Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works December 10 20131P1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 20 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee 30 40 December 10, 2013 5P1 60 CALL TO ORDER 7P1 8M Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the 91a Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 10F?1 11M ROLL CALL 12M 13P] (1:36:03 PM) 14P] 150 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann and Pete Kremen. 16M Absent: None. 17M Also Present: Carl Weimer, Bill Knutzen and Sam Crawford. 180 19P] 20M COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21P] 221N 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR 230 EAST /WEST COUNTY ROADWAY CONNECTION (AB2013 -431) 24P] 251N Darcy ]ones, ]ones Engineering and Caitac USA, submitted and read from a 260 presentation (on file). It's time to include a portion of the Caitac property into the urban 27M growth area. The property can offer solutions to land use and provide a public benefit from 28M its transportation network. He described the Caitac property development, which uses local 29M contractors, local materials, and local suppliers and manufacturers. He described a platted 30M area that would extend Cordata north to the city limits. The golf course is a natural 31M boundary. The design includes an east -west arterial connection, which is related to recent 320 Council discussions. 33P] 34M They have a site plan worked out that includes 543 single- and multi - family units in 350 a variety of styles. With this density, they can build an arterial connector that works for 36M everyone. They want to provide public benefit and transportation solution. They are asking 3717 the Council today to consider including them in the urban growth area during the upcoming 380 Comprehensive Plan update. Also, they want their ideas to be included in a regional traffic 39M analysis that incorporates both the City and the County's goals and recommendations. Look 4017 at the area north of the city and the Slater Road extension in a comprehensive inter - 410 jurisdictional fashion. 42M 4317 Funding has been allocated in the transportation improvement plan (TIP) to study 440 the extension and various road improvements. They can fit into the road network in that 45M area. A condition of the Cordata planned unit development (PUD) is that there be an east - 46M west connector studied for the north end of the PUD. 470 481M There has been a lot of information on the Bakerview exchange, all concluding that 49M the Slater Road interchange needs improvements. As shown by a recent value impact 500 analysis, the capacity could be increased and carry them through the year 2030. In 511M addition to improvements, a significant amount of traffic can be taken off the Bakerview 52M Road interchange. It's becoming a time - sensitive issue. The congestion at Bakerview will 530 not lessen. None of the reports modeled a scenario that included any improvements and Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 1 11a connections. If they re -run the models, they could find a significant difference to the 20 Bakerview Road interchange. It's better than spending money on a new interchange at this 30 point. They can improve the Bakerview Road interchange by giving people an alternative. 4P1 5M Bob Carmichael, Caitac USA, stated they want to work with both the City and County 60 to make this work for everyone. A spirit of cooperation should develop. This is a regional 71M issue. The sooner they begin to study the issue cooperatively, the sooner they can find 8M good solutions for all citizens. 9r?] 10r?] Mann stated a regional transportation plan is part of the 2016 update. He asked if 11M that is already being outlined, or if the Council would have to ask staff to include the option 12M presented as an option in the study. 13F?1 140 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated they will analyze different options of the 15M plan presented. They are currently working with the Council of Governments (COG) and 16M others agencies to develop an interlocal agreement and traffic impact analysis and route 170 analysis study to bring the information forward the Council needs to make that decision. He 18M hopes to have that information available this Spring. 19P] 200 Mann asked if an impact analysis and route analysis would specifically include the 21M option of extending Slater Road to the Guide Meridian. Rutan stated they haven't done that 22M detail. However, they will have to analyze it. 230 24M Mann asked if they would include improvements at those interchanges and a Horton 251N Road addition. Rutan stated they would include those components in various combinations. 260 He will give the Council a presentation and will work with the Council and other agencies to 27M produce a document that will be useful to everyone to make these decisions. 280 290 Brenner stated this was very helpful. There was some discussion of a roundabout at 30M Northwest Road and Slater Road, but it's more important to figure out what they're doing 310 before they install a roundabout. It makes a difference if that is a through -road rather than 32M a dead -end. She appreciates the information and will read through it all. She asked if the 33M Council needs to give direction to Mr. Rutan. Rutan stated he's already working on it. If 340 councilmembers have any concerns or questions, he can have a conversation with them to 35M make sure they have what they want. 361?1 370 Brenner stated this is the first time she heard about a roundabout at Smith Road and 38M Northwest Road. The store at the corner should not be any more damaged than it was. 39M Rutan stated he envisions a presentation like this that includes information on existing and 400 predicted scenarios that include traffic volumes, traffic times, and a cost analysis of each 41M element. 421?1 430 Brenner stated she hopes a roundabout at the intersection isn't the reason behind 44M the push to demolish the historical building, which she will fight to preserve. 451a 460 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF CREDIT /DEBIT CARD 47M CONVENIENCE FEES FOR TICKET SALES ONBOARD THE WHATCOM CHIEF 481a (AB2013 -430) (1:57:59 PM) 490 50M Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, referenced and read from the staff memo 51M in the Council packet. 52F71 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 2 1E Brenner stated it seems the calculation of the percentage should take seconds. 20 Brueske stated that the boat run takes only five minutes. If half the boat pays by credit 30 card, the purser is in the dark and cold calculating a myriad of fees. The only unit rugged 4M enough for this use doesn't calculate fees automatically. 5F?1 60 Brenner asked if the credit card company charges the convenience fee to the County. 71M Brueske stated it does. 8F?1 91a Brenner asked if it's possible for the ferry fare to include the convenience fee. 101M Brueske continued to read through the staff report and describe the staff recommendation. 11M Staff suggests waiving the fee for six months on the single rides only so they can 12M investigate whether a smart phone -based application would work better at calculating fees 131M and what would be the correct fee percentage. 140 151M Brenner stated have a base convenience fee of 2.35 percent and include it into the 16M fare cost rather than waiving the fee completely. Brueske stated it's something they can 170 do. 18F?] 19M Kremen asked why they selected a vendor with such a complicated fee structure. 200 Brueske stated it's the same vendor the Treasurer's Office uses. The contract is already set 21M up. 22F?] 230 Kremen stated he thought the fee was the cost to complete the transaction, over and 24M above the price of the fare. Brueske stated it is. The 2.35 percent is the fee set by contract 250 for the web -based tickets. With the onboard ticket sales, the fees can vary. The vendor will 260 charge actual fees, not the contracted fee rate. 27F?1 281N Brenner asked if the County can have the same kind of contract for the ferry fares 290 that the Treasurer's Office has. 30F?] 310 Steve Oliver, Treasurer, stated a number of major U.S. merchants sued Visa and 32M Mastercard over their requirements. One result of that lawsuit was a settlement that allows 33M government agencies to pass on these processing charges to their customers. The issue 340 with the boat is that there is no device available that will support that kind of transaction 35M operating wirelessly in a boat environment. Part of the issue has to do with these 36M settlements with Visa and Mastercard. That put everything on hold for a number of months. 370 Visa had the opportunity to appeal. It wasn't until recently that Visa announced it would 38M not appeal the settlement and would meet the provisions of the settlement. That situation 39M put everyone behind because everyone was waiting to see what would happen with the 400 settlements, including the hardware manufacturers. They did a tremendous amount of 41M research trying to find a device, and one just doesn't exist at this point. 421?1 430 Brenner asked if the County could legally assume that a fee would be 2.35 percent 44M for six months and add it to the fare. Oliver stated the Council can amend the ferry rate 451a structure any way it wants. 460 47M Brenner stated that would cover some of the County's cost for the next six months, 481a while they're waiting for the final information. Oliver stated the County can't use that 490 convenience fee surcharge model on the ferry currently. They're processing a credit card 50M transaction like any other merchant. 51F?] 52M Brenner asked why the County can't use that model. Oliver stated there's no 53M hardware to support it. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 3 1r?] 20 Brenner stated just add 2.35 percent to the ferry fare and charge that as a single 30 charge. Oliver stated they can change the rate structure of the Whatcom Chief to address 41M that. They can't do it at the terminal at this moment. 5P1 60 Brenner asked if they can legally have a fee structure just for credit cards that would 7M include the convenience fee. 8P1 91a Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the staff can redo the sign at the ferry that 10M says a cash payment is $7, and the credit card payment is $7.16, or whatever the 2.35 11M percent totals. For the amount of money they're talking about overall, he recommends not 121a doing that, and just absorb the $5,000 or $6,000 annual cost to do the work. It will be 13E confusing for ferry riders. The County can roll the amount into the cost of doing business. 140 Public Works is recommending the waiver only on the single fares going to the island. The 15M multi -pass fares would be charged the fee. It's easier just to say the fare is $7 for everyone 16M and absorb the 16 cents. 170 18M Brenner stated the Treasurer's Office charges a different amount if paid by credit 19M card. 200 21M Kremen stated that they're talking about thousands of dollars per transaction when 22M paying property taxes in the Treasurer's Office. In this scenario, they're talking about a $7 230 transaction. He asked the estimated amount of revenue the County would lose from the 24M waiver. Louws stated they believe the maximum revenue lost is up to $7,000 per year. 250 260 Oliver stated that's assuming they made no effort to recover any of the cost. 27P] 28E Brueske stated they don't have any way to estimate how many people will pay with 290 credit cards. They calculated an estimate based on half of the single rides that are sold with 30M credit cards. It could be more or less than that. 310 32M Oliver stated any merchant who accepts credit cards is charged more than cards 33M without any associated rewards. There are many different fees for all the different types of 340 credit cards. 35P] 36M Brenner stated she would like the fare to reflect a different charge with a credit card. 370 38M Mann stated they will spend more money right now creating and adopting an 39M ordinance to change the fees and put up new signs for a six month waiver. They've been 400 talking about a ferry fare adjustment anyway. Waive this for six months until they have 41M more information with which they can calculate the convenience fees. Any issue regarding 42M the ferry is best done well in advance with clear information. Waiving the charge for six 430 months is more efficient and creates better relations with the residents. It may cost the 44M County $3,000, and then the County will know what it's doing after that. 4517 460 Kremen stated he will also support the staff's recommendation. 47P] 4817 Brenner stated it doesn't have to be a big deal. Oliver stated County staff have 490 spent a lot of time researching this issue and reviewing many possible solutions. On the 50M advice of the State Auditor and State Treasurer's Office, they won't use phone -based 51M applications. They don't meet State banking requirements. 52F71 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 4 11M Brenner stated the State complained that the County wasn't accurate with its ferry 20 fares. She moved to include a 2.35 percent convenience charge for six months. 30 40 The motion failed by the following vote: 5M Ayes: Brenner (1) 60 Nays: Mann and Kremen (2) 7P1 8P1 Mann moved to accept the staff recommendation for the six -month waiver. 9r?] 101M The motion carried by the following vote: 11m Ayes: Mann and Kremen (2) 121a Nays: Brenner (1) 13PI 140 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL'S OCTOBER 8, 2013, APPROVAL OF A 151M REQUEST BY THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR EDI FUNDING OF $2.5 MILLION 161M IN SUPPORT OF THE NORTH END REGIONAL STORMWATER FACILITY 170 PROJECT (LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,675,000 AND A GRANT IN THE 18M AMOUNT OF $825,000 (AB2013 -319A) (2:20:30 PM) 19P] 200 Jack Louws, County Executive, gave a staff report. The administration is going over 21M the reports and documents submitted by the City and will present a final recommendation 221M after review. 230 24M Brenner stated it was said that the work done on Bakerview will increase efficiency 250 by 50 percent. She asked to what traffic rating that work will increase the road. 260 271M Ted Carlson, City of Bellingham Public Works Department, stated the study showed 280 that it will increase the capacity of the overpass by 70 percent. In terms of level of service, 290 he doesn't have that information for the corridor. They typically look at intersection level of 30M service. 310 32M Brenner stated she would like to see that information. 33F?1 340 Knutzen stated he's amazed at how many different transportation studies have been 35M done for individual projects. The Council of Governments considered options for replacing 36M the overpass due to congestion four years ago. He doesn't see how what was done is going 370 to alleviate the pressure for these many different developments. He can't justify how all 38M this will work there from a planning perspective, short of replacing the overpass, given all 39M the work going on. 400 41M Carlson stated there are that many studies because the City requires a traffic impact 42M analysis for any development that creates over 50 trips during the afternoon /evening (p.m.) 430 peak driving time. Each development needs to consider impacts from previous 44M developments, even if they're not built yet, if there is a pre - application. In terms of the 45M corridor, the value planning study done in 2011 built on the Interstate 5 master plan from 460 the Department of Transportation. The ultimate fix is a new interchange. Everyone 47M recognizes that. The value planning study identified a lower cost option to maximize the 481a infrastructure. That's the project just completed. The additional 70 percent capacity is due 490 to additional through -lanes west bound and the dropped right -turn lane, which was a major 50M point of congestion. Option two from the value planning study was a new northbound on- 51M ramp on the east side of the interstate, between the PAC Highway and the interstate. That 52M was a higher -cost solution that was considered in tandem with option one. The idea was 53M that the City and State would pursue option two before a new interchange could be built at Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 5 1E the cost of $40 million to $50 million. At the time, the cost was identified at $7 million for 20 construction, not including other costs such as right -of -way. The City feels that project 30 should still be pursued regionally. The ultimate fix is a new interchange, but they do 41M consider each impact based on design standards, level of service, and whether mitigation is 5(] required. 60 7M Brenner stated she doesn't see how the State will justify giving money to Whatcom 8(] County to replace it. Additionally, it's within a mile of the work under the intersection at 91] Northwest Road. It may not be logical to assume the State will help with any work in the 101M near future. Carlson stated the State didn't contribute to the Bakerview overpass 111] construction. They paid $100,000 for the value planning analysis. The same is true with 121a the two roundabouts built on Northwest Road. The State is aware of the value planning 13M study. According to meetings with Todd Erickson and Todd Carlson, they would like to 14M pursue option two, which is the new northbound on -ramp in conjunction with working on 15M fixes at Slater Road. There's no doubt further improvements are necessary at Bakerview 16M Road. They made significant progress with the project just completed. 170 18M Brenner asked if the State is interested in option two, which is building another 19M overpass. Carlson stated it's not a new overpass. Option two is to build a new northbound 20M onramp between PAC Highway and the east side of the interstate. 21(] 22M Kremen stated that opens up many questions and concerns. The legislature can't 230 get a funding package to take care of existing roads. The likelihood of getting any 24M significant transportation dollars from the State is unlikely anytime soon. If they get the 25M money at all, it will not be soon. It's overly optimistic to think the modifications will 260 increase capacity of the overpass by 70 percent. This isn't just about Bakerview Road and 27M the overpass. They are putting in a large, highly- frequented store, a significant shopping 28M center, and many other lodging facilities and other retail businesses in an area that already 290 has had very rapid growth and associated traffic congestion. He asked if the City has 30M factored in what will happen at the Northwest Road and Bakerview Road intersection. Not 310 everyone going to Costco will use the overpass. They will come from Bakerview Road or 322 Northwest Road, which already have poor levels of service. It's difficult to believe there is 33M enough area to construct the infrastructure, even if they come up with the funding. 34(] 352 Kelli Linville, Bellingham Mayor, stated the City wants to participate in a regional 36M approach. Traffic from the county and the city chokes both of those intersections. Her 370 team works on facts and information to make the best attempt possible to meet 382 concurrency requirements. The problem is more than the problems at Bakerview Road or a 39M potential Costco store. All that property is zoned commercial or light industrial. It isn't 400 zoned open space or residential. It's zoned for development and growth. The City is happy 41M to have a planning conversation as the County goes through the Comprehensive Plan 42M update. Right now, the City has done what it can to improve the traffic flow. She thought 430 they were here today to listen to discussion about the Economic Development Investment 44M (EDI) grant. They came prepared to answer questions about that item. 451] 460 Brenner stated there would be less impact on stormwater in that area if Costco 47M stayed where it is now. A neighboring property owner to Costco's current location has more 482 property and wants it over there. Linville stated a property owner could want it somewhere, 490 but the City does not dictate where businesses decide to build, if the zoning is right. 50M 511] Brenner stated the City dictated to Costco that if it wanted to expand, it could go to 52M Bakerview Road. Linville stated it did not. 53M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 6 M Brenner stated the City has a limit on square footage for big box stores. She asked 20 if the City is going to require Costco to stay within that limit if it moves to Bakerview Road. 30 Linville stated the City's does not broker private property. Costco examined all the 41M properties available and chose that property as the best for them. 5F?1 60 Brenner stated she heard that the City offered Costco $8 million in assistance if 71] Costco moved to West Bakerview Road. Linville stated that's absolutely untrue. 8F?1 91a Carlson stated the Bakerview corridor was identified as a big box store exemption 10M area. They didn't have to comply with the 90,000 square foot limit. This exemption was 11M several years ago, before any discussion or negotiation with any individual business owners. 12M The City hasn't offered any incentives to Costco that any other developer doesn't get. 13E Costco is paying its traffic impact fees, which are substantial. They are required to do 140 arterial extensions. They are building an entire arterial section at a cost of over $2 million. 151M They are paying their proportional fair share of the stormwater facility. The City is 16M requesting EDI money to build more efficiently. It would be less expensive to Costco or any 17M other developer who wanted to develop in that area, which they've identified through zoning 18M as the area where they want commercial development to grow. When the City came to the 19M Council in 2011 for the EDI money for the Bakerview Road project, the City identified all of 20M this area as some of the City's most densely commercially zoned property with the hope it 21M would develop. It's happening exactly as the City pointed out to the County Council in 22M 2011. 230 24M Knutzen asked about Costco paying traffic mitigation fees that may change in 2014. 25M Carlson stated the City adjusts traffic impact fees annually. Costco will pay what any other 260 developer would pay. 27F?1 28M Kremen asked the rationale for not allowing Costco to expand in its current location, 290 but to let it be larger at a different location. Carlson stated Costco could have expanded in 30M its current location. The City zoning allows an existing big box store to expand if it follows 310 certain criteria in how they build. That was a corporate decision. Costco analyzed where it 322 wants its store. The City doesn't site stores. The City provides zoning and infrastructure in 33M cooperation with private developers to serve the zone. 340 352 Kremen stated there were stories in the Bellingham Herald about the City Council 36M limiting the size of stores like Costco and Walmart. He asked if those stories were 370 inaccurate and invalid. Carlson stated the zones have certain criteria that allow stores to 382 expand if they do certain things. Costco could have expanded at its existing location, but it 39M didn't meet their criteria for where they want their store to be. Costco has to go through a 400 process that shows why they didn't expand at their current location as a part of the City's 41M permitting process. It's part of sequencing for environmental permitting. There's nothing 42M secret about it. 430 44M Kremen asked Walmart's reason for not expanding. A Walmart community outreach 452 representative indicated to him that Walmart wanted to expand, but was unable to because 460 of City regulations and prohibitions. Carlson stated his explanation was specific to Costco. 47M There are different zoning rules for membership stores. He will have his staff provide more 482 detailed information about Walmart. 490 50M Crawford stated that according to trade journals, Costco's corporate model is to own 512 the ground and the building it is in. It is unable to do that where it's currently located. New 52M Costco stores have the entrance on a corner of the store, because they figured out they can 53M get parking to go 270 degrees around the store with that design and not have the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 7 1E congestion caused by a bunch of retail tenants. Costco also likes freeway visibility. If 20 Costco had its current development policies back in 1991, it would probably not locate 3M where it is located now. Costco only leases the property it is on now. 4P1 5M In terms of incentives, he understands that the City of Ferndale would commit a 60 certain amount of future sales tax revenue to help cover or reimburse the traffic impact 7M fees. He asked if there is no commitment or discussion from the City of Bellingham about 8M future sales tax revenue allocations from Costco being used for anything. Carlson stated it 91a is correct about what the City of Ferndale offered and that the City of Bellingham is not 10M offering anything like that. 11r?] 121a Knutzen stated some of the studies list Bakerview Road as a minor arterial. He 131M asked if that status has changed. Carlson stated he's not sure that's accurate. He will 140 check with the traffic engineers and planners and respond. 15P] 16M Kremen asked if the City of Bellingham and County discussed helping the County 17M with any modifications or expansions of transportation infrastructure that will be necessary 18M to deal with the regional approach. Linville stated the City, as a regional partner, would do 19M its part, including financial. The City tries not to take the lead outside the city limits or 200 urban growth boundary. The City would do its part to alleviate traffic and make it easier for 21M residents to get where they want to go. 22P] 230 Kremen asked if that's true for improvements outside the city limits. Carlson stated 24M the City has already done improvements outside the city limits. The West Bakerview Road 25M project was in the county, and the City paid for it. 260 27M Crawford stated the use of EDI funds for the stormwater project is a good and 28E appropriate use of that money. He endorses the action. His concern is the impact to 290 county roads. County Public Works Department staff is looking at the traffic studies. They 30M must understand the implications of the Slater Road intersection and how this project may 310 impact that intersection. Regarding County funding, he suggests the Council not take any 32M action at this point. Don't move forward with approval to sign the check or anything. 33M Instead, wait until Public Works Department staff gives information to the Council. If the 340 Council is satisfied at that point, go ahead and approve it. He doesn't anticipate that would 35M happen until the end of January or February. He asked how critical is the receipt of funds 36M for the City to move forward, and if the County can withhold a final decision on approving 370 the expenditure of the EDI funds until the County Council has a chance to work with the 38M staff about impacts to the Pacific Highway and Slater Road. Linville stated the City would 39M like to start counting on that money now. However, the effect is on what the City does 400 regarding its budget for 2015 -2016 capital costs. It's not critical to know before the first of 41M the year, but they would like to know. 421?1 430 Mann asked the City's reaction to the feasibility of the information presented by Mr. 44M Darcy Jones about extending Slater Road, adding land to the city, letting them build Kelly 4517 Road, and coming out to the Guide Meridian. He asked how much that connection and the 460 Horton Road connection would take pressure off of Bakerview Road. Carlson stated the City 47M staff met with Mr. Jones and Mr. Carmichael. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows the 4817 need for east -west connections. The City shows the connection as Kline Road, because 490 Kline Road is in the urban growth area. The City also is excited about partnering with the 50M County to build Horton Road. The City has money and started the design. It's important. 51M The City agrees an east -west connection is important and will remove pressure from 52M Bakerview Road. All the people in Cordata will have another way to get to the interstate. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 8 1E That comes with a need for improvements at Slater Road. The City wants to be a part of 20 that regionally. 30 41M Linville stated the City is looking at all its UGA. Annexation would be a City Council 5M decision. There is a need for east -west connectors. The City also needs to know where it 60 will continue to grow or not grow. It's a discussion the City is having as a part of its 7M comprehensive plan. 8F?1 91a Mann stated many people are already taking Bakerview Road to get to Costco. He 101M asked how much increased traffic will occur if Costco moves nearer to the interstate. 11M Carlson stated a major trip generator like Costco is already in the traffic system. Those 12M trips are already there. People are already going to Costco. Trips will change a little bit. 131M That's a reason the traffic increase on Bakerview may not be as large as some people 140 anticipate. A significant number of people who go to Costco get there via Bakerview Road. 15r?] 16M Mann asked if the analysis computes the Costco addition as a full increase or 170 subtracts the current trips. He asked how that is done. The existing Costco building could 18M be another big store someday. Carlson stated they looked at a variety of different traffic 19M trip scenarios. They looked at it both ways. 200 21M Mann stated he assumes Costco doesn't like locating near huge traffic jams. That's 22M the biggest reason for not going shopping somewhere. Carlson stated that's why Costco's 230 traffic impact analysis is more conservative. They want to make sure people can get to 24M their store. That's why they want to make sure the Bakerview improvements would get 25M done and look at the City's six -year plan. They concluded it works for them. 260 27M Linville stated they like to have control of their property and design the property in a 28M way that traffic flows better. They like to have just their business on the property so they 290 manage the traffic. 30F?] 310 Crawford stated the Costco in Burlington is a good example of the layout. 32F?1 33M Brenner stated she's heard that the stormwater facility is for a problem that already 340 exists and has also heard that Costco would pay into it. She asked if the stormwater facility 35M serves current or future needs. Carlson stated it is a new stormwater facility to deal with 36M stormwater impacts of new development. It includes the arterial connection the City needs 370 to build and additional capacity to treat both flow control and water quality for additional 38M acreage in that area. 39Pl 400 Knutzen asked the status of a wetlands bank. It was expensive for Lummi Natural 41M Resources to get the process going. It sounds like the City thinks it will be a profit center. 42M Carlson stated the City purchased 20 acres north of the arterial connection for the purpose 430 of wetland mitigation. It's not a wetland mitigation bank like the Lummi bank. It is 44M mitigation for City projects in the area, property that could potentially be used and sold or 45ra leased to private properties. The City is going through a process now that will take five to 460 seven years to create a bank or an "in lieu of fee" program, but that's not what this 47M property is for. Each development would have to mitigate their own impacts. They 48ra wouldn't be able to just pay money. They could buy or lease property and mitigate on that 490 property. It would be project- specific mitigation. It's different than the Lummi process. 50M 51M Knutzen asked if there are any concessions made for the Costco project through this 52M wetland mitigation. Carlson stated there is not. 53M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 9 1E Knutzen stated he appreciates the City's forward - thinking in trying to create a 20 wetland mitigation bank. He would like the City to create a receiving bank for transfers of 30 development rights (TDRs). Carlson stated this area is zoned for transfer of development 4M rights associated with Lake Whatcom. It's not been successful. The City would like that to 51N be more successful. 60 7P1 81N COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: 9P1 101M 1. 11m 121a 131M 140 151M 161M 170 18M 191M 20M 21M 221M 230 24M 25M 260 271M 28M 290 301] 31M 32P] 331M 340 35M 36M 370 38M 39M 400 41M 42M 43(] 44M 451] 460 47P] DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (ACTING AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) REGARDING REPRESENTATION ON THE WRIA 1 PLANNING UNIT (AB2013 -401) (3:00:31 PM) Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated he's here to answer the question of whether the Council is allowed by statute to change its representation on the Planning Unit. Brenner stated it is the Board of Supervisors, not Council. Gibson stated that makes no difference in terms of his analysis. He references Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.82.060 in effect until June 30, 2019 to answer the question. It's clear that subsection (6) indicates that the composition of the Planning Unit is to be determined by the initiating governments. According to the structure and function documents and the statutes, it's apparent that the initiating governments established the Planning Unit, not just one entity that may have been a member of the initiating governments. The principle established in the formation of the Planning Unit was that there be broad -based representation of pertinent water resource interests. When the Planning Unit was formed in 1999 by the initiating governments, that question was asked and answered in the fashion that gave rise to the Planning Unit. He's not saying the Planning Unit could not change in composition, although one has to ask what purpose would be served by changing the composition 15 years after it was initially established. Not one entity by itself can change the Planning Unit. The initiating governments can change it. Brenner stated administrators, not legislators, voted on the Planning Unit back then. Gibson stated the legislators adopted interlocal agreements, which provided direction. From the direction provided in the interlocal agreements, the representatives of the various entities met. Brenner stated she didn't see anything that excluded future representation. Government doesn't stick with past decisions because they were made 15 years ago. Gibson stated he's simply saying the process for forming the Planning Unit is outlined in the statute, and it anticipates the initiating governments will be the entities that do that as a group. Kremen asked what involvement have the initiating governments had to put together this current Planning Unit. Gibson stated the membership of the Planning Unit was determined in 1999. 481] Kremen stated there was no voting member from the County back then, but there is 490 now. It happens to be a staff person who is a voting member. The rejuvenated Planning 50M Unit hasn't involved the initiating governments. Gibson stated an invitation went out for the 511] various caucus members to come together again from County staff on behalf of the process. 52F71 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 10 1E Kremen stated the County did not have a voting member of the Planning Unit. 20 Gibson stated there was always someone to exercise a vote for the County. 3 P 4M Crawford stated the term voting member is not correct. The original Planning Unit 51N did not take votes. They operated on the basis of consensus. They even worked on the 60 definition of consensus being the absence of a no vote. Everyone had veto power, and the 7M Planning Unit moved forward only on certain things. County staff person Dr. Bruce Roll 8M represented the County on the Planning Unit. He had a veto right, just like everyone else in 91a the room. 10PI 111N Weimer stated they always tried to work on total consensus, but the government 121a entities that sat on the Planning Unit had to decide by consensus and if necessary, the 131N nongovernmental entities had a majority vote. 140 15M Gibson stated that when it formed, he was asked and answered whether the limited 16M purpose governments were to be treated like governmental or nongovernmental entities. 170 His conclusion at the time was that government means government, whether or not its 18M purpose is limited or general. That is just regarding the issue of consensus versus majority 191N vote. 200 21M Mann asked if the initiating governments assigned the representatives of the 221N different groups. Gibson stated they don't assign the representatives of the different 230 groups. They determined the composition of the Planning Unit. 24P] 251N Mann stated each caucus chooses its own representative. Gibson stated that's 260 correct. 27P] 281N Mann stated Whatcom County government is a caucus and can designate its own 290 representative. He asked who appointed Dr. Bruce Roll. Gibson stated the structure and 301N function document adopted March 1999 talked about how the initiating governments would 310 be represented. For whatever reason, the determination was made in 1999, that the 32M representatives of the initiating governments would be a staff person. 33F?I 340 Brenner asked how Mr. Gibson can say that it doesn't matter that the Board of 35M Supervisors or Council are both general government, but the water districts are not general 36M government. Gibson stated that's not what he said. The water districts are governmental 370 entities. As a governmental entity, they have a right to participate in the consensus aspect 381N of the process. That was his advice at that time. They may be listed as a caucus. 39M Regardless of how they're listed, they exercised their authority as a governmental unit. 400 41M Brenner stated appoint someone from the Board of Supervisors to be the 42M consensus /veto representative, and the County staff could be a technical advisor to the 430 committee. That would be within the County's own representation. Gibson stated the 44M question he was asked was whether or not the Board of Supervisors could appoint itself to 4517 the Planning Unit. 460 47M Brenner asked why the Board of Supervisors can't appoint one of its supervisors to 4817 represent the County and designate County staff as a technical advisor. She asked if the 490 County can change its representation within its own government. Gibson stated 50M Councilmember Brenner is talking about two separate governments, the Board of 5117 Supervisors for the Flood Control Zone District, which is a separate quasi - municipal entity. 52M He's hearing Councilmember Brenner ask why the Board of Supervisors, a separate quasi - 53M municipal entity, cannot determine the representative for Whatcom County. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 11 1(J 20 Brenner stated she just asked that, and Mr. Gibson said it's the same. Gibson stated 30 it's not what he said. He said that it's the same purpose of determining whether or not they 4M are governmental entities. He did not say they are the same entity. 51] 60 Brenner asked if Whatcom County Council can appoint one of its own to represent 71] Whatcom County. Gibson stated that if Whatcom County wants to engage in the discussion 8(] with the initiating governments so as to change the structure and function document as to 91] representation of the entities, it can. 10r?] 11(] Brenner stated just change only the County's representation, not all the entities. 121a The County doesn't need the permission of the initiating governments to change its own 13E representation. Gibson stated that in 1999, the initiating governments determined that 140 their representatives would be staff people. 15(] 16M Brenner stated that if the Lummis decided to participate with one of their 170 councilmembers, no one would say no. Gibson stated that may be the result as a practical 18M matter. He's simply saying the County entered into an agreement. 19P] 200 Mann asked how the agreement defines 'staff.' 21(] 22M Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the agreement says technical 230 qualified professional staff will be appointed to represent the initiating governments on the 24M Planning Unit. 250 260 Kremen asked the current policy or rule that the Planning Unit operates under. He 27M asked if it's still 100 percent consensus and if any single member is able to veto anything. 281] Brueske stated they are still operating under the original procedures of the Planning Unit. 290 There's been discussion of changing them, and several proposals have been discussed. If 30M consensus can't be reached on an issue at one meeting, the operating procedures specify 310 that the issue should be brought back at the next meeting to try and achieve consensus 32M again. If consensus can't be achieved the second time, there can be a vote. The vote has 33M to be unanimous amongst the governments and majority of the nongovernmental caucuses. 34(] 35M Brenner stated she'd like to see language that says the Council can't appoint one of 36M its own. 370 38M Weimer stated the bigger question is why the Council would want to do that. There 39M are many meetings. Professional staff reports back to the Council. Before ever voting to 400 veto something, Mr. Brueske would inquire with the Council. He asked why they want to 41M change the membership. 421?1 430 Brenner stated the councilmembers represent the public. The staff people work for 44M their supervisors. 451] 460 Kremen stated Mr. Brueske is the executive branch. The Council is the legislative 47M branch. 481] 490 Brenner stated it would add public trust to the process. 50M 510 Weimer stated he disagrees. He's not in favor of that. 52M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 12 1m 20 30 4R] 5R] 60 7M 8R] 9R] 10M 11r?] 121a 13F?1 14M 151a 16F?1 17M 18F?] 19M 200 21F?1 220 230 24F?] 25P] 260 27F?1 28F?] 290 30F?] 31F?1 32M Brenner moved to recommend that the Council internally change the County's representation to have the designated representative to the Planning Unit be a member of the County Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m. ATTEST: , Council Clerk -, Minutes TranscriptionM WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 12/10/2013, Page 13