HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil August 7 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
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
August 7, 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 :01:54 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
(7:02:32 PM)
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
CUP2009 -0006 FILED BY DOMINIQUE ZERVAS ON BEHALF OF DICK BOSCH
REGARDING GLEN ECHO GARDENS (AB2012 -226)
Crawford moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision with modifications, per
Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.92:
• First addition: amplified sound may be permitted during any non -tour events for a
maximum of one hour per day of amplified sound, and
• Second addition: allow Mr. Bosch, per the stated acquiescence of the neighbors,
to carry on the remaining four events planned in the coming months.
Kremen asked for clarification of one hour per day permitted in the first addition.
Crawford stated the remainder of the Hearing Examiner's decision specifies the
frequency. There is a limitation of the number of events and the hours the events can
occur. This modification says that amplified sound at those events be permitted during any
non -tour events for a maximum of one hour per day of amplified sound. The non -tour
events are defined in terms of their frequency and time of day.
Brenner stated those events include weddings, but can also include other types of
celebrations.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
52
53
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. BEHAVIORAL REVENUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2012 SECOND QUARTERLY
REPORT TO COUNCIL (AB2012 -017) (7:06:58 PM)
Bonita Bowen, Behavioral Health Revenue Advisory Committee Vice - Chair, gave a
report on the mental health and substance abuse services provided to youth and families
through school -based contracts.
Joe Fuller, Whatcom County Health Department, stated the Council has a copy of the
report in the packet. He is available for questions.
Steve Dahl, Lynden School District, thanked the County for funds, which allows them
to streamline services and create prevention and intervention programs for students. He
described the Strengthening Families and Communities Program. The district employees,
kids, and community are a team. They try to connect as much as possible. At high school,
they found a way to leverage funds and resources. This is the hardest age group due to the
age and overt disruptive behaviors. They must engage the students early. The funding has
been helpful to do that.
Todd Apple, Lynden High School Principal, stated he used to be a corrections officer
at the jail. They are trying to work with high school -aged children who are on the brink of
becoming either productive members of society or in some type of institution. The one -
tenth funding allows positions at the high schools to develop a program and work with these
students. He described the program.
MINUTES CONSENT
(7:13:33 PM)
Kremen moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through five.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR JUNE 12, 2012
2. JOINT BOARD OF HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD FOR JUNE
12, 2012
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 10, 2012
4. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR JULY 17, 2012
S. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 24, 2012
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Kershner moved to rearrange the agenda and discuss the Rural Element item first.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193) (testimony limited to
amendments approved on July 24, 2012) (7 :15:02 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Kate Blystone, Whatcom Futurewise Director, stated she does not believe the
ordinance is compliant with the Growth Management Act. The Council should ask for an
extension.
Lorraine Newman stated they need flexibility and to be able to change.
Kris Halterman submitted and read from a handout (on file). They need to allow
farmers to use their land.
Roger Almskaar stated there are technical issues. At Hinotes Corner, there is a
problem with lot cover language as is written. The combined floor area should be replaced
by footprint. Structures changed to all building.
Wendy Harris stated Over - emphasize economic growth and under - emphasize
environmental concerns.
Robert Larson submitted and read from a handout (on file).
Jean Melious submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated she wishes the
county would sit down and talk and negotiate a settlement.
Ellen Baker submitted and read from a handout (on file). The Council represents the
general public. Wants council to make a decision for the good of the public not just those
who sue.
John Lesow stated don't demonize those who sue the county. There is a wide variety
of people who sue the county. It's crunch time now and we need to do something. This
process has been continuing on for eight years. Make some compromises.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(7 :36 :37 PM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented. He appreciates and is
willing to sit down with various groups on all sides of this issue. He appreciates that folks
are trying to put a pleasant face on more command and control, more restriction on the
property owners of Whatcom County, but the Council has given a lot in this process. He's
disappointed that the Planning Commissioner, after eight years on the Commission, believes
this started with the urban growth areas. This isn't about urban growth areas. He
understands Mr. Larson's confusion. That's not what they're dealing with tonight. When the
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
Council sits down to negotiate, it will do so when the citizens want to get serious about
working on a balance of protecting the environment with protecting people's ability to
steward their property in a way they see fit and that does not impact their neighbors. That
can be done in Whatcom County. The Council gave it its best shot. In some areas, the
Council has gone overboard in trying to please a Hearings Board that has extremely political
members with no land use background. It was a slap in the face to counties like Whatcom
that are trying to appease legal authorities without going to court. This Council has been
subject to much criticism because they've been appeasing people. The Council doesn't like
that. The Council knows the property owners don't like it. However, they're trying to do
the most expedient and cost - effective thing for the people of Whatcom County. He
reluctantly supports the motion to adopt the ordinance. It involves a lot of compromise. He
hopes the Council adopts the ordinance, because this is as far as they can go. He hopes the
Hearings Board reviews comments from a petitioner tonight that are absolutely untrue and
unfounded, regarding some alliance the Council has with certain law firms in town. That
hasn't been a part of any discussions that he is aware of, other than their testimony
alongside Ms. Melious, Ms. Harris, and the Futurewise folks. He hopes that lack of character
is evident to the Hearings Board as these petitions try to fight the people of Whatcom
County.
Brenner moved to amend the definition of "building" to say, "Any roofed structure
used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code." The Council made it's intent clear on the definition for buildings.
However, there is a definition for buildings in another section that goes beyond what they
wanted. This motion is a clarification of the definition, not a change.
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that to make
changes in content would require introducing a new ordinance and considering it in two
weeks. The definition of lot coverage says that lot coverage applies to areas that are under
a roof. That does not leave a lot of ambiguity for counter staff. The definitions could be
clearer, so he would like to address this in a future code scrub that deals with the entire
county, not just the rural area.
Brenner stated she's a fairly intelligent person. The language makes it sound like
two different things. That concerns her. A clarification of the intent of something they
already did is not significant enough to require another hearing.
Mann stated he would support this suggestion, but not if it requires another round of
public hearings.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the definitions are in zoning code section 20.97,
which applies to the entire Title 20 chapter. Therefore, it may require an additional hearing.
The language Mr. Davis gave is within the definition, that it is measured by areas covered
by a weather -tight roof. That gives some guidance from staff until they look at the entire
definition section.
Brenner stated the Council made its intent clear. One definition doesn't match with
what they have. It is an insignificant oversight. The definition of a building is different from
what the Council decided. This issue is a maze. The County owes it to the public to provide
any clarification possible.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
Brenner moved to amend the definition of lot coverage to add the word "Lot
coverage means the percent of a lot or parcel which is or will be covered by all roofed
structures located thereon...."
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Brenner stated she doesn't consider anyone evil. Using those loaded words bothers
her. It bothers her when someone puts a motive on her opinion, regardless of the issue.
She tries hard to work with and correspond with everyone. Her opinions don't mean she
has some insidious motive that she can't stand someone. She doesn't like the attitude that
the Council must bow down to the Hearings Board. The Hearings Board members are
appointed, political people. If necessary, the County must go through a court of law instead
of this pretense that the members understand the law.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion to adopt. He read information from Paul
Isaacson (on file, Exhibit G). It's disappointing how easy it is for some people to take things
away from other people. These are people who have worked hard to purchase commercial
property to run their businesses. They will be forced to move out of the county or live
someplace else. These people invested their life savings in property for which they had
expectations. The County is going to put them out of business. These are real people. It's
disappointing this is even on the agenda.
Kershner stated she thanks everyone who has been involved with this issue. A few
things said tonight weren't accurately characterized. Someone said they were concerned
about the Council emphasizing increased growth in the county. This action has severely
limited growth. This ordinance has downzoned thousands of acres. Commercial use land is
turned into land on which there can be one house per five acres. Many areas have become
non - conforming. The existing buildings won't be appropriate for the zone. Making
thousands of acres nonconforming doesn't increase the quality of life for residents. There is
no purpose to it. It's a waste of time. For example, the Eliza Island challenge to the
Hearings Board against its status as a limited area of more intense rural development
(LAMIRD) is ridiculous. The land is completely developed with residences, and now it's
zoned one house per five acres. This ordinance applies to the counties rural lands, not the
agricultural lands. This ordinance hurts a lot of people. The Council doesn't have ill -will
toward any group. They listened to all who attended the work sessions, and tried to make
this bad regulation as good as they can. The Council is complying with the Growth
Management Act, which is very prescriptive but also very vague. It's up to the Council to
interpret what the legislature meant when it adopted the State law. Some think what the
Council is doing tonight does not comply with the intent of the law, either because they are
being too restrictive or not restrictive enough. She will support the work they've done. It's
not perfect. There is a lot of room for improvement. She doesn't want to hurt the people of
Whatcom County due to the County's invalidity. She hopes the Hearings Board considers all
the work they've done to achieve compliance and removed the order of invalidity.
Mann stated everyone sues the Council, not just environmental groups, gravel
miners, or private property owners. Then they have settlement meetings. This process is
the result of a private entity suing the County over the rural element. This issue goes back
decades. If they had done a better job in designating areas 20 years ago, they wouldn't
have created such a headache for everyone today. However, they must deal with reality.
They may not like certain State laws, elected judges, or political appointees to the Hearings
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
53
Board, but that's the situation they must deal with. His biggest problem is how this affects
small business owners and business property owners. Some of the residential downzones
make sense, because the rest of the community subsidize development in that area. In a
lot of places, businesses are unfairly punished, through no fault of their own. That's most
difficult. The rural element won't reduce sprawl. It won't facilitate orderly economic growth
or development. It will just keep the County tied up in this antagonistic approach. It's
disappointing. He got into politics to help with land use decisions. He was naive. Because
of the invalidity ruling, some can't even apply for a permit, even if they aren't located in the
subject areas. To deal with the reality, the most efficient way to resolve this issue is to
adopt the ordinance and send this to the Hearings Board. He doesn't expect it to be
approved. He expects it will be returned again, hopefully with specific changes, and they'll
have to work on it again.
Weimer stated he thanks people for sticking it out during this awful process. He is
more than happy to see the end of the rural element, but this isn't the end of it. It doesn't
address the concerns of the Hearings Board. It's not balanced. It will not get the County
into compliance. For example, it doesn't address the serious disconnect between population
projections in urban areas and the thousands of potentially developable lots in the rural
county. It does little to address concerns about development around Lake Whatcom, even
though the County promised the Department of Ecology that the County would implement
new development regulations a year ago. The Planning Commission forwarded those
recommendations to the Council months ago. It allows the extension of urban levels of
undefined water transmission lines into rural areas, potentially facilitating additional growth.
It does little to protect water quality and wildlife, because nearly the entire focus was to see
how much additional development could be allowed, and how much impervious surface and
how many large buildings they could get away with. It does little to address land use
decisions that encourage growth in closed water basins, undermining efforts to protect
salmon and farms. He won't vote for this ordinance.
Knutzen stated he is worried that some councilmembers are going to vote for this
just to be done with it. They should have a document that they can be proud of. Some
people have said they would fix it in 2016. In his experience, it's a lot easier to do
something than undo something. They are restricting the commercial activity and small
business that already exists, so they will have to move out of the county or move into
agricultural land. If they want, they can make a few minor changes that would allow this
ordinance to be palatable. If they are serious about allowing businesses in those areas,
make those doable. It's ridiculous to tell people they can't build their business any bigger
than what existed in 1990. Whatever they do will not be approved. Give this ordinance
some more thought regarding lot coverage issues in the type one LAMIRDs and commercial
properties. The State developed a four -lane highway with a turn lane along the Guide
Meridian all the way to the Ten Mile Road, with the understanding that would be commercial
property. Now they're putting those people into a rural zone that allows only one house per
five acres. No one wants a single family residence on the Guide Meridian. Do what is right
instead of settling.
Kremen stated he will reluctantly support the ordinance. He is not happy with the
ordinance, especially about the business property along the Guide Meridian. However, they
cannot ignore the Growth Management Hearings Board. Unfortunately the legislature
unwittingly gave these Hearings Boards more power than they should have. There is no
accountability from these individuals. They don't answer to the people. They never ran for
election. They are just appointed. Unfortunately, some of their decisions have been
opinions that weren't right and did not have merit. However, councilmembers are bound by
the oath of office to uphold the laws of the State Constitution and the laws of the State and
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
the County. The Growth Management Act is a Washington State law. They don't have a
choice about compliance. They are bound to comply with the Growth Management Act. In
spite of the fact that he is not totally satisfied with this ordinance, he hopes that they are
able to pass muster with the Growth Management Hearings Board. He has reason to
believe that they can pass muster. If they don't, it's likely they will only need to make
minor changes or adjustments. He has lots of problems with it. Staff put in a good, sincere
effort to strike a balance. The Council has come about as close as it can at this juncture.
Neither the property rights, business, and development community nor the environmental
community is happy with this, which indicates that they maybe have this as right as it can
be. He will support the ordinance. Someone tonight said they should not give up their duty
or responsibility to make decisions, and should not shirk those decisions to special interest
groups on all sides of the issue. He completely agrees with that comment. Tonight, they
are responsible for putting something forward that shows the Growth Management Hearings
Board the County is making a good faith effort to comply.
Kershner stated the Council has not done anything with the Lake Whatcom
development regulations because they have been working on the rural element. The
development regulations will be taken up in September.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree that the County doesn't have a choice. They must
comply with the Growth Management Act. The Hearings Board is not the last word on
compliance. Every time Whatcom County took a stand in the past and appealed a Hearings
Board decision, the County won. The Growth Management Act prominently says that local
jurisdictions have great discretion. However, they don't find that at this level with the
Hearings Board.
Knutzen stated that councilmembers, when elected, swore to uphold the laws of the
State, but the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions are not law. When he was
elected, his main goal was to do what is right for the people of Whatcom County. This isn't
right. He asks all the councilmembers to consider whether it's right to put someone out of
business or take away from someone just because they can. Do what is right, not what will
make this an easier process.
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Weimer, Knutzen, and Brenner (3)
Brenner moved to take a break.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
1. ORDINANCE FINALIZING A REVISED SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT FOR
CONSOLIDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 (AB2012 -245)
(8:16:17 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Richard Roebuck, Consolidated Drainage Improvement District 20 Supervisor, stated
the District supervisors haven't yet discussed this.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
Duane Mollendyk, Consolidated Drainage Improvement District 20 Supervisor, stated
they recognize that a revision needs to happen, but they are not sure if this is it.
Roebuck stated they represent the landowners. They don't decide on the actual
amounts or the approval. They just represent the landowners. They would like more
clarification. They would like Paula Cooper and Rich Zehnder to explain it in more detail.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, gave a staff report describing the
background of this issue, and stated the deadline is September 1. If they don't meet the
deadline, they will have to use the old method, which is less fair. She is happy to meet with
the Board and the public. There is a 20 -day appeal period once this is voted on. They can
file an appeal and undo it if necessary, but they can't wait another month and implement it
for next year's assessment.
Mann stated he is upset that this happened, and that the Board had to come to the
Council at a public hearing to say they don't know about it and haven't recommended it.
They should be able to have a meeting, an explanation, and the ability to make a
recommendation. He's not comfortable approving it. He's sure staff did great work and it's
accurate, but it's not right. He asked if they can delay this until later in the meeting to give
the two Supervisors an opportunity to review it. Cooper stated staff contacted the
Supervisors about the map. They fell short of having a meeting.
Kershner asked how often the Board meets. Cooper stated they meet once per year.
Kershner stated she recommends amending the first whereas statement, "Whereas,
the governing body of Consolidated Drainage Improvement District No. 20, at the 2011
Annual Meeting for said district, s-uppeFted was notified about revising the system of
assessment for said District to improve the accuracy and equity of assessments; and."
Brenner stated she disagrees that it has to be approved tonight. Ms. Cooper
believes what she says, but she's not sure it can't get on the tax roll for next year. This has
been going on. Putting the Board Supervisors together tonight for an hour, while Ms.
Cooper talks to them won't work. Hold this to the next Council meeting. Cooper stated the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) says it must be approved by September 1 for next
year's implementation. Legally, they couldn't implement it until the following year. For
2013, it would still be as bad as it has been for a long time.
Brenner stated it's been in effect for a long time. It can stay for one more year. The
Board didn't have a meeting.
Crawford asked if the County implemented this elsewhere and about impacts to
landowners. Cooper stated they have a map in other areas. When they digitized the map,
they change the methodology. However, there was no map for this District, so they had to
create a map, which inherently changed the methodology. The staff is working to change a
few other districts as well.
Crawford asked if the County implemented this method of assessment for the
districts that did have a map. Cooper stated it did. The assessment method didn't change
for those districts, so the Council didn't have to vote on it. It's the same method that has
been used for decades. Last year, the County changed the method for Diking District No. 2.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
She mailed out the new information to those Supervisors and called them to make sure they
didn't have issues.
Crawford asked if the Council voted on the change for Diking District No. 2 last year.
Cooper stated it did.
Cooper asked how the rates change for the landowners and how the amount brought
into the District is determined. Cooper stated it's not based on the owner's assessed value.
It's based on the total assessment the District will collect. If a District is going to bring in
$5,000, an assessment is multiplied by five. The Supervisors determine the total
assessment amount collected. Last year, the District collected $5,500.
Crawford asked how the change affects individual property owners. Cooper stated
the staff sent letters to all the property owners informing them of their assessment last year
and what their new assessment will be. Some small lots that weren't charged will be
charged $.47. A 120 -acre lot wasn't being assessed anything. Duane Mollendyk's 40 -acre
parcel had a larger change, from $10 to $127. They don't know why a 40 -acare parcel in
the low lying area was only paying $10 before.
Crawford asked if that assessment increase is offset by others who will pay less and
who don't receive a benefit. Cooper stated the total amount will be redistributed. Many
small lots were paying the minimum $10 assessment. Those will be redistributed.
Crawford asked what are the Supervisors' objections. This seems fair. Mollendyk
stated he objects because the letter sent to people in the District says the Supervisors all
supported the change. That is not correct. They haven't had a meeting about it and the
County staff have not explained the new methodology to the Supervisors. The letter says
the Supervisors approved it. He is fine with delaying the new methodology for one year.
Kremen stated he agrees about the poor or lack of process. He doesn't understand
why they would send notices to every property owners, but not the Supervisors. He asked
how staff made the claim that the Supervisors supported the change, when it never
happened. Cooper stated they saw the map, which was the basis for the method change.
They approved the map during their annual meeting a year ago. They also voiced a concern
about the small lots not being charged, so she and her staff considered different methods to
find the one most fair. That's when staff contacted each Supervisor. There was a short
time deadline to get all the information to the Council and property owners. They could
have done it better. If the Council wants to delay it a year, it just means that it's less fair
for one more year.
Kremen stated this is revenue neutral. It's solely to make the collection more fair.
If someone is paying more, then someone else will pay less. According to staff, it will be a
fairer way of assessing the fee.
Mann stated the letter says there is support from the District Supervisors, which
implies that they are informed and educated about the new method. He doesn't care if it's
revenue neutral or not a lot of money. This is a problem. Wait a year.
Crawford moved to direct that the assessment for 2013 remain the same as it has
been in previous years, and to ask staff to present this to the Supervisors for consideration
next year, for collection in 2014.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
Kershner stated Councilmember Brenner wasn't recognized as having the floor.
Councilmember Crawford was recognized and made a valid motion, which is what the
Council is considering at this point.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2013
THROUGH 2018 (AB2012 -243) (8 :40 :20 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Greg Brown stated the entire community should not have to pay for turn lanes on
the Slater Road. The County's money is going to the Tribe to fix their roads, in order for the
County to have a ferry. Now, they're enlarging their facility. They are doing things that
cause accidents on the road. Years ago, the only accidents were due to weather. Now
there is traffic congestion, and there is a new problem related to the casino and hotel. Now
they're building a convention center. The problems get worse. If they don't contribute to
the cost, the County shouldn't have to pay for them. There is also an issue with flooding.
Delphia Raymond stated the everyone who travels Slater Road through the
intersections with Imhof Road and Ferndale Road will benefit from the improvements to
Slater Road. However, she doesn't approve singling out the City of Ferndale and the Lummi
Nation for additional funding for this project. Employees who travel those roads come from
all over the county and also Canada. The costs should be distributed throughout the
county.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(8:43:37 PM)
Brenner moved to approve the resolution. She asked about fatalities on the Slater
Road and Ferndale Road intersection.
Jim Karcher, Public Works Department, stated he was asked about the rating at that
intersection. Rating one is property damage, rating two is injury, and rating three is fatal.
Brenner asked if there have been fatal accidents at that corner. She recalls there
being fatalities at that corner, which is difficult to negotiate. She asked if that corner is
dangerous. Karcher stated they submitted that project for surface transportation program
(STP) funding. Part of that submission was to recall the accident history at the Imhof Road
and Ferndale Road intersections. They didn't get into details about accident history, they
just said there is a frequency of accidents at these two intersections. There were a lot of
other issues with Slater Road, including old pavement, substandard width, a high use
roadway. All the factors weighed in on the project. They've been awarded the STP funds
already, based on the rating.
Mann stated that right now, only the people in unincorporated Whatcom County will
pay for this road upgrade. The Lummi Nation and City of Ferndale pay nothing. It would be
more fair to get everyone who uses the road to contribute. His real problem is with the
Lummi Nation getting a benefit that it isn't willing to pay anything for, especially given all
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
that the County is paying regarding the lease. Ms. Brenner convinced him to talk to staff
about accident history. There are no fatalities as far back as the record goes, to 2004.
There is a total of about 40 accidents in those eight years. A number of the accidents are
due to drunk driving and single vehicle accidents where the drivers drove off the road.
Other causes were speeding and operating defective equipment. Per his own analysis, it
doesn't seem like that dangerous of an intersection. He will not support this unless the
Lummi Indian Business Council contributes funds to this project. He moved to amend the
resolution to remove item 12 on Council packet page 293, page two of the program,
regarding the Slater Road intersection.
Crawford stated he is against the motion to amend. The Guide Meridian in the Laurel
to Lynden area has about 20,000 vehicles per day. They see the improvements there. The
State deemed almost worthy of a freeway. This is a two lane road. Statistically, they would
need an analysis of all the key intersections in the county to judge whether that accident
rate is high. The Public Works Department is saying the accident rate is high in those
locations. He strongly encourages these improvements be done. They have matching funds
for the improvements. It's a valid project. A use of 11,000 vehicles per day is high for a
two -lane road.
Mann stated that if 11,000 vehicle trips per day is a lot, than this number of
accidents is even less than it seems. There are 11,000 vehicles trips per day, and only 40
accidents in eight years. That doesn't seem dangerous.
Kremen stated he is against the motion to amend. There has been increased traffic
due to the business activities at the casino and that location, but many of the employees at
Intalco and the two oil refineries use that road on a regular basis. Commuters from the City
of Ferndale and surrounding areas also use that road regularly. Although the City of
Ferndale or Lummi Nation should not have to contribute to the costs of the project, the
Lummi Nation should credit Whatcom County a certain percentage of the costs that will be
incurred by the County as an offset of the $2 million to $4 million dollar obligation. This
improvement is necessary. The County must make sure that improvement is realized.
Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmember Kremen, but the Lummi Nation
doesn't have to contribute legally. It is a dangerous intersection. The fatalities may have
been more than eight years ago. This is the kind of thing they should prioritize, even if
there is no match from the Lummi Nation.
Knutzen stated he also agrees with Councilmember Kremen. He asked if the staff
could include on the transportation improvement program which projects are eligible for
match dollars as agreed to in the lease with the Lummi Nation during the ferry negotiations.
Mann stated he is shocked that no one agrees with him. This cost is $630,000.
That's a lot of money. The list includes millions of dollars for other projects in this area near
the reservation, including the ferry projects for $700,000 that they thought would cost
$200,000. If the County can't get credit for this $630,000 toward the $2 million, he can't
vote for it. If they keep funding things that benefit one area, without forcing participation,
nothing will change.
Brenner stated it's a safety issue. Councilmember Mann may not agree. She's seen
accidents there. She knows about the accidents there. She has the history of that
intersection. It's a very dangerous intersection.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, 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
53
Kershner asked how and when this item showed up on the plan. Karcher stated the
Slater Road turn lane project was initially just for the Imhof Road intersection. It's been on
the plan since 2006.
Kershner asked if the STP funds are federal. Karcher stated they are. The County
has already been awarded STP funds for this project.
Kershner asked if there was discussion about the Lummi Nation considering this as
part of the settlement, and if the Lummi Nation is not willing to accept this project as part of
the settlement. Karcher stated he can't say.
Crawford stated there was a considerable amount of discussion about Slater Road
throughout the two years of negotiations with the Lummi Tribe.
Kremen stated that discussion was primarily about raising Slater Road. The County
was initially led to believe it would be included. There are differing opinions and
recollections on both sides. To be fair, the last several months of negotiations it was made
clear, and agreed to, that raising Slater Road would not be eligible for the offset.
Kershner asked if those offset projects have already been identified.
Crawford stated they have not yet all been identified.
Kershner stated the County could ask them if this projects meets their satisfaction.
Kremen stated it is a question worthwhile to pursue, but he wouldn't hold his breath.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann (1)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, and Kershner (6)
Knutzen moved to add an asterisk to the Slater Road intersection project, " *This
project qualifies for ferry negotiation settlement compensation to the Lummi Nation."
Brenner stated she will support asking the question, but not conditioning the project
on crediting the project toward the settlement dollars. That's not any different from
Councilmember Mann's motion.
Knutzen stated his motion would only say that the project qualifies for crediting cost
toward the settlement.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. The Public Works Department needs
certainty in the plan. This has been prioritize to qualify within the amount of expected
funding through the federal STP program. He suggests that if they start conditioning
projects based on potential for asking for funds, the funds won't be there. If
Councilmember Knutzen would like to promote the Council take a position in terms of
talking with the Lummi Nation, do that separately after voting on the six -year road
program.
Mann stated that if the County just goes to the Lummi Nation and asks nicely, they
won't contribute matching funds or count it as a settlement credit. Send the message that
the administration should ask the Lummi Nation first, before it comes to the Council on the
program. If the Council approves it now, there is no incentive for them to contribute.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Kremen stated the Lummi Nation should give the County a 50 percent credit for the
money the County spends on this project. However, that casino operation is doing very well
with the road the way it is right now. This is a safety issue. This project has been on the
program for six years. He is against any motion that would impede or void progress toward
completing this project.
Knutzen stated the casino and gas station are doing fine. The gas station collects
the gas tax, which is used to build roads and do other projects in the county. It's
convenient for the Tribe that those gas stations don't contribute to the State pool, but the
tax is reimbursed to the Tribe for transportation purposes. This is an opportunity to get
credit for all the other people who are paying into that gas tax. The citizens of Whatcom
County should be guaranteed a benefit from this.
Karcher stated such a qualifier may jeopardize State funding.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Brenner and Kershner (5)
The motion to approve the resolution carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstains: Knutzen (1)
OPEN SESSION
(9:13:18 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Clayton Petree submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the resolution
regarding conveyance of approximately 8,844 acres of state forest managed
land managed by the DNR (AB2012- 066C).
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Clayton Petree requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Greg Brown submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the resolution in
the matter of the election to receive National Forest Related Safety -Net
payments under P.L. 112 -141 (AB2012 -275) and the resolution requesting
the reconveyance of approximately 8,844 acres of State DNR Managed land
for Whatcom County public park purposes. (AB2012- 066C).
• Ellen Baker spoke about the resolution requesting the reconveyance of
approximately 8,844 acres of State DNR Managed land for Whatcom County
public park purposes. (AB2012- 066C).
• Max Perry spoke about the resolution requesting the reconveyance of
approximately 8,844 acres of State DNR Managed land for Whatcom County
public park purposes. (AB2012- 066C).
• Carl Uppiano spoke about the resolution requesting the reconveyance of
approximately 8,844 acres of State DNR Managed land for Whatcom County
public park purposes. (AB2012- 066C).
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Kershner stated they Council is having a public hearing to address the concerns
raised tonight about the reconveyance. She hopes people attend the public hearing to
speak at that time. There is no done deal. They've always intended to have a public
hearing. The Council is not being nefarious. They are trying to stay ahead of the concerns
by holding a public hearing.
Brenner stated Tom Westergreen told her that elected officials said the reconveyance
is a done deal.
Kremen stated Councilmember Brenner should identify who are the elected officials
she's talking about.
Mann stated he sent one email to Mr. Westergreen that incorrectly stated the Council
doesn't have any public hearings planned. He did not know a public hearing was planned.
That has spiraled into a maelstrom. It was a mistake.
Kershner stated Councilmember Mann didn't know there was a public hearing
because councilmembers can't talk to each other for fear of a lawsuit.
CONSENT AGENDA
(9:32:54 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
one item was added to the agenda. He moved to approve Consent Agenda items one
through 11.
Brenner withdrew Consent Agenda item 11.
The motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through ten carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LYNDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE LYNDEN SCHOOL
DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,500 (AB2012 -261)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE MERIDIAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2012 -262)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BELLINGHAM SCHOOL
DISTRICT TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE
BELLINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 (AB2012-
263)
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE MT. BAKER
SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2012 -264)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BLAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE BLAINE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2012 -265)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FERNDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE FERNDALE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2012 -266)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NOOKSACK VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT TO PROVIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE
NOOKSACK VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,000
(AB2012 -267)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KITSAP PUBLIC
HEALTH DISTRICT FOR COMPLETION OF WORK IN THIS JURISDICTION
RELATED TO CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION PROVIDED BY THE
COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,016, FOR
A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $111,417 (AB2012 -268)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THRIVE BY FIVE
WASHINGTON FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NFP HOME VISITING MODEL
TO LOW INCOME FIRST -TIME MOTHERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,799
(AB2012 -269)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SMS CLEANING,
INC. FOR THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR SIX
WHATCOM COUNTY BUILDINGS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,590, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $216,030 (AB2012 -270)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -55 TO THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER (LOW BIDDER HAS WITHDRAWN)
FOR THE SUPPLY OF A REPLACEMENT DOCK AND FISHING PLATFORM AT
SAMISH PARK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,651.97 (AB2012 -252A)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Brenner stated the Council voted on this previously. Now the request, for even more
funds, is coming back. The park improvement fund is designed specifically for these things.
This proposes to use real estate excise tax (REET) II money, which can be used for other
more essential public services such as stormwater facilities, roads, and associated costs for
the new jail.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,186 (AB2012 -258) (9:36 :02 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance. He moved to amend to remove the $5,000 grant for marijuana
eradication. It seems like a waste of money.
Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmember Mann's motion to amend.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, and Kershner (5)
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT AND THE WATERSHED COMPANY FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO
PERFORM HYDRAULIC MODELING, HABITAT ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE LOWER NOOKSACK
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR REACH 1
DOWNSTREAM OF FERNDALE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $320,000 (AB2012 -259)
(9:38:04 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: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND WHEELER CONSULTING GROUP FOR
PREPARATION OF AN EIS ANALYSIS OF THE SWIFT CREEK MANAGEMENT
PLAN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $255,890 (AB2012 -260)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION TO RECEIVE NATIONAL
FOREST RELATED SAFETY -NET PAYMENTS UNDER P.L. 112 -141 (AB2012-
276) (9:40:11 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
Brenner asked if this resolution is to use a different formula than they've used in the
past.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the formula is the same as
they've done in the past.
Brenner asked if they have let the Board decide. Bennett stated they have. If the
County exercises some authority, the uses for the money are very restricted. They reduce
other funding the County receives, dollar for dollar.
Brenner stated she likes having local control. She asked if this process has always
been done, without the local control. Bennett stated that is correct.
Knutzen asked if timber harvesting is allowed on national forest lands. Bennett
stated he recalls that this program was initiated to replace money lost due to them not
harvesting timber. This came up during the era of the issues regarding the spotted owl. A
lot of the forest land was removed from harvest to preserve habitat.
Brenner asked where the funds come from, if not from timber sales. Bennett stated
the funds are a federal legislative fund.
Crawford stated it's a Congressional earmark. Every year, the legislature considers
ending the funding. He asked the administration to schedule Josh Weiss from the
Washington Association of Counties to present information to the Finance Committee about
payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) and secure schools funding. It would help the Council
understand better how the program works.
Brenner stated she would also like to have a presentation from whoever is the
Whatcom County representative on the Skagit - Whatcom Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC).
Bennett stated he has been trying to contact a representative in charge of the local
district. He will pass the information along as soon as he gets it.
Kremen asked the approximate annual amount of PILT funds. Bennett stated they
receive approximately $1,143,000. The amount has gone up over the years. They have
exceeded budget projections in the last two years.
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF BRIDGEWATER
STREET (SHIPYARD ROAD) AND DEARBORN AVENUE (AB2012 -272) (9:46:39
PM)
Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee and moved
to approve the resolution. The applicant paid a fee for this consideration. The applicant is
responsible for other costs, as well. She was pleased to see the County would retain
easements for stormwater facilities. That's one of the main reasons she doesn't like to give
up County property.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
6. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON WHATCOM COUNTY
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP
REPRESENTATIVE - APPLICANT(S): MARIAH ROSS (AB2012 -092B) (9:48:04
PM)
Mann moved to nominate and appoint Mariah Ross.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(9:49: 01 PM)
Kershner stated Introduction Item one was withdrawn from the agenda.
Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items two and three.
Kremen stated there is no way that there can be a done deal regarding the
reconveyance issue. The County Council makes the decision. The County Council hasn't
voted yet. The councilmembers don't know how many votes there are for or against the
issue. He and others agreed about the necessity of having a public hearing. They are really
concerned about what the community members think. The public hearing will be an
opportunity for the community to inform the Council about what they want. The Council will
vote accordingly. The County Council makes that decision, not the County Executive, staff,
or special interest groups. People must have faith in their government.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.40, AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES (AB2012 -042A)
Whatcom County Council, 8/7/2012, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR
OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT (AB2012 -273)
3. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 8,844
ACRES OF STATE FOREST MANAGED LAND MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO WHATCOM COUNTY FOR PUBLIC PARK
PURPOSES (AB2012 -066C)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
(9:52:30 PM)
Crawford reported the results of the Superior Court judge primary election. Garrett
received 41.5 percent, Grant received 40.1 percent, and Carter received 18.4 percent.
Mann reported that the Catholic Community Services is scheduled to hold a public
forum on August 21 regarding the proposed housing services project planned for downtown
Bellingham.
Brenner stated the time scheduled for the forum is 6:00p.m. to 8:30 p.m., according
to what she was told. That's not enough time.
Knutzen reported that he took Councilmembers Crawford and Brenner to Cold
Stream Farms today to see the new milking operation. There was a tour and lunch.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on September 11, 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, 8/7/2012, Page 19