HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 28 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
February 28, 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 :26 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :02 :37 PM)
Kershner announced there was a special Committee of the Whole meeting this
afternoon and several interlocal agreements with the cities were discussed (AB2011 -340a-
g)
Kershner announced there was discussion regarding potential property
acquisition for the Flood Control Zone District (2012 -018) in executive session during
the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Crawford moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the
Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with
and complete acquisition of two parcels in or adjacent to the Glacier Springs subdivision, as
long as the purchase price does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
MINUTES CONSENT (7 :05 :04 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 24, 2012
2. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
3. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2012
4. SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2012
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE
TO THE GEORGIA MANOR WATER ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR A PERIOD OF 25
YEARS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND SECTION 9 OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WATER LINES
AND FACILITIES ALONG CERTAIN ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2011 -181) (7:05:58
PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing and the following person spoke:
Dave Carpenter, Wilson Engineering, stated he represents the Georgia Manor Water
Association. He described the location of the 90 -lot plat, which currently serves about 28
lots. Most water system improvements were installed in the early 1960s and need to be
replaced. He would prefer to install the water mains on the inside edge of the County right -
of -way. It would be much less expensive. It's financially onerous to complete the
improvements as -is. Therefore, they request the franchise to install in the right -of -way.
Brenner asked who the contact person is for the Association. Carpenter stated the
contact person is Phil Swanson.
Mann asked about the number of lots being served in the plat. Carpenter stated the
State Department of Health limits the water system to 28 services until these improvements
are done. The water settlement agreement with the Tribe limits the number of services to
59. The goal is to complete improvements that would service a total of 59 homes.
Currently, the Tribe serves about 16 of the homes.
Knutzen asked if the Lummi Water and Sewer District also use these easements.
Carpenter stated the sewer is located in the middle of the right -of -way. Their water mains
are on the opposite side of the road. He's asking for a franchise to be inside the right -of-
way, rather than an easement. They have easements, and will try to stay on the
easements where possible.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Kremen asked for a recommendation from the Public Works Department staff.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated it is an appropriate use for the right -of-
DrAVA
Weimer asked whether the required insurance coverage of $1 million is enough.
Rutan stated he isn't able to answer the question and would prefer to confer with
Prosecuting Attorney Dan Gibson. The Council can postpone this for two weeks as there
isn't an imminent need for this approval.
Crawford referenced Section 23.b of the agreement, which allows the County to
review the insurance policy amount annually. He moved to adopt the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Brenner moved to hold in Council for two weeks.
The motion to hold in Council carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
2. ORDINANCE INCREASING THE SPEED LIMIT FOR A PORTION OF DRAYTON
HARBOR ROAD (AB2012 -088) (7:15:57 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Jennifer Plombon submitted and read from her testimony (on file). She is against
increasing the speed limit. The road is narrow and winding. There's no road shoulder.
There are a lot of wild animals along the road at dusk and dawn. She prefers to lower the
existing 35 miles per hour speed limit.
Tabitha Thorp stated she lives in the area and is against increasing the speed limit.
She agrees with the previous speaker. It's not necessary. The County fulfilled the
community's need by widening Lincoln Road. This is the road that the people of West Blaine
should use. Drayton Harbor Road is meant to be a minor, secondary route. The time
difference between the speed limit is a matter of seconds. A higher speed limit doesn't save
time for anyone. It only endangers the residents on Drayton Harbor Road. The traffic study
says that 85 percent of the drivers on the road drive faster than the speed limit. People are
already driving 38 miles per hour on the road. With an increased speed limit, they will drive
even faster. The study expressed a concern with changing the speed limit due to a limited
sight distance. The study should have included the sight distance from the driveways.
Speeding is a problem. Raising the speed limit is not a solution.
Patrick Guimond stated he lives in the area and is in favor of increasing the speed
limit. He commutes along Drayton Harbor Road. It's the quickest route to Blaine for
hundreds of residents in Semiahmoo and Birch Point. There is a lot of frustration,
tailgating, and passing over double yellow lines due to the slow speed limit. Other similar
roads on either end are posted at 35 miles per hours. Drayton Harbor Road shouldn't be
any different. This is the same neighborhood that held up the repair of Drayton Harbor
Road for two years, claiming environmental damage if the road were repaired and disruption
of bald eagles in the neighborhood. It forced the Semiahmoo residents to drive the long
way around, wasting time and fuel. Once the road opened, the bald eagles were delisted
from the Endangered Species Act. Homes along the road were constructed, also. The
speed limit is too slow.
Daphne Butcher stated she lives in the area and is against increasing the speed limit.
They are talking about 1.3 miles of road. Raising the speed limit gets commuters to Blaine
50 seconds sooner. There is no shoulder on most of the road, so it's not safe to raise the
speed limit.
Lori Daniels stated she lives on Semiahmoo Drive. Semiahmoo Drive also has no
shoulder and has a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. It has six homes that are in close
proximity to driveways. The speed limits are inconsistent. It's a matter of equity. It's no
different from other County roads in the area. Drayton Harbor Road was closed for two
years. For a small number of houses, only two have driveways that are like the driveways
on her road. Otherwise, that road should not be anything less than 35 miles per hour. At
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
best, this is some sort of exclusive right that is no longer viable. There is no safety hazard.
The delay is more than 50 seconds.
Ron Butcher stated he lives in the area and disagrees that the solution is to raise the
speed limit to the dangerous conditions that exist on Semiahmoo Drive. Raising the speed
limit will reduce the commute by a minute, but Drayton Harbor Road wasn't intended to
become an arterial to Semiahmoo. Raising the speed limit will encourage drivers to speed
above the posted speed limit and above the engineer's safe stopping speeds. After the
Drayton Harbor Road carried all traffic during the Lincoln Road project, commuters became
used to using Drayton Harbor Road instead of Lincoln Road. There will be less safety for
pedestrian and cyclist safety. Lincoln Road is straight and wide. It doesn't make sense to
bring Drayton Harbor Road to the same speed. Birch Bay Drive, the shoreline road that
feeds Birch Bay Village and has homes close to the road, is similar to Drayton Harbor Road
and has a 25 miles per hour speed limit. Given additional time, more residents opposed to
the increasing speed limit will come forward.
Patrick Alesse submitted handouts (on file) and stated the road narrows and has
blind driveways. If pedestrians are going to get hit by a car, it's better to happen at 25
miles per hour than 35 miles per hour so they live. The petitioners probably live on streets
that have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less. The residents on Drayton Harbor Road
must have a slower speed.
Pat Helton stated she lives in the area and is against increasing the speed limit.
Twice her mailbox has been hit by vehicles. The road is narrow, does not have shoulders,
and does have hills and curves, which make it dangerous for runners, bicyclists, the postal
truck and residents retrieving their mail.
Ronna Loerch stated she is against increasing the speed limit. It's not a safe road.
It's incredulous that 65 people who don't live on that road have brought this forward. Have
a benchmark for priority and importance. The speed limit should be what the residents ask
for.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(7:35:25 PM)
Brenner asked if drivers typically drive faster than the posted speed limit.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated the black and white speed limit sign
rarely affects actual driving speeds. Currently, people are driving 35 miles per hour. If the
speed limit sign is changed or removed, he doesn't expect much difference in actual speeds.
Staff did not generate this request. The request is made by a citizen petition.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. He referenced the stopping sight distance
in the report and asked if these distances would be allowable if the road were a new road.
Rutan stated they would not. He would not build a new road this way.
Crawford stated he will not support the increase. He empathizes with folks who have
to slow down between two sections signed at 40 miles per hour, but there isn't a factual
basis to raise the speed limit at this point. The fact that people are driving nearly that
speed now does not make it safe.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Kremen stated he is conflicted. He asked if staff recommends that the speed limit be
raised. Rutan stated staff does not recommend the higher speed limit. His staff provides
the technical information, and the Council makes the decision. The technical information
indicates that there are sight distance issues out there. The 85th percentile speed is the
speed that people are currently driving and the accident rate. Now, people are driving
slightly over 35 miles per hour. In the past five years, there have been two reported
accidents. Both were single vehicle accidents. One accident involved alcohol. The driver in
the other accident ran off and was never found. They are not seeing speed related
accidents in the area. The report also talks about the lack of shoulders. The road is
substandard. It goes back to the 1880's. He's providing the technical information needed
to make a difficult political decision.
Kremen stated he was under the impression that staff recommended or implied that
people will drive what they feel they are able to drive. He inferred that staff supported the
petition. Rutan stated that if the County removes the 25 miles per hour sign, he expects
the driving speeds to remain about the same. He prefers that weren't the case. The Sheriff
would concur with his expectation. An appropriate speed could be 35 miles per hour, but
there are issues with that speed. There are also issues with a speed of 25 miles per hour.
Kremen stated that over the years, Mr. Rutan has conveyed that speed limits lower
than what people feel they are able to drive will cause more accidents. Rutan stated a
speed limit that is artificially low can cause speed differentials that can cause more trouble.
In this case, the current speed limit of 25 miles per hour is working. If it were 35 miles per
hour, he doesn't expect to see much difference. He's not giving a strong recommendation
either way.
Mann stated Mr. Rutan is professionally diplomatic and objective. The citizens
submitted a request. The Council authorized a road study and had a public hearing. The
technical information is neutral, at best, and they've heard from the public. He will not
support the ordinance. It doesn't make sense. This is driven by the public.
Brenner stated she has tried to get speed limits reduced many times as the Chair of
the Public Works Committee. She's learned that they can't use speed limits to artificially
calm driving behavior. It just creates a more dangerous situation. A five -year study in this
area showed that the accidents were due to alcohol and an unknown factor. She is
generally in favor of slower speed limits. However, if the speed limit isn't 35 miles per hour,
they aren't using the same rules that they say are important for safe driving. She recently
drove the area. If the speed limit were changed to 35 miles per hour, there will also be
signs telling people to slow down due to sight distance issues. She also walked the road,
and felt safe with cars going by. She sympathizes with those who want to keep the speed
limit 25 miles per hour. However, they must follow the same rules they've always followed.
She is in favor of the ordinance.
Knutzen called for a vote.
The motion to adopt failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
OPEN SESSION (7:50:04 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Eric Brown spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance.
• Lea Heeringa spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Greg Baker submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about zoning regulations
applied to Bear Paw Lodge.
• David Roberts, People for Lake Padden, spoke about the Yew Street urban
growth area (UGA) (AB2011 -210).
• Mike Sato, spoke about the Yew Street urban growth area (UGA) (AB2011-
210).
• Wendy Harris spoke about a quantifiable baseline analysis of water resource
inventory area (WRIA) 1.
• Shane Roth spoke about the Yew Street urban growth area (UGA) (AB2011-
210) and the ordinance amending Whatcom County Code 2.02, County
Council (AB2012 -091).
• Betsy Gross, People for Lake Padden Director, spoke about the Yew Street
urban growth area (UGA) (AB2011 -210).
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Betsy Gross requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Marion Beddill spoke about Lake Whatcom water quality and WRIA 1.
• Lee First spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210).
• Judith Aikens spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210).
• Reisa Latorra spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210).
• Keturah Witter, ReSources, spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210).
• Dan McShane spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210) and
moratorium on subdivisions in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
• Darrell Sofield spoke about the reconveyance.
• Harry Williams spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Natalie Everett spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Gail Galbraith- Everett spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012-
101).
• Mike McGlenn, Backcountry Horsemen, spoke about the South Fork Regional
Park (AB2012 -101).
• Jack Weiss, Bellingham City Council Member, spoke about the Yew Street
urban growth area (UGA) (AB2011 -210).
• Nicole Brown spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association, spoke about the Yew Street
urban growth area (UGA) (AB2011 -210).
• Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, spoke about the South Fork Regional Park
(AB2012 -101).
• Lawson Curtis submitted and read from his testimony (on file) and spoke
about maintaining and protecting the Nesset Farm and salmon habitat.
• Russ Pfeiffer -Hoyt spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Gina Jacoby spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Bill McKenna spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Greg Brown spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210) and the South
Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Harry Patz spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
• Wes Kench spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101) and
about protecting farmland.
• Chris Hatch spoke about the South Fork Regional Park (AB2012 -101).
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
• Cal Leenstra, applicant, spoke about the Yew Street UGA (AB2011 -210).
(9:09:47 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Due to a meeting disruption by audience members, the Council took a
break from 9:09 p.m. to 9 :16 p.m.)
Kershner stated the Council will discuss ways for preventing such outbursts in the
future at a meeting in two weeks. They are trying to do County business on behalf of
county residents. The Council must be able to conduct a meeting without having that sort
of thing happen.
Crawford stated he suggests that the Council have that discussion at a Committee of
the Whole meeting in two weeks, and invite the Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney to talk
about the Council's options for preventing this from happening in the future.
CONSENT AGENDA (9 :19 :42 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through three.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TRANSPRO GROUP, INC. FOR
THE GOOSEBERRY POINT FERRY TERMINAL QUEUING ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,460 (AB2012 -098)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NW
COMMUNICATIONS & CELLULAR, INC. TO COVER ADDITIONAL RADIO
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENTS COSTS DUE TO THE REQUIRED FCC
CHANGEOVER TO NARROWBAND COMMUNICATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$32,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000
(AB2012 -099)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
BRIDGE INSPECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE
UNDER BRIDGE INSPECTION TRUCK WITH DRIVER AND OPERATOR FOR
ROUTINE INSPECTIONS OF BRIDGE NOS. 140 AND 512 OVER A PERIOD OF
TEN YEARS, IN AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $150,000 (AB2012 -100)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SOUTH FORK REGIONAL PARK CONCEPTUAL
PLAN (AB2012 -101) (9 :20 :40 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Weimer reported From Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Brenner stated she has concerns about deputies and adequate enforcement. The
people in the area are already having problems with trespassers who use the river for inner -
tubing. Without adequate park enforcement, they will entice more of the same dangerous
behavior. It's also dangerous for fish spawning. She's not sure inner - tubing bans are
working. They must be sure there is adequate enforcement. She spoke with Sheriff Elfo,
who couldn't be here tonight. He would like to talk to the Council about his concerns for a
park. Many residents have compromised and agreed to help work on a design. She's
disappointed that many of these people didn't know about this until a few days ago. She
would like to hold this item for two weeks.
Knutzen moved to hold in Council. People in the area haven't been heard. They
will be most impacted. One property owner is completely surrounded by the park. At the
last Council meeting, the Council denied a mineral resource land (MRL) for a business that
went through the entire process and followed all the rules. The Council doesn't show the
same consideration for these people. It's hypocritical. He would like to have another
meeting with residents in the area.
Crawford stated this is no longer about whether or not there is going to be a park.
There will be a park. This has been in the works for decades. He's been very
straightforward with folks about that. He asked about timing and how long they can delay.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he encourages the Parks Department Director
to try to resolve issues so they can incorporate any decisions into the next biennium
budget. It won't make any difference to delay for 60 to 90 days. He would like to have a
decision one way or another. The community and staff deserve a decision on a process that
has been going on for decades. It would be nice to have direction from Council about what
specific information it would like from the administration and Parks Department, so they can
put together the information the councilmembers need to make a decision. Sheriff Elfo, as
an elected official, can weigh in on his own behalf. He asked what the administration should
specifically do, in the Council's opinion. Holding this for two weeks doesn't achieve any
goal.
Knutzen stated he would like to schedule a meeting in the area, similar to the
meeting the Council had earlier. Put a sincere effort forward to develop a concept that
would work. Most of the concerns of the residents were not addressed.
Louws asked if the Council wants the administration to work off the plan it put
forward, and find out how the community wants to modify that plan or if the Council wants
the administration to open the discussion to those people who don't want the park.
Knutzen stated most people are willing to have the park. They want to provide some
input on the park's size, scope, and use. The residents paid a consulting firm to help
develop a plan and provide ideas. None of that was considered.
Louws stated he's hearing that they should set up a meeting with the community,
look at the existing plan, and work on alternatives to that plan. Find out what challenges
the residents have with the specific plan, and come back with their recommendations. He
asked if councilmembers plan to attend this meeting.
Knutzen stated he would attend.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
53
Crawford stated he doesn't see a need to hold another Council town hall meeting in
the area. They have worked on things that were brought up. Some issues such as law
enforcement commitment are unclear. He's heard that people weren't prepared and did not
feel that they were able to provide input on the alternatives that were chosen. The
alternatives where offered well before the that town hall meeting a year ago. A few more
weeks would give folks with concerns to provide very specific concerns and suggestions
regarding the current proposal. There is merit to allowing people to provide final
comments. The Council isn't hearing a lot of new information from residents, but give the
folks they want to follow up on these final alternatives. They know they are moving the
horsemen's area to the east. They can get input from the Sheriff. Come back in two or four
weeks to consider those things, and move forward with a plan.
Mann stated he is reluctant to delay this any more. The Council is not hearing a lot
of new information. He's talked to everyone who spoke tonight. They are all aware of the
issues. This is a conceptual plan. They are not deciding on funding or a final design. The
concept is determined. There are two large parcels with an easement to connect them.
That isn't very controversial. He is ready to vote now. He will vote against any further
delay.
Brenner stated it's not a delay. It's a postponement. The Sheriff couldn't attend
tonight, but can speak to the Council in two weeks. They must be careful with the public
money. Understanding the real costs is important. She would like a meeting in the area.
At least postpone for two weeks to talk to the Sheriff.
Kershner stated she supports the motion to postpone the decision. She supports a
park. It sounds like folks are close to being able to support a park plan. Give them a
chance to be heard and have any final issues heard or worked through. Don't have another
town hall meeting. Have a meeting to allow the folks from the South Fork Valley to meet
with the administration to discuss the remaining issues. She wants a plan to come forward
that has support of both the South Fork Valley residents and the Parks Department.
Kremen stated he's willing to postpone this issue for a couple of weeks. However, it
should be known that in the past year and a half, the County Council and Executive have
had two or three meetings with the opponents of this park and the people who have
expressed their displeasure with the proposal at the Rome Grange. They've also had at
least two meetings at the Acme Elementary School that was organized by the same group of
individuals. During that same time, the Council has never had a meeting with any of the
proponents of this proposal. They have provided an opportunity and audience for the
concerned residents. He's not saying the concerns are without validity. However, don't say
that the opponents have not been heard or had an opportunity to have an audience with the
Council and participate in the process. That is so far from the truth that it bothers him. He
doesn't see a problem with a two -week or four -week time period to try and get closer to
arriving at a consensus. This Council has gone out of its way to provide an opportunity for
those individuals with concerns about the proposal. They've had ample and adequate
opportunities on multiple occasions to express their concerns.
Brenner stated everyone has been genuine. No one has been less than truthful.
Everyone has their own perspective. She was at a lot of those meetings. Most of those
meetings were open to everyone, not just the opponents. Everyone who attended from
both sides spoke quite a bit. Some of the meetings at the Rome Grange were hosted by
residents, not the County. Keep the dialog going, because they're getting closer to an
agreement.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Knutzen stated there has been a lot of dialog with the people out there for the past
two years. Before that, all the meetings were done in Bellingham with the Backcountry
Horsemen, Land Trust, and County Parks Department. There have been many errors in this
process, including the Nesset property not having access and not including the timber
rights, for which the County had to pay $1.2 million. Now they're told it will cost $1.2
million to $1.6 million. The residents need to know what's going on. He restated his
motion to postpone for four weeks.
Louws stated he and the Parks Director are willing to facilitate a meeting with those
who want to make comments about the plan, enter a discussion, and list those concerns.
The administration will facilitate that meeting and give everyone one more opportunity to
comment on the plan. He will bring those comments back to the Council for decision. It's
time to bring this to a vote.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to delay the vote for the same reasons
Councilmember Mann stated. These people have had adequate time to comment. They've
been to the Natural Resources Committee four or five times in the last couple of years.
There have been lots of public meetings. The Council isn't hearing anything new. He is
interested in hearing from the Sheriff, so a delay won't break his heart. However, Sheriff
Elfo is good at communicating with the Council when he feels strongly about something, and
he didn't make an effort to contact them today.
Brenner stated she would like to be invited to the administration's meeting.
The motion to hold in Council until March 27, 2012 carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ANCHOR QEA, LLC TO
PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES TO COMPLETE PHASE 2 OF A RIPARIAN
CONDITION AND FUNCTION ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL DRAINAGE STREAMS
AND MARINE SHORELINES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2012 -096)
(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 stated
this item is held in committee for two weeks pending the receipt of more information from
the Public Works Department.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST
INDIAN COLLEGE FOR FECAL COLIFORM WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN
THE DRAYTON HARBOR AND PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION
DISTRICTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,111.65 (AB2012 -097) (9 :45 :39 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
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. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTH
REQUEST (AB2012 -090) (9 :46:35 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, URBAN GROWTH
DESIGNATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP
DESIGNATIONS FOR PROPERTY IN THE YEW STREET RESERVE UGA
(AB2011 -210) (FROM DECEMBER 6, 2011) (9 :47 :19 PM)
Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen stated that in deference to Bellingham City Council Member Weiss's request,
he will vote against the ordinance. However, it should be docketed or dealt with. The City
of Bellingham promised the County that it would update its Comprehensive Plan in 2012,
but it won't be until 2014 or 2016. The County was told that it wasn't concerned about Yew
Street and the City wanted it. He's hearing conflicting messages from the City. He hopes
this can be addressed by the new leadership at the City. There are amenities built to City
standards.
Mann stated the County also has issues with its Comprehensive Plan. Infill must
happen in the city. As long as people in the city don't want infill, they will struggle to find
places to put people. The Yew Street Road episode is emblematic of the countywide
planning challenges. They must do better. He's not that concerned about Lake Padden.
Most problems they're seeing are not from development. He's not willing to tell Bellingham
it has to take the urban growth area (UGA). He is against the ordinance.
Brenner stated the County can't make the City take that property. She is against the
ordinance. If any development occurs in the UGA, the County will be responsible for
creating a lot of capital facilities, which are extremely expensive. The County may never
get reimbursed for the costs. The County can't do it without the City of Bellingham.
Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. It's unfair to designate an
area as a UGA for 16 years, and then remove the designation. Millions of dollars were spent
in this area by the schools, the State, and the County. The estimated $31 million cost to
provide services to that area is inflated. Over time, a case has been made that Lake Padden
is somehow threatened and shouldn't be included in the UGA. The residents of the
watershed are putting phosphorus into the lake, but they don't want a report that says the
lake is doing fine. They are building a case that Lake Padden has problems caused by
development. There is a fairness issues. It's unfair to all those people who invested in the
area, including the Bellingham School District and City Hall. All those investments were
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
made with connectivity and capacity designed into them. The Council isn't going to pass
this because the City is unwilling and uncooperative. He challenges the City to work with
County planners to correct this unfair, wrong situation that has gone on for 15 years. In the
next few weeks, he would like to pass a resolution to have a process to get this back on the
docket for staff review to continue to address the City's issue, including a fair review of the
capital facilities plan. Then they can talk about how much that development can address.
Don't make assumptions that this isn't going to work.
Kershner stated she agrees with Councilmember Crawford.
Kremen stated he is against the ordinance. It's not ready. Many mistakes were
made along the way by more than one entity. This problem was created by good intentions
but a lack of process. The County was never consulted about the school district putting this
school where it is. The County found out about it from the local newspaper after the district
made the purchase. There has been a lack of collaboration, cooperation, and
communication. This should not be viewed as the County versus the City. Bellingham is a
part of Whatcom County. They should work together. What's good for Bellingham is good
for Whatcom County. Have a greater community perspective. Don't adopt the ordinance
tonight, and develop an outcome that is in the best interest of the greater community.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: None (0)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
6. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, APPLICANT: CALVIN DEN HARTOG (AB2012 -092) (10:03 :26
PM)
Knutzen moved to nominate and appoint Calvin Den Hartog.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 2.22,
CREATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS (AB2011 -224C) (10 :04 :08 PM)
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
8. ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 2001 -048 AND CANCELING THE PETTY
CASH REVOLVING FUND FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICE (AB2012 -069)
(10 :04 :42 PM)
staff.
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance. He asked how inconvenient this will be for
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated it won't be a problem.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 2.02, COUNTY
COUNCIL (AB2012 -091) (10:05:59 PM)
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance. He moved to amend the ordinance so
that item six, the consent agenda, be scheduled after item eight, the open session, except
in instances when the Council deems it will have to pay County staff for that time spent
waiting to address the Council.
Brenner stated she supports the motion to amend. Many people attend the Council
meetings for public hearings, just like they attend for open session. Many travel great
distances and can't stay late. These are the same arguments for keeping open session first.
The difference between open session and a public hearing is that everyone talks about one
thing during a public hearing. These are all open to the public. Not all public hearings are
about developers, as one email implied. When they are about developers, many people
with different opinions attend the public hearings. The Council isn't favoring anyone by
having public hearings first. The County budget is fragile. It's not getting better. The
County has to pay overtime for some staff to attend meetings in the evening. The public
hearings are generally staff intensive, more so than the consent agenda. Hearings are
usually not discussed in committee that same day, so they're more staff intensive. Not long
ago, previous councils discussed the possibility of eliminating meeting audio recordings to
save money. Recording meetings is important. It provides people with information about
what's going on, without them having to increase their carbon footprint. Save money
without changing the agenda much. She doesn't support having open session at the end of
the meeting. Changing those two things around can save the County some money and still
allow members of the public to address the Council. One isn't more important than the
other, but one costs the County more.
Mann stated all the email he received was from people who seemed to think the
Council wanted to move open session to the end of the meeting.
Brenner stated that's what happened last time.
Crawford stated they were told that.
Mann stated he let those people know the
after the consent agenda, not to the end of the
proposal isn't so bad. No one spoke about it in o
approval before the public hearings and open sess
He does not support the motion to amend. Con
earlier to allow staff, who are paid time and a hal f
have the open session. Have a predictable process
consent agenda items.
proposal was to move open session to
meeting. Most people replied that the
pen session tonight. They have minutes
ion. They could move that to the end.
Cons
agenda items should be scheduled
, go home and get off the payroll, then
More often than not, staff are here for
Weimer stated he supports the amendment to move open session to after hearings
but before consent agenda. It makes sense. People may have concerns with items on the
consent agenda, but they won't have a chance to speak to them if open session is after the
Council takes the vote. He's very disappointed in the people who disrupted the meeting
tonight. They talk often about cooperation, collaboration, and communication. Tonight,
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
53
they disrupted the meeting, they didn't talk to the Council, and they didn't stay to find out
the real reasons for the amendment, which has more to do with managing staff time.
Kremen stated he supports the amendment. The Council should provide for some
latitude and flexibility. On occasion they will have five or six public hearings, and one of
those hearings may take two hours or more. In these rare instances, the Council should
have some flexibility to consider having the open session for at least 20 or 30 minutes to
give the public an opportunity to speak.
Brenner stated they've had the same situation with open session going on for hours.
For her, it's about the cost. It's going to be upsetting to people if they keep changing it.
There won't be predictability. She's willing to think about it.
Kremen stated the Council often alters the agenda to benefit the people from Lummi
Island, for example. The Council should be flexible about the open session as well. The
Council can gauge how many people want to speak during open session and make some
kind of modification or adjustment as needed to suit the situation.
Knutzen restated his motion to amend to schedule the consent agenda after the
open session in the following order:
6. Public hearings and final consideration
7. Open session
8. Consent agenda
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
Kershner moved to amend first sentence, "Business n9ay ine!Hde but net be lingited
Business generally follows the following order." That will address
Councilmember Kremen's concern and allow flexibility.
Brenner stated the language already allows flexibility by using stating 'may" and
"not be limited to."
Kershner withdrew the motion.
Crawford moved to add language after item twelve on the list of business items,
"The chair of the council may adjust the order of business at meetings in consideration of
public attendance on particular matters."
Knutzen asked what happens if staff is here waiting to be available for the consent
agenda. They could use the argument that there are many audience members for public
hearings, so the Council could move the consent agenda forward in the agenda so they can
let staff go.
Kershner asked if the Council needs a two - thirds vote of approval to change the
meeting order, or if the chair will have the latitude to change the meeting order.
Crawford suggested language after item twelve on the list of business items, "The
chair of the council may adjust the order of business at meetings in consideration of public
or staff attendance on particular matters."
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Kremen stated he prefers the original wording from councilmember Crawford. It
gives the Council chair the ability to modify the agenda based on staff needs or time
consideration.
Crawford restated his motion to amend to add language after item twelve on the
list of business items, "The chair of the council may adjust the order of business at meetings
in consideration of public attendance on particular matters."
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to amend, "The chair of
the council may recommend adjustments to the order of business..." The Council should
vote on any agenda changes.
Kershner stated she agrees with Councilmember Brenner's suggestion.
Crawford amended his motion and moved to amend to add language after item
twelve on the list of business items, "The council may adjust the order of business at
meetings in consideration of public attendance on particular matters."
Mann stated he likes this version of the amendment. Predictability is important.
Folks plan to come and testify. There is a general time when things work out. He hopes
changes to the agenda are rare, but it's reasonable to have that flexibility. He will support
the motion to amend.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford stated he will not support the amended ordinance. He likes the old way of
doing things, although he respects the councilmembers' intent.
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
10. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MAINTENANCE OF FUNDING FOR SHERIFF'S
PROGRAMS (AB2012 -105) (10:25:47 PM)
Knutzen read the resolution into the record and moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner moved to amend first whereas statement, "...qualification programs for
Sheriff deputies, jail corrections deputies, juvenile detention officers, and deputy
prosecuting attorneys is being considered for elimination and /or major cuts by the state
legislature; and.
Knutzen accepted the motion as a friendly amendment.
Brenner moved to amend to add a whereas statement, "Whereas the State
requirements will not be eliminated, but the costs will be transferred to the County." This
amendment will let everyone know that the training will still be mandated, but the State is
eliminating its funding for that training. It becomes an unfunded mandate.
Knutzen accepted the motion as a friendly amendment, to insert the statement
after the sixth whereas statement.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Brenner moved to amend the title, "Resolution Supporting the Maintenance of
State Funding for Sheriff's Essential Criminal Justice Programs."
Knutzen accepted the motion as a friendly amendment.
Mann stated he is against the resolution. Don't dabble in State and federal politics
without being really informed. He just got the letter yesterday or today, and is not ready to
go on record without knowing the other side of the story. He hasn't had enough time to
look into it.
Kremen asked to whom the resolution is addressed.
Brenner moved to add another statement, "BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this
resolution is addressed to the State legislators."
Knutzen accepted the motion as a friendly amendment.
Kremen stated things in Olympia are moving quickly. Much is going on in the State
legislature. If he were the Sheriff or any department head, he would be extremely
concerned right now. He was in Olympia two weeks ago. The House Ways and Means
Committee was considering cutting about $1.2 million in criminal justice funding and $3.1
million for the rural sales tax for Whatcom County alone. That would have been a total
funding hit to Whatcom County of $4.3 million annually. Fortunately, the State Senate has
greater wisdom and reasonableness. Today, he was informed that almost all of that money
is in the Senate proposal. He will go to Olympia later this week to help convince the House
Speaker and House to yield to the Senate on all these draconian cuts. He is more
comfortable supporting this because it is addressed to the State legislature. They could add
language about public health, planning, and other issues. The House Ways and Means
Committee's proposal is to cut that money from just Whatcom County, yet give the County
the opportunity to raise local taxes to make up that money. The local taxpayers would have
to pay the bill for all of the State's budget cuts. There is a reason for optimism. The
legislative committee's will probably not be enacted. The actual financial hit to Whatcom
County, from the Senate Ways and Means budget, will be only approximately $250,000
annually to Whatcom County. He will support the resolution.
Knutzen stated the Council received an email from the Health Department saying the
County should send a letter to the State legislators thanking them for not cutting the Health
Department money and even returning money.
Kremen stated that doesn't include the federal cuts.
Brenner stated the resolution just asks for the continuation of the funding. She's not
asking for anything different or new.
Mann stated they know the State doesn't have money. It is making cuts
everywhere. He doesn't know enough about the State budget to tell them where to make
their cuts. He doesn't want the State to come here and tell the County what to do with the
County's budget. He understands that every county has to lobby to protect its resources.
However, they will all see budget cuts. He doesn't want to get involved at this level of
detail. He doesn't know anything about the budget in Olympia.
Crawford stated the State appreciates hearing the County's priorities.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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 stated the State knows the County doesn't want budget cuts.
Crawford stated it would be difficult for the County Council to suggest other cuts. He
supports the resolution. The State and federal governments seem to threaten essential
services, such as law enforcement. Every program has advocates. He questions why they
go after public safety. There are other areas that the majority of people wouldn't view as
being this essential.
Brenner stated the State tells the County what to do all the time by passing laws
that the County has to obey. They pass a mandate that the County is stuck with. This
resolution asks so little. The State closed Western State Hospital. That was a public health
issue. The State has made severe cuts in the area of public health. This is a small request.
Darrell Sofield stated the amendment only addresses budget cuts associated with law
enforcement. More departments, such as health and public education, are facing cuts. If
they are going to act, make it broader. Make a resolution that addresses the whole county
rather than playing favorites with public safety issues.
Crawford stated they must be careful to operate in context. They are members of
the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), which has a huge lobbying effort.
This issue is covered. The prosecuting attorneys have a very powerful lobby in Olympia.
The Sheriff is a member of the State Sheriff's Association, which is all over this and other
issues. The context if this item is that the Council is responding to a request from the
Sheriff to advocate for an issue that directly impacts him and ultimately impacts everyone in
Whatcom County. The legislators will know that this isn't done in isolation. The County
spends a lot just to be a member of WSAC. It's taxpayer money going to Olympia to
advocate for all those issues.
Brenner stated this was done in a rush because things are moving fast in Olympia.
She's very concerned about cuts to public health and education. Education is not the
County's jurisdiction, but public health is. If someone provided her a draft resolution
regarding public health, she would have done that, too. The Council got this information
from the Executive.
Jack Louws, County Executive, referenced a letter he sent on Monday of this week
regarding State funding for multiple areas. He asked the State to be cognizant of the
County's concern that these are mandates for which the County needs funding. The
situation is very fluid in Olympia. He appreciates the work that Councilmember Kremen is
doing. The Senate proposal identifies just about everything that was in his letter. The
Council could add language that there are other issues about which the legislative
delegation should review. The county has six representatives at the State level. Of those
six, he's heard from three that they've received his letter.
Kremen stated he suggests that the County Council write a letter that vehemently
requests that the Senate Ways and Means budget be adopted. That budget only cuts
$250,000 for one year. That money would come from the liquor tax. There are no other
cuts involved. They want the Senate budget. Tell the legislators that is what they should
approve. It solves more concerns than this resolution does.
Knutzen stated he wants to make the State aware that the Sheriff's Office programs
are a priority.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, 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
Kremen stated he supports the resolution with the proviso that every councilmember
call all six legislators tomorrow to ask them to adopt the proposed Senate budget. He asks
all councilmembers to make those phone calls tomorrow.
Crawford stated there is a reason why Councilmember Kremen is an advocate and
understands how the politics work. He appreciates and respects what Councilmember
Kremen is saying. However, he doesn't advocate as a councilmember for something that he
doesn't know a lot about. Advocating for approval of something that is before the Ways and
Means Committee gets away from the Council's key role. If the State takes away the
funding, it should take away the rule. That's the message he'd like to send.
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstains: Weimer (1)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (10 :56 :11 PM)
Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.24.161 TO REDUCE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF CERTAIN CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED NON - RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL MIXED
USE ZONE (AB2012 -102)
2. ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE #2010 -067, ONE -TIME ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP EXTENSION (AB2012 -103)
3. ORDINANCE REDUCING THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S PETTY
CASH REVOLVING FUND (AB2012 -104)
OTHER BUSINESS (10 :56 :25 PM)
Brenner referenced the audience interruption that happened earlier this evening. It
was very depressing. She's afraid that people may no longer feel safe to speak to the
Council. That's not about democracy. People who are angry with the Council have been
here, but she's never seen anything like that. She's very discouraged by the display.
Crawford stated he feels the same way. He's glad the Committee of the Whole will
discuss preventing it in the future with the Sheriff and Prosecutor. The Council must
conduct business in an orderly way. That sort of disruption cannot occur.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (10 :58 :16 PM)
Kershner stated they all received an invitation to the retirement of Chuck Benjamin,
North Sound Mental Health Association Executive Director.
Whatcom County Council, 2/28/2012, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
1
1
1
i
1
2
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:59 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on March 27, 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, 2/28/2012, Page 19