 60 year rotation will allow about 55 acres per year for logging. The
financial impact to the logging industry is almost not discernable. About ten percent of the
logs harvested in the watershed are being processed in Skagit County because it's better
financially.
The County has more than $6 million in the conservation futures fund, which will pay
for almost all of this. The fund collects at least $1.1 million annually. The County Council
voted to increase the tax for conservation futures a few years ago. At that time, he knew
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
they didn't need it. He vetoed that tax increase, because he had the taxpayers in mind. A
lot of people talked about their taxes being increased. Whatcom County has not increased
the County's general fund property taxes. Increased property taxes come from the fire
districts, school districts, and other levies. That's what is causing property taxes to
increase, not more parks. They have an ample supply of money to acquire and maintain
the park system.
He's proud that the reconveyance project, which began in 2006, will culminate
tonight. He's proud to have worked with Parks Director McFarlane and Rand Jack from the
Land Trust, who see the value of this opportunity. They are lucky individuals who had the
vision to protect this land for posterity.
Knutzen stated he hears totally different things from the DNR than Councilmember
Mann hears. The State legislature has funded the DNR's program for the last couple of
years, and it will be funded again this year. Whatcom County has no money or plan. The
only money it had was $1.5 million that was purposely hidden in another account until
Councilmember Brenner and the State Auditor exposed it and told the County to transfer
the money back where it belonged. The County is the one that has no money or plan. The
recreational plan seems to revolve. He doesn't know how many recreation plans the County
has put together, but the DNR's presentation was substantial. He's not aware of any lawsuit
about this other than the Mount Baker School District for its lost revenue.
Weimer stated he supports the reconveyance. They talked about this for six years.
All elected officials with authority in the watershed are in favor of it. The DNR said they
hear about the demand for recreation in Whatcom County, more than anywhere else in the
state. Some of it is for off road vehicle recreation, but a lot of it isn't.
They've heard from lots of business owners about how the area will provide
significant direct and indirect economic development opportunities. A group of economists
from Western Washington University explained how this park can grow the economy.
The park happens to surround the drinking water source for a majority of the people
in Whatcom County. There isn't a huge water quality impact, but there is some protection
to reduce and prevent more pollution from ending up in the lake.
The main reason he will vote for this is because parks are the things the County pays
for that represent love and happiness, as opposed to a new jail and new courts and judge.
The government has things that are higher a priority than parks, but parks are where he
goes with his kids.
Kershner stated she has worked on this issue since she came onto the Council. She
spent hours with the Parks Director getting her questions answered. This does not have a
significant impact on drinking water quality. It may provide some small protection. It won't
solve the drinking water problem. Old growth forests require 500 years to grow. Old
growth forests require selective logging. An experienced forester will have to help the
County with that. Today's timber practices do not create the same issues with landslide as
they may have in the past. Logging practices have improved. Maligning the timber
industry for creating landslides is unfair.
She doesn't support giving control of this area to any outside agency. Whatcom
County can and should manage the area. They are not proposing a tax increase. She
wouldn't support a tax increase for this area.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, 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
The land will remain zoned commercial forestry. In areas where it is appropriate,
they should collect revenue from timber harvesting. The State keeps most of that timber
revenue.
DNR is also not the magic solution. The DNR has to ask the legislature for money. If
it does get money, it has not yet selected Whatcom County for recreation planning, even
though it ranks high. If the DNR receives money for recreation planning, Whatcom County
has a good chance of receiving that recreation plan. However, the DNR is doing a planning
process, which sounds very good. The Parks Director said Whatcom County will do a similar
planning process. That means all the public will be involved. She will expect there to be
public outreach and information sessions. The public will be able to provide input into what
this area looks like. There will be a rigorous review process and go through the Parks
Commission and possibly Planning Commission. The citizens will be able to participate in
that process. They can't do that expensive planning process without having control of the
land.
A lot of research has been done on what this is about. The risks and benefits are
known. It's time to make it something Whatcom County can be proud of. The land was
reconfigured last year to remove the prime timber area out of the reconveyance area. This
is the land with steep and unstable slopes. There is still some potential for timber
management, but the majority of it is the area where they wouldn't want to log anyway.
It's the area where the landscape plan wouldn't allow logging. She supports logging in
areas where it makes sense, thinning, and helping it to grow into an old growth forest that's
healthy.
It's true that the County has other priorities. The County can do all that and still
manage this land. They are using a dedicated fund with a huge balance on this reconveyed
land. They aren't using employee or jail money to fund it. They are using conservation
futures funds and revenue from the communication towers.
The landscape plan is the most restrictive in the nation. The timber industry and
other businesses must be strong. They must promote many different types of businesses.
They must diversify. Recreation is a prime industry for Whatcom County. This
reconveyance will help the recreation industry.
Make sure they have local control of the resource, that it remains commercial
forestry and allows timber harvest in appropriate areas. Consider if they can allow off -road
vehicle use in the area, recognizing that it may not be possible. Retain all the rights and
resources in the County. Encourage the use of volunteers to keep costs down. Locate
trailheads and parking lots outside the watershed and off the small roads. She won't
support any new taxes for the park. It must pay for itself. She's interested in the
Anacortes model for selling conservation easements to raise funds for this park. Everyone
should work together and make the project the best it can be for Whatcom County. Stay
engaged in the process. She supports the reconveyance.
Mann thanked Councilmember Kershner for her skill in managing the meeting
tonight.
Kremen stated he commends everyone who participated and spoke tonight. Earlier
today, he asked staff to tabulate all the correspondence the Council received since January
3, 2012. According to staff, the Council received 996 emails. Of those, 771 emails
supported the reconveyance and 225 were opposed to the reconveyance. That's close to
the 74 percent result of the survey.
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on April 9, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1
i Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council(g-.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 3/12/2013, Page 17