HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 24 20121
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
Regular County Council
April 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (7:02:08 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner and Carl
Weimer.
Absent: Sam Crawford and Pete Kremen.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
MINUTES CONSENT (7:03:13 PM)
Weimer moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 27, 2012
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 27, 2012
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 27, 2012
4. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR APRIL 3, 2012
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR TO APPLY FOR PDR EASEMENT PURCHASE
MATCH FUNDING TO THE WASHINGTON STATE RECREATION
CONSERVATION OFFICE, WASHINGTON WILDLIFE AND RECREATION
PROGRAM- FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (AB2012 -157) (7:03:49 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Greg Brown submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated he doesn't
approve of the resolution due to a lack of local funding, the short deadline, because it's
sponsored by the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, and because the language
"our organization" isn't clarified.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Ellen Baker stated she is opposed to the grant application because it doesn't identify
a specific amount, it may obligate the land in perpetuity, because the County has to
maintain it forever, and because it is a wildlife habitat conservation project in agriculture.
Patrick Alesse stated he supports the resolution. The real cost is the cost to deliver
services out there.
Paul Schissler, Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee Vice -
Chair, stated he supports the resolution. The grant stretches the local conservation futures
funds. The State manages this funding, which existed before the State legislature put State
money into farmland protection. They're using the same system that was already in place
for State review, rating, and ranking of applications. The Oversight Committee received
feedback from the County Executive, and recognize improvements can be made in the PDR
program, which is one tool among many needed to support the agricultural economy and
protect farmland. The PDR Oversight Committee is close to making a recommendation to
the County for some changes to the County Code. In the meantime, farmland owners are
eager to protect their land in perpetuity. They're volunteering to put an easement on the
land. They are being compensated for the easement value according to an appraiser.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(7:14:31 PM)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Knutzen asked it is possible to change the language in the resolution to specifically
refer to Whatcom County instead of "our organization."
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the State
organization gave this exact resolution to the County. She would defer the question to legal
counsel.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she can't imagine the State would have a
problem with the change.
Mann stated it's a resolution, not an ordinance.
Knutzen asked if applying for the money obligates the County to the purchase of
development rights (PDR) requests that have come forward. Lutz stated it doesn't. The
resolution authorizes the County to ask for the money. When the money comes, another
process happens. The County hasn't authorized appraisals of the properties. They are now
using an estimated value based on previous appraisals to request the funds for the
properties. If the County receives funding, they'll know it's worthwhile to do more due
diligence and a full appraisal. Before any development right purchase is closed, the Council
will receive a supplemental budget request. The request asks for $147,500, which is an
estimate based on previous appraisals plus a bit of a contingency.
Brenner asks what happens with the funding if the Council decides to change what
it's doing. Lutz stated there will be a negotiation process with the State's grants manager.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Mann asked if the source of funds is the conservation futures funds. Lutz stated it is.
They've always used conservation futures funds for a 50 percent match for the cost of the
easement.
Knutzen asked if the Council has an option to not approve all the projects being
recommended today if the County requests the full $147,500. Lutz stated three of the four
properties are included in the grant application.
Brenner stated have a dedicated percentage of the conservation futures fund be
dedicated to agricultural preservation. That gives the County more access to more types of
funding. She doesn't like the process, which depends on anyone volunteering to make an
application. Instead, the County should determine and target the prime agricultural land,
and outreach to those property owners.
Kershner asked if the County can substitute projects after the funding is granted.
Lutz said they've done substitutions in the past. It's challenging, and is not typically
allowed. The State opens this grant application process every two years.
Brenner asked what happens to the grant funds if the Council doesn't approve one of
the projects that was included in the grant application. She asked if the County would
receive a lesser amount of grant funds. Lutz stated that's correct. The State commits
funding to a specific property. If the County doesn't move forward with that property, it can
move forward with another property. The State would rank the County's properties
separate from the County's ranking process.
Kershner asked the conservation futures fund balance. Lutz stated the balance is
over $1 million.
Paul Schissler, Purchase of Development Rights Oversight Committee Vice - Chair,
stated the PDR Oversight Committee is working on recommendations for dedicating a
portion of the conservation futures fund to the PDR program, how to target certain kinds of
properties, and how to outreach to those farmland owners. Some counties spend 100
percent of their conservation futures fund on farmland protection. He would like the
committee to receive input about it in the next couple of months.
Kershner stated Councilmember Weimer can schedule a discussion in the Natural
Resources Committee to give direction to the committee.
Knutzen suggested a friendly amendment to amend the second Whereas
statement and items three and five in the "Now, Therefore" section,
Whatcom County."
Weimer accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
OPEN SESSION (7:31:24 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Darrell Sofield spoke about the Whatcom Land Recreation Coalition and the
Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Mike Kaufman, Occupy Bellingham, spoke about police riot control and the
goal of the Occupy movement.
• Tee King spoke about coal trains in Whatcom County.
Kershner asked legal counsel if the Council should allow comments like those of the
previous speaker.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated it isn't appropriate. People should submit
comments in writing.
Brenner stated the Council won't be out of the process until the process is done. The
County Council will take all the time it needs to look over every bit of information. At that
time, people will have an opportunity to comment to the Council.
Mann stated he hopes the Council continues to allow open session to truly be open.
Even if comments are about a coal terminal, the open session is on the record. No one can
disqualify all seven councilmembers for sitting through open session.
Kershner stated she would like to work with legal counsel over the next couple of
weeks to develop a recommendation for the Council to approve.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Tee King requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
Kershner stated people can submit their comments in writing to the Planning
Department, which is collecting all comments. When this issue comes before the Council,
the councilmembers will have access to all comments. The Council is not shutting anyone
out. The Council is trying to follow the legal process for this application.
• Wendy Steffenson, ReSources Lead Scientist, submitted and read from a
handout (on file) and spoke about Birch Bay Birch Bay Watershed Low Impact
Development Overlay (AB2012- 109B).
• Tom Omore spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Greg Brown submitted and read from a handout (on file) and spoke about the
resolution affirming the PDR Oversight Committee ranking (AB2012 -159).
• Mike McKenzie spoke about the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee
appointments.
• Patrick Alesse submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the Birch Bay
Drive Pedestrian Facility.
• Karen Steen asked about public comment on the coal train.
Kershner stated the Council must act in a quasi - judicial manner. She explained the
application process and nature of quasi - judicial matters that come before the County
Council.
Brenner stated this is not a new process. People may not be able to speak to the
Council at open session, but they will have an opportunity to speak about the issue at a
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
public hearing in the future. There's no bias. At that point, the Council can look at anything
it wants.
Scott Hackett, Whatcom County Pomona Grange Master, submitted and read
from a handout (on file) and spoke about the proposed South Fork Park.
CONSENT AGENDA (8 :07 :25 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through four.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM
COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE CRISIS MANAGEMENT
AND STABILIZATION TO ACUTE MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS IN THE
WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,608 FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,887 (AB2012 -162)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY
UTILIZING STATE HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING TO ENHANCE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS' ABILITY TO PREVENT, PROTECT AGAINST, RESPOND TO,
AND RECOVER FROM TERRORIST ATTACKS AND OTHER DISASTERS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $121,464 (AB2012 -163)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PIONEER HUMAN SERVICES
TO PROVIDE WITHDRAWAL, OUTREACH, AND ENGAGEMENT SERVICES TO
OPIATE ADDICTED INDIVIDUALS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $183,135 (AB2012-
164)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #12 -25
FOR ON -CALL RENTAL EQUIPMENT TO ALL BIDDERS, WITH THE INTENT OF
OBTAINING FIRM PRICING ON RENTAL EQUIPMENT IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT
THAT COULD EXCEED $35,000 FOR A SINGLE VENDOR (AB2012 -166)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PDR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING AND
AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENTS RIGHT
ADMINISTRATOR AND WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PROCEED WITH
THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR PDR APPLICATIONS (AB2012 -159)
(8:08:20 PM)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Brenner stated she doesn't support the Hubbard application. It's already
agricultural land and can only have one dwelling unit. She prefers that they allow a
farmhouse on a parcel of agricultural land that size. Don't take away that one development
right. It's important to get the most benefit for the money spent. The other applications
are to eliminate short plats. This application won't do that. The land is 100 percent prime
agricultural land. It won't ever change. The other applications may have some merit
because the purchase would allow a bigger tract of agricultural land. This is not for habitat,
even though it's funded by the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO). This is specific to
keeping productive agricultural land. She moved to amend to delete the application ranked
number one, the Hubbard property.
Mann asked if there is a scenario where someone would build a house on the
development right attached to the Hubbard property and not farm the property.
Brenner stated that could happen. That's okay. There is still future potential
farming. They can't make anyone on agricultural land farm the land.
Mann asked if Councilmember Brenner is not worried about that land being
completely removed from the farming inventory.
Brenner stated the County isn't supposed to own the farming inventory.
Mann stated he's not sure that the land will always be farmland if they leave the
development right on the land. If they purchase the development right, they can guarantee
the land is more easily used for agriculture, rather than being converted to a big mansion
with personal amenities.
Brenner stated there are restrictions on agricultural land. Deal with that possibility
through development standards, not by removing the ability of someone to buy a parcel of
agricultural land and be able to live on it and farm where they live.
Mann stated they aren't taking away anyone's rights. They're engaging in a business
transaction with someone.
Brenner stated it's a transaction either way. She prefers to allow a farmer to live on
the land that he or she farms. She's not concerned about it being paved over. They can't
do that on agricultural land. If they are worried about that, development standards would
apply. The farmers complain about the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone all the
time, not about land zoned for agriculture.
Knutzen stated he is concerned about getting the most benefit for the money spent.
He's not sure this is it. Agricultural land adjacent to urban growth areas (UGAs) or zoned
R5A is threatened. He'd rather target that kind of property, rather than property that will
continue to be agriculture.
Weimer stated he is against the amendment. The one house probably won't affect
the land one way or another. He's heard some concerns about people who have enough
money to buy a 40 -acre tract and put in a house without using the land for agriculture. The
land would still be there and available in the future. They need to reach out to the property
owners in target areas. They haven't done that so far. He supports the recommendation of
the PDR Oversight Committee. Do better outreach. There's plenty of money in the
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
conservation futures fund to go forward. If the County receives the match money, there
won't be a money problem.
Brenner stated it's not a money problem. Someone should be able to buy a section
of agriculture land and live on it to farm it if he or she wants to.
Kershner asked if the County has development regulations on agricultural land that
would prevent someone from developing a mansion in the middle of a 40 -acre field.
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they don't have
that development regulation. The PDR Oversight Committee uses the guidelines the Council
officially adopted. A property is given points if it lies in a targeted area. This property lies
within a target area. That's one reason this property is ranked the way it is. Other factors
discussed include the average farm size in Whatcom County and farm infrastructure in or
around the parcel. This property has infrastructure surrounding the parcel, so someone can
live on and use the infrastructure on an adjacent parcel and get close to the average farm
size in Whatcom County of 69 acres.
Brenner stated that if they want to make sure the agricultural land stays productive,
there are development standards, which could address the location of the house on the
property. This would eliminate the ability of people above certain incomes only being able
to have a farm. She has a problem with putting land zoned agriculture into this program.
Kershner stated average cost of the development right is about $23,000 and there
are over 2,000 development rights available in the agricultural zone in the northern part of
the county, and another 2,000 acres in the rural study area. Lutz stated that is correct.
They refer to 4,000 development rights being available in targeted agricultural areas.
Kershner stated the cost to purchase all those development rights would be $92
million. Lutz stated purchase of all would not be feasible. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee is working on a variety of tools in addition to the PDR program.
Kershner stated she likes the idea of creating development regulations for properties
to prevent someone from building a mansion in the middle of their field. However, she
doesn't like the PDR Program. It's very ineffective given the scope of the problem. It
doesn't provide the most benefit for the money spent. She won't support any of the
applications. The PDR Oversight Committee should do outreach to get the most valuable
parcels.
Mann stated he agrees the Council needs to send new instructions to the PDR
Oversight Committee, which should do targeted outreach. He's torn about the decision
regarding the Hubbard property. Out of respect to the Advisory Committee, which works on
these applications and responded based on Council criteria, he will vote for the resolution.
Weimer stated this has been a constant topic since he's been on the Council. They
keep saying they want more farmland and development regulations, but never get around
to it. All they have left is this PDR program. Everyone knows this isn't the best tool, and
they aren't going to save all the farmland using purchase of development rights, but it's the
only tool they have right now, until they start developing the other tools. If the Council
backs away from this one tool, it sends a bad message. He asked if there is any point to
the grant application through the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program Authorizing
Resolution that the Council approved earlier this evening if this resolution isn't approved.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Lutz stated there is no need to request the grant if the Council isn't interested in
purchasing properties. She asked to pursue this soon. Farmers want to know why they
should bother applying for the program if there is no funding certainty or political will to
move forward. She understands focusing on what they want to protect, so the PDR
Committee can assure farmers that their message is accurate. It sounds like the Council
may need to renew its guidelines every other year, for example, to make sure the focus is
current.
Weimer stated the Funk property is already approved. He asked if the grant
application to the State would still go forward for that property. Lutz stated it would. It
could also go forward with the Eldridge property. She's not sure what the Council wants for
the entire list. Whatever is on the approved list would go forward.
Brenner stated the Council should dedicate 75 percent of the conservation future
fund for agricultural land to keep productive agricultural land. That should give farmers a
lot of confidence. It would let farmers know the County is dedicated. Grant funding would
be more likely if the County has a dedicated amount.
Mann asked if Councilmember Brenner would vote for the rest of the applications if
the Hubbard property weren't included.
Kershner stated the Council downzoned 19,000 acres in the rural area. People
purchased commercial property and expected that investment to be available for their
retirement or for a business. The Council didn't offer to buy their development rights. The
Council is committed to preserving agricultural land and farming practices, but it doesn't
seem the system is fair for property owners in the rural and agricultural communities. The
Council also downzoned people in the Lake Whatcom watershed. They are all committed to
protecting drinking water and recreational value, but the Council downzoned those property
owners without a single thought to paying them for their development rights. She struggles
with how the Council decides who gets paid for their development rights and who gets aced
out of their retirement.
Brenner stated she understands that the rights the Council are buying are on
already - platted lots. These are vested lots. If they're not vested lots, she agrees with
Councilmember Kershner. The Council must determine what is in the public interest, which
is very subjective. The County can't afford to buy up everything.
Lutz stated the development rights purchased are all legal lots of record with
development potential. The average lot size in the agricultural zone is around 19 acres due
to subdivisions that took place previously. The minimum lot size is 40 acres. There were a
number of five -acre exemptions in the 1990's.
Mann asked if these lots are vested. He asked why they only have a preliminary
estimate of development rights. Lutz stated staff estimates the number of rights in a
process similar to the lot of record process. They also get a full title subdivision guarantee,
but not until after staff receives more authorization to move forward on these properties.
Knutzen referenced the Holz property and asked if this property would have been
downzoned, with only four potential development rights, if the Council approved the
Planning Commission original recommendation for rezoning the rural areas to ten acres.
Brenner stated they can't take away a legal lot of record.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Kershner stated she is willing to reconsider, in light of the conversation. She
remains committed to all the folks the Council downzoned.
Mann stated he will vote for the amendment because he wants the resolution to go
forward with Councilmember Brenner's vote.
vote:
The motion to amend to not approve the Hubbard application carried by the following
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner (1)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
The motion to approve the resolution as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
2. ORDINANCE REPLACING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.14, IN ITS ENTIRETY,
DESIGNATING WHATCOM COUNTY VOTING PRECINCTS (AB2012 -154)
(8:36 :48 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance with the substitute version of Exhibit A.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,471 (AB2012 -155) (8 :39 :22 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance. He moved to amend the ordinance to remove conservation futures
funding in the amount of $82,235 for a parks maintenance transfer.
Brenner stated the conservation futures fund is supposed to be used solely for
purchases, not for maintenance or operations.
Mann stated the voters approved this fund, and the intent was solely for purchasing
and acquiring land.
Brenner stated don't divert dedicated funds.
Weimer stated there were differences of opinion about whether or not the expense
was allowed. The Council approved it in the budget. He's fine with not including it this
evening because the County Executive asked for more time to explain it. He's fine with the
expense.
Kershner stated the Executive will return with a recommendation for how to make up
the difference from the general fund.
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Brenner stated there may be a State law that allows the County to use the money for
things other than purchases, but that wasn't in the ballot measure. It would be dishonest to
do something like that when it wasn't in the ballot measure, regardless of whether it is
legal.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner (1)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
Kershner stated she doesn't have a problem using the funds to maintain land
acquired using conservation futures funding. They have to build in some administrative
costs for managing these areas, or else they end up with fields of blackberry brambles. The
Council already approved the concept at one point.
Brenner stated that's why they have the general fund. Before they purchase
property, they must really decide what they want and how far they're willing to go to
purchase it. The administrative costs of purchase are allowed with the fund, but not the
cost of anything done after purchase. That's why they have to balance what they're doing.
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELEMENT
SOLUTIONS FOR THE NOOKSACK RIVER SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PILOT
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,800, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,800 (AB2012 -161) (8:46:25 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Weimer stated he is against the request. He was on the Flood Control Zone District
Advisory Committee when this first came up. It was supposed to be a small project for
$20,000. It has continued to grow. He appreciated the Executive's memo in the Council
packet warning that this could be a black hole of spending, and could come with a million
dollar environmental impact statement (EIS). Pierce County is leading this effort. Whatcom
County can learn from Pierce County if they go first. The flood fund is already over-
extended. Postpone this item.
Brenner stated the flood fund is to help alleviate flooding. Allow selective scalping to
prevent blow outs from happening. This was recommended by the Flood Control Zone
District Advisory Committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MARK HOVEZAK DBA
ROSARIO ARCHAEOLOGY, LLC FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR
THE COTTONWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE BY -PASS PROJECT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $22,753.22 (AB2012 -165) (8:48:17 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
6. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE 1.10 (AB2012 -125) (8:49:09 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
Brenner stated she is against the resolution. They must better - understand the
equipment the County owns and the condition it is in. She wants to know whether or not
the equipment is in good shape. The County received pennies on the dollar for the sale of
equipment it's sold.
Kershner stated the Executive will work with the departments to develop technology
to track the County's equipment. She appreciates the Executive for making adjustments to
the list from the last meeting.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
7. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL SPECIAL DRAINAGE AND /OR
DIKING DISTRICT VACANCIES: APPLICANT - SCOTT BEDLINGTON FOR
DRAINAGE DISTRICT #2, POSITION 1 (AB2012 -123) (8 :51 :14 PM)
Knutzen moved to nominate and appoint Scott Bedlington.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
8. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
LAURIE SHEA TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BOARD (AB2012 -167)
(8:51:59 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, 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
Mann moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
9. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REPLACING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.14,
ELECTORAL PRECINCT, WITH NEWLY ESTABLISHED VOTING PRECINCT
BOUNDARIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2012 -154A) (8:52:42 PM)
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance with the substitute version of Exhibit A.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (8 :53:51 PM)
Weimer moved to withdraw Introduction Item two from the list
Department staff and other agencies met and agreed to changes.
The motion to withdraw item two carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
Knutzen moved to accept Introduction Items one, three, and four.
The motion to accept carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kremen and Crawford (2)
Planning
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.10 (AB2012 -125A)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, BY ADDING A
NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 20.50 TO IMPLEMENT THE BIRCH BAY
WATERSHED LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND AMENDING THE
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB2012 -109B)
3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.14 WIND
ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223A)
4. NOMINATION & APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE LUMMI ISLAND
FERRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE — VARIOUS APPLICANTS (AB2012 -044A)
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Kershner stated the County Council staff and other departments will begin a fitness
competition with the Executive's staff beginning on April 30.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on May 22, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council&o.w hatcom .wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 4/24/2012, Page 13