HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole February 12 2013 130 pm1
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
February 12, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RECONVEYANCE
OF TRUST LANDS LOCATED IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2012-
066G) (1:34:01 PM)
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, submitted and
read from a presentation (on file). Staff is already in the area. Costs for trailheads
and other things are already factored in. Miscellaneous costs can include uniforms,
signs, and other things. Costs are based on other property the County has and other
community forests. The forestry portion of the park plan would be contracted. The
rest would be done in- house. Estimated costs are averages. Initially, trail costs will
be lower. As they build trails in more difficult areas, such as stream crossings and
steep slopes, trail costs will rise. The tower lease revenue goes up each year. There
is also an increase if more arrays are added. The tower lease also includes an
annual fee for road maintenance and a cost -share for any catastrophic damage to
the road.
Brenner asked how they developed the estimate of $10,000 per mile for
trails. McFarlane stated they looked at the County's costs for putting trails into the
park system, the number of volunteer people and organizations interested in building
park trails and facilities, and the fact that nine miles of roads would be removed or
converted. Some costs would be substantially less on existing roads being converted
to trails. It's an average that is okay for budgeting.
(2:01:18 PM)
Brenner asked if they have to have oversight for volunteer trail work. McFarlane
stated they would have oversight, but it's already programmed into the existing budget.
There is a fulltime staff person and two seasonal staff for a trails crew.
Special Committee of the Whole - Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, 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
Brenner stated she would like to know what volunteer work won't be done if the
volunteers are diverted to this area. She asked about having two full time equivalent (FTE)
employees, and if it includes enforcement. McFarlane stated the trail development estimate
includes volunteer oversight and enforcement.
Brenner asked if the estimate includes new FTEs. McFarlane stated it does.
Kremen stated the cost of viewpoints adds to the cost tenfold. The viewpoints have
appeal. If money wasn't an issue, they would be nice to have. He asked if those viewpoints
were never planned in the original proposal for reconveyance, which was supposed to be
very low impact. McFarlane stated that's correct.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the Council was interested in discussing the
option of developing the viewpoints, so he added it to the presentation. The original idea
did not include the viewpoints.
Kremen stated these amenities are all optional. If the County can secure funding in
the future that doesn't take away from other funds, he would consider supporting
development of viewpoints.
He referenced timber revenue estimates and asked if the estimates are with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), private contractors, or the County managing those
cuts. McFarlane stated the DNR only gets involved at the request of the County according
to an adopted park plan. It's never been done before. There may be potential for the
County to retain more revenue. The timber sale could be privately contracted with local
contractors.
Brenner asked how many of the 55 miles of trails will be for downhill mountain
biking. McFarlane stated they have not gotten to that level of detail, which will be done in
the park plan. The County has the option of developing more miles or fewer miles,
depending on the plans.
Brenner stated user groups think they will get a lot of use from this reconveyance.
They must have a reality check. McFarlane stated different uses require different types of
trails. That is not programmed into the estimate of 55 miles of trails.
Brenner stated don't use any real estate excise tax (REET) I and REET II funds on
this project because the County will need it for the proposed new jail.
Kershner asked if the estimate of $10,000 per trail mile includes trails for equestrian
use. McFarlane stated it does. The range of cost for developing trails is between $15,000
and $50,000 per mile. Trail development is based on the resources available.
Kershner asked the cost per mile in the Chuckanut trail system. McFarlane stated he
doesn't have information on the development cost. One mile that was difficult to develop
cost $15,000. Some trails were built on existing logging and forest roads. The average
annual cost for the Chuckanut trail system maintenance and operations (M &O) is about
$23,624. It includes the campground, boardwalk, and trailhead costs. The North Lake
Whatcom trailhead and parking lot is already in the current operating budget. It's not a
separate cost.
Kershner asked if they need more trailheads. McFarlane stated they do in the future
due to the parking shortage. However, need to do that now. Add about $500,000 for a
Special Committee of the Whole - Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, 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
new parking area and restrooms, but it's not programmed here because they need it for the
existing park.
Kremen asked if the County would spend the $500,000 regardless of whether the
area is reconveyed. McFarlane stated he recommends that it be spent regardless of the
reconveyance. Currently there are three existing parking facilities to serve the proposed
plan, and a fourth will be done this summer.
Crawford stated the north Lake Whatcom trailhead is at capacity and needs to be
expanded. He hopes it becomes a much more developed area to accommodate more
vehicles with upgraded restroom facilities. Regarding viewpoints, consider an elevation gain
of only 70 or 80 feet, with a clear view from there. Don't build a road to the top of the
mountain for a multi - million dollar viewpoint. As they develop the parking area, there may
be an opportunity to have a short road to an expanded parking area for a viewpoint. Keep
the idea that disabled people could find a location that has views, but isn't necessarily a
mountaintop.
Knutzen asked what the $1.5 million in the park improvement fund was for.
McFarlane stated it was for maintenance and operations for eight or nine years for the
reconveyed area.
Kershner stated the annual development cost seems to be about $400,000 for a 15-
year development schedule. McFarland stated those are the costs. It doesn't include the
viewpoints. They must have the money before building a viewpoint. The estimates for
development on road abandonment are good estimates. They would look for funding to
accomplish the viewpoints separately.
Kershner asked the annual cost per year and if the potential funding sources are
adequate to meet that cost.
Kremen stated including the viewpoints in the projected development cost is
debatable. They would only be able to develop those viewpoints with private or public grant
funds. Don't include the cost of the viewpoints in the project cost. They weren't part of the
original plan. The County can try to achieve those attributes in the long term.
Brenner stated the County could potentially reconvey the land without any of these
costs. However, once it's reconveyed, costs will keep increasing. It's important to include
an estimate for view points so people will know what the costs could be.
Kershner stated the cost estimate is $226,000 in M &O per year. That is for
development, not including viewpoints, and doubling the cost for trail estimate, which totals
$1.157 million. That development cost divided by 15 years and adding the M &O cost results
in an average annual cost of $303,677, not including the viewpoints. She asked if the
County has $303,000 per year. Revenue will come from the leases, conservation futures
fund, and timber revenue. That does not include the potential revenue. She doubled the
trail cost estimate, because it will cost more than $10,000 per mile. She asked if the timber
revenue shown is collected per year. McFarlane stated the timber revenue estimate is an
annual average. Projects are budgeted for maintenance and operations in the existing
Parks Department budget. Second, they request an additional services request (ASR) for
the capital costs. Treat those two things separately.
Special Committee of the Whole - Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, 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
Kershner stated come up with one set of totals so taxpayers understand the cost and
potential funding sources. She's interested in the funding model from Anacortes,
Washington.
Louws stated $125,000 per year for the FTE and other costs is realistic. The County
is assuming responsibility for the roads, which will require a certain cost of about $100,000.
Annually, operating the park would be $225,000 to $250,000 per year. Everything beyond
that is a decision the County will make as they move forward. If they put the park in place,
there will be pressure to improve it and add amenities. There is some revenue to offset the
annual operating cost. Even with a full park plan, they won't know the full cost of moving
forward. At this point, he asks for Council direction to move forward. Bring the decision to
some kind of resolution.
Kremen stated the annual operating estimate of $225,000 to $250,000 is realistic.
There is greater potential for more revenue in the future. Everyone should remember that
the general community places a high value on recreational opportunities like this. The
conservation futures fund is very robust. There is about $6 million, with an additional $1.1
million collected yearly. That amount will probably increase, and costs will increase
accordingly. The County can use that fund to help pay for a significant amount of costs
associated with any development plan. Louws stated the councilmembers will consider all
those options to make their final decision on reconveyance. This information is a tool for
councilmembers to make a decision.
McFarlane stated park development isn't done until funds are available. They either
get grant monies or partner with others. He would put together a development proposal for
the Council to approve, which includes permitting and a public process. It's not necessary
to have development money today. If the Council approves, the reconveyance would close
by the end of the year. The plan would be done in 2014. Development wouldn't be possible
until the next budget cycle for 2015 -2016 and only if there are grant funds or donated funds
available.
Crawford stated views exist because of clear cuts that have happened. He asked
what the County can do to make those viewpoints available. He asked if they can integrate
forestry practices to create viewpoints. McFarlane stated the view corridors would be kept
open and maintained.
Brenner stated she doesn't understand how reconveying the property can be a wash,
compared to working on recreation easements with the DNR. The DNR seemed willing to
work with the County as long as the County is ready to invest money. She would like a
comparison of the cost of 55 miles of recreation easement with total reconveyance costs,
including increased costs due to more users coming into the watershed. They've said they
want fewer people in the watershed. There is no benefit to the reconveyance. Use money
to work on Galbraith Mountain, which already has great trails.
McFarlane stated he was tasked with looking at reconveyance. If there is an
easement, the County will have to reimburse the trust for the easements. The DNR doesn't
just give away those easements. There are still M &O and development costs with an
easement. They can pay the costs for the reconveyance or pay for the easements.
Knutzen asked how much effort has been made on getting a recreation plan for
Whatcom County. McFarlane stated the State listed it as a high priority, not the County.
The County has no commitment to develop a recreation plan on State lands. The DNR sat
Special Committee of the Whole - Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, 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
on the County's last committee for the County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan.
They will be invited to participate next year. The County doesn't plan on State lands.
Louws asked the Council to talk about the next steps.
Mann stated he is ready to vote on this issue. They've studied this repeatedly. Have
a final vote in a month.
Crawford stated hold a public hearing in a month, with the expectation that the
Council would hold a final vote after that hearing.
Knutzen stated he would like to hear what the DNR has to say. They want to know
what Whatcom County wants for recreation opportunities, and they want to put together a
recreation plan for Whatcom County. Schedule a meeting with the DNR about what
Whatcom County wants for recreation.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Mann, and is ready to vote. He
prefers to leave the written record open for a month and a date certain for having a public
hearing. Remove the viewpoints from the proposal. It wasn't part of the original plan.
There are existing viewpoints around the county already. They don't have the money for it.
Brenner stated the written record is always left open.
Kremen stated move forward. He agrees with Councilmember Mann. This is an
extraordinary opportunity. He thanked Councilmember Crawford for his concept of the
viewpoints. In the future, the County will be able to develop these majestic viewpoints for
the community when the money is available. This has been an open process, in spite of
what people have said. There has been an abundance of opportunities for the public to
weigh in. The County has worked on this for at least seven years. It's been in the media
and there were many meetings, including remote meetings in the county. The Council was
not required to have the last public hearing that was held. Having another public hearing is
not necessary. It would be more beneficial to have a two- or three -week window of
opportunity to receive written comments. Vote on this item at the first meeting in March.
Louws stated that if they don't have a public hearing, the public will speak anyway
during open session.
Kremen stated allow people to speak during open session at the next meeting.
Brenner moved to hold a public hearing on March 12.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Knutzen stated he will schedule a meeting with the DNR before March 12. McFarlane
stated he never said the DNR didn't want to work with the County. He said that working
with the DNR is a difficult process.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Special Committee of the Whole- Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1
1
1
i
2
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on March 12, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�o.whatcom.wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole- Reconveyance, 2/12/2013, Page 6