HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 10 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
January 10, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :07 :16 PM)
Crawford recognized and thanked retired County Auditor Shirley Forslof and former
County Executive Pete Kremen for their years of service to Whatcom County.
Forslof thanked the County Councilmembers.
Kremen thanked the Councilmembers.
Kershner announced that the Committee of the Whole addressed it's Annual
Reorganization of the Whatcom County Council (AB2012 -021) during the Committee
of the Whole meeting.
She thanked the County Council staff and Judge Ira Uhrig for the Oath of Office
Ceremony.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. COUNTY EXECUTIVE JACK LOUWS TO GIVE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO
THE COUNCIL (AB2012 -017) (7 :13 :23 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he congratulates Councilmembers Brenner,
Crawford, and Kremen for their election or reelection to the Council. He spoke about his
family's history with Whatcom County government and his goals as the new County
Executive, which include his plans for the Deputy Administrator position, a County Code
review, making a new jail a reality, revising the right -to -farm ordinance, and the biennial
budget for the next two years.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
MINUTES CONSENT (7 :19:46 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve the three Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2011
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 22, 2011
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 6, 2011
OPEN SESSION (7 :20 :13 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Bob Burr spoke about his recent experience in the Whatcom County jail.
• T. King spoke about the Occupy Bellingham eviction from Maritime Heritage
Park and the County jail system.
• Elizabeth Kilanowski submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the
Whatcom Watershed Information Network.
• Wendy Harris spoke about the County's plans to protect the environment in
the future.
• Shane Roth spoke about his application for the Planning Commission.
• Charles Law spoke about the need for public debate and comment and about
a mineral resource land (MRL) on Aldrich Road (AB2011 -435) being removed
from the Council agenda.
• Ronna Loerch spoke about councilmember comments regarding the Cascadia
Weekly, Caitac, and the clean up of Occupy Bellingham movement in the
park.
• Yoshi Revelle spoke about unearned income and resources and society's over-
consumption.
• Karen Weill spoke about appointing Shane Roth to the Whatcom County
Planning Commission.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Karen Weill requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Ken Carrascl submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about electric cars and
renewable energy for transportation.
• Kathy Berg submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the new
Implementation Subcommittee of the Birch Bay Steering Committee to
address the Birch Bay Subarea Plan.
• Doralee Booth spoke about the Waterfront Group at Birch Bay.
• Scott Hackett spoke submitted a handout and spoke about the Washington
State Grange.
• Steve Seymour spoke about his application to the Whatcom County Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee.
• Bonnie Barker spoke about her recent treatment by the Bellingham Police
Department and the County jail staff.
• Larry Helm spoke about the effect of an Occupy Bellingham event on area
businesses.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
• David Haggith, Washington State Dairy Federation, spoke about the
Federation's endorsements of specific citizens from the dairy industry who've
applied for citizen committee vacancies.
• Larry Williams spoke about the energy crisis.
• Chet Dow spoke about reappointing Gary Honcoop to the Whatcom County
Planning Commission.
• Joan Dow spoke about reappointing Gary Honcoop to the Whatcom County
Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTARY
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH RCW 36.70A.710 (AS AN
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CRITICAL AREAS PROTECTION FOR
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES) (AB2011 -279C) (8:07:56 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Karl Uppiano, stated the citizens of the county must not lose their capacity for self -
determination through its direct and accountable local government processes. The House
Bill is written from the State's perspective. Opting in to the program would muddy
jurisdictional boundaries and add an unnecessary layer of complexity to local planning
efforts. Direct control could be irretrievably lost. Opting in isn't required or necessary. The
Council can decide to not opt in. Opting in to the program is intended to increase the
State's input into local planning efforts that would seek to remedy any perceived
shortcomings or results. The United States was designed as a federation, a hierarchy of
governments. Control shouldn't become too concentrated. The Growth Management Act
(GMA) emphasizes the necessity to facilitate regional circumstances and preferences.
Preserve natural resources without forfeiting local rights.
Ellen Baker stated the program interests would extend jurisdiction -wide. If the
County opts in to the program, a small watershed could become a countywide concern. It
could become very complicated. There's not direct control, so things could happen that
they don't intend. The State can modify this legislation in the future. If the County opts in,
it could become embroiled in something over which the State has control.
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District, referenced letters from the District's
Board (on file) and stated they support opting in to the voluntary stewardship program.
They must find a better way to harmonize and protect agriculture and critical areas. The
community is in conflict now about where individual property rights and a community's
responsibility begin. Every farmer has affirmed they want clean, abundant supplies of
water. If they are having a negative impact, they want to fix it, as long as it's practical.
The program offers the community an opportunity to come together. They need to achieve
a better understanding of the importance of agriculture and critical areas. Recognize the
potential conflict between the two, and identify what can be done to accommodate both.
The community must reach consensus, which it hasn't done now, about when it's an
individual's responsibility to take protective actions versus when it's necessary for the
community to provide assistance to maintain viability of farmers and ranchers, when taking
extraordinary steps to enhance and protect critical areas are necessary. This is a local
process. The work plan is developed and submitted to the Commission, which can only say
that the plan is inadequate and send it back. The County doesn't lose local control if it does
or doesn't concur.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
Greg Brown stated he is opposed to opting in to the program. He agrees with
previous speakers. They need to solve conflicts internally. They don't need the State
involved. It's the County's job to determine whether a plan is adequate. Don't opt in to the
program.
Shannon Moore stated he supports opting in to the program. It's a good solution.
Give it a try. There is a lot of room for the farm community to participate. Many farmers
want to be good stewards and good farmers. It's a good concept. He does conservation
work every day. Over the past 20 years, he's seen many changes in the way farmers work
as good stewards.
Lindsay Taylor, ReSources North Sound Bay Keeper Team, stated she recommends
that the County not opt in to the program. The current critical areas ordinance (CAO) is
adequate for protecting farmland and critical areas from harmful impacts. The Conservation
District staff complements the CAO by offering numerous workshops, tours, presentations,
site visits, and assistance with farm plans. If more citizens volunteered to implement the
improvements and best management practices suggested by the Conservation District, the
water resources would not be so compromised, and the County would not be faced with
making this complicated decision. Only 80 landowners voluntarily requested a farm plan
from the Conservation District from December 2008 to December 2010. Ranches and
dairies along streams do not farm plans or adequate stream buffers despite the numerous
volunteer opportunities. The volunteer stewardship program is a volunteer -based system.
If volunteerism in Whatcom County continues at this rate, which is about five percent, they
will continue to have compromised waters in the future. If the County opts in to the
program, it will take years to identify priority watersheds, evaluate species and habitats,
organize and oversee watershed groups, and take the steps outlined in the program. The
voluntary stewardship program states that the watershed groups must provide measurable
benchmarks within ten years of funding. The funding is uncertain. A delay of ten years or
more is unacceptable. There is no difference between the goals of the program and the
CAO. Opportunities are already in place. Volunteer levels won't change with the program,
because the incentives aren't any different. The program doesn't include enforcement for
buffers and water quality violations. They have documented ongoing agricultural pollution
from manure draining into water courses. This has been happening for years despite
education programs. Although education and volunteerism are important, they can only
accomplish part of the job. Critical areas are critical in providing clean water and air. Don't
replace the CAO and Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands (CPAL) programs with a
volunteer -based system, because there aren't enough volunteers.
Scott Hackett, Whatcom County Granges President, stated they are opposed to the
opting in to the volunteer stewardship program. The County has a working CAO. Other
counties considering opting in don't yet have a CAO. The program's output and costs are
undefined. They don't know what they're getting into. Counties want to opt in to protect
themselves from environmental lawsuits. However, several groups are planning to sue
Whatcom County anyway, because this is a voluntary program.
Roger Almskaar submitted a handout (on file) and stated he speaks on behalf of the
Whatcom County Chapter of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights. A Ruckelshaus report
done two years ago compared the efforts of all 39 counties in dealing with agriculture and
critical areas. A conclusion of the report was that 33 of the 39 counties have exempted or
conditionally- exempted agriculture. Whatcom County went far beyond that with its buffers,
fences, and other requirements. They must do a much better job of writing and
implementing the critical areas ordinance. He read from his handout about the reasons for
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
not opting in to the program. It isn't necessary to involve the State. The program is too
complex. There would be a lack of local control. Local plans will be subject to legal
challenges. The funding is insufficient. He is in favor of the Executive's proposal to do a
code scrub.
Donna Shaw stated opt out of the program. There hasn't been enough time for a
public discussion. The issue has been very contentious for five years. Ceding County
authority to the State is an issue that needs more discussion. The State will let the County
opt in later if that's what the County wants. The Birch Bay stormwater district only has one
person on the board who lives in the Birch Bay area. There are two County employees, two
members of the Sierra Club, two members from Resources, one employee from British
Petroleum (BP), and one person who lives in the Birch Bay /Terrell Creek area. The rest all
live in Bellingham. Don't take control further away from local property owners by turning it
over to the State.
Dan Wood, Washington Farm Bureau, stated he filed the last three property rights
initiatives in the state. It's a misunderstanding of the property rights movement to suggest
the voluntary stewardship program is harmful to property rights. It's not about a choice to
opt out of the Growth Management Act. They tried, but was not able to get it through the
legislature. Therefore, they created a voluntary stewardship program that 35 agricultural
organizations have supported. It protects the property rights of farmers and also makes it
safe to address the needs of critical areas. Under the old system, which will be in effect if
the County doesn't opt in to the program, the County will have to review and revise the CAO
related to agricultural activities. The County will likely be sued, because some people don't
think they are regulating agriculture enough, and some people want CPAL to go away.
There is no funding from the State to deal with that. The old system has regulatory
approaches, appeals to boards and courts, and court orders. They could regulate away the
ability of farmers to use their lands, and it's an unfunded mandate. The new program is
voluntary. There are no appeal provisions. The appeals under the GMA are tied to Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.040. This program is an alternative to that. There are
no court orders under the program. Agricultural activities are protected. The County
doesn't have to move forward unless it receives funding. The program includes a process to
identify where agriculture is harming critical areas and the environment, so they can fix it
with voluntary measures. The GMA doesn't include credit for voluntary efforts.
Skip Richards stated the claims from the previous speaker have no legal force and
effect. There is no accountability or liability. The Act, once passed, vests all that authority
in the State Conservation Commission. Many questions remain unanswered. The Act is
complex. County legal counsel contradicted the claim of coverage against lawsuits. He
submitted questions to the Conservation Commission two months ago, and has heard
nothing back. The Conservation Commission hasn't updated its website since August 16.
He's not the only person who has raised these questions. Move on with the substance of
the CAO first, and then maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural
environment and human activity. He recommends the County not opt in to the program.
Wendy Harris stated she is opposed to the program due to funding and timing
issues. They don't have the luxury of time. They have severely degraded watersheds,
including Drayton Harbor. She is concerned that the program will cause more delays. If
funding doesn't come, they will have done nothing but waste more time and allow more
degradation to occur. The water resources inventory area (WRIA) process indicated that
there are problems with working together and finding consensus in handling water quality
issues. This program will be just as contentious. However, it's important to acknowledge
that the existing CAO doesn't work. Neither of the two options will really work. It's
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
important to move to option three, which is making the critical area work. The CAO doesn't
work because it isn't funded or enforced. They need more regulation, which is expensive.
It's appropriate for the County to subsidize environmental protection on farmland, because
they want food and the farmers to have a profit. It's just as important to protect the
environment.
Ronna Loerch stated a local farmer told her that he has an enormous number of
regulation layers, including 12 State permits and 12 federal permits, just to run his farm.
He doesn't operate with a profit. The CAO needs work. She trusts the farmer's desire to
not opt in to the program.
Larry Helms stated he is a farmer. The bill doesn't say who will be appointed to the
committee or what the committee will do. It doesn't describe the costs. Don't opt in to
something that is bad government. Demand a better deal from the legislature. The
farming community has the knowledge, facilitators, and resources to do whatever they want
to make these decisions. The question is whether they have the will. They don't need
Olympia to make decisions for the County.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Mann stated he supports not opting in to the program.
Knutzen moved to opt in to the voluntary stewardship program with option that
includes all of water resources inventory area (WRIA) 1. It is a very complicated bill that is
hard to understand and read. He is left with the question of who he trusts. He's talked to
most of the agricultural community and their organizations, who say the County should opt
in to the program. The agricultural community is under attack in many ways. Do whatever
they can to sustain the agricultural community.
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the resolution for
alternative three is to opt in for all of WRIA 1.
Knutzen asked if the Council would designate the priority watersheds after the
County opts in to the program. Gill stated opting in is nominating it as a priority watershed.
Crawford stated the County legal counsel met with the Council today and said he was
confused as to why there is a claim that there is not going to be an opportunity for appeal.
He read from RCW 36.70A.280(1)(c). He asked Dan Wood, Washington Farm Bureau,
about the possibility of appeals.
Wood stated the appeals in general under the Growth Management Act are tied to
RCW 36.70A.040. This bill is an alternative to RCW 36.70A.040, so they take away the
basis and provision for appeal. They also included language in the legislation that says this
is not appealable under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The staff of the
Washington State Association of Counties has the same interpretation. The specific
language in RCW 36.70A.280 has to do with options for the County if it first opts in to the
voluntary stewardship program, and then come out of the program. The County has
options that it wouldn't have if it doesn't opt in to the program in the first place, including
the option to choose a model from amongst the existing upheld CAOs of four counties,
including Whatcom County's CAO. Whatcom County can only choose one of those CAOs if it
was first a county participating in the voluntary stewardship program, and then come back
out of the program. They are basically back in to the system as it is now, with a few more
options. If the County chooses the Whatcom County model after coming out of the
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
program, one of the questions that can be appealed is whether there is enough similarity
between Whatcom County and Whatcom County, to where it's regionally applicable. They
are limited to that one appeal if they choose the Whatcom County model.
Another option is if Whatcom County chooses its own CAO, and asks the Department
of Commerce to first certify it. Then the State will defend an appeal.
Crawford asked Mr. Wood to explain what specific legislation that says the County
isn't going to be subject to the kind of litigation that it is today, without being in the
program. Wood stated anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit, even if there is no basis for it.
Eric Johnson has been clear about saying it doesn't mean someone is restricted from filing a
claim. However, there is no basis for a claim under the program. They've taken away the
appeal process by moving it from RCW 36.70A.40 to the alternative to RCW 36.70A.040.
The legislation doesn't specifically say one can't appeal, but there is no provision for
appeals. Language was added that this isn't appealable under SEPA.
Brenner stated she is against the motion. Everyone seems sincere. SEPA is only
one part of the law. The Council decision can be and will be appealed. She has no
confidence that the State will defend the County. The State can refuse to say that the plan
is adequate. She doesn't trust the State. She trusts local government more than the State.
There's no such thing as free money. If the County gets the money, it will be required to do
much more. Many farmers are so desperate that they hope it will work. Farmers have been
treated horribly. The County has prioritized agricultural land, but not farmers. They need
to work on that. This is an opportunity to fine -tune the existing critical areas ordinance.
The County will get sued no matter what. She would rather make the decisions locally.
Kremen stated he has many reservations about this proposal. The objectives and
goals are laudable. He commends the maker of the motion for his steadfast and
unwavering support of agriculture during his time on the County Council. However, this
proposal is a false expectation with a lot of unknowns. He has concerns about local control,
the State of Washington, and accountability. Therefore, he won't support the motion. He
does respect Councilmember Knutzen for championing agriculture in the community.
Mann stated he agrees with Councilmembers Brenner and Kremen. This will be a lot
of time consuming and wasteful paperwork, which is the last thing that farmers need. It will
be expensive. The funds won't ever materialize. Any time and energy the County puts into
it now will be for nothing, even if they opt in to the program. There are too many
unanswered questions. The Council must know what it's dealing with. The loss of local
control is a big concern. He likes having local control. They may have disagreements, but
they are local disagreements. Everyone knows who they're dealing with. There is benefit to
that.
They do want to support agriculture, and many agricultural groups support this
program. However, there are complexities and unknowns. He's not confident the benefits
exist. He's not willing to do this right now. He credits Greg Brown for bringing this forward
in the first place and for creating awareness, concern, and scrutiny.
Weimer stated the environmentalists, Tribes, and property rights advocates are all
saying the County should not opt in to the program. He congratulates the Ruckelshaus
people for bringing all those groups together. He is against the motion. He lived through
the WRIA process. Good things came out of that process. To a great degree, it was a
State -led process that cost the County much more than the value of the benefits the County
received. The same thing will happen here. The State promises the County $100,000 or
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
$150,000 per year, which isn't nearly sufficient to accomplish this work. It will create a
false expectation that the County will be able to help farmers with more than the money will
provide.
The CAO currently is being used as an example in the Ruckelshaus program of what
other communities ought to adopt to be in compliance. The County already has this in place
and a method for tweaking this and allowing farmers to have flexibility. The Agricultural
Advisory Committee provided the County with a list of things it wants the Council to work
on. This was not on that list. This program will divert the Council from working on those
items on the list. He will not support the motion.
Knutzen stated he supports the motion. He's heard repeatedly about local control.
The farmers have the State Department of Ecology, State Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the Department of Agriculture, and the Conservation Districts telling them what they have
to do. The program does provide local control. The agricultural community has done their
research and hired their own attorney to research this bill. The councilmembers are saying
they don't understand the bill. The farmers hired someone who understands it to talk to the
councilmembers. The farmers brought someone here who was involved in the process.
Now the Council is saying it still doesn't understand the program. Trust the local
community and what they advise the Council. The County won't get this opportunity again.
It must decide by January 22. Many different agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), are already telling these farmers how to do their jobs. Support
the motion.
Brenner stated those State agencies will still be involved. The federal agencies will
still be involved. The County can't tell the federal agencies to not be involved. The hardest
thing to accept is the rush to get this done. The Council has had little time to look at the
program. She's suspicious of the motives and timing.
Crawford stated he supports the motion with some reluctance and concern. The
Council's legal counsel has expressed concerns about one of the advertised benefits of the
program, which is the potential for less litigation. Having worked with the Farm Bureau,
he's committed to them that he would respect their recommendation about opting in. They
hired a respected attorney who advised the Farm Bureau that the legislation is okay. The
County Council tried for a long time to get funding for the CPAL farm plans. The other
advertised benefit is that the County will receive badly- needed funding. Some of these
farming families have been here for over 100 years. Financial assistance for the plan
evaluations will be helpful to the farmers. Nothing applies until the County receives the
funding. If the County opts in, but doesn't see results, it can opt out after two years.
Whatcom County's plan is a model plan for the other counties. The Hearing Board has
turned into a frustrating political appointment game that doesn't work well. If any of this
ends up in court, a judge would have a hard time looking at the initial legislation that points
to the current CAO and say the County doesn't meet the expectations and should therefore
be sued. He will support the motion.
Knutzen stated Futurewise supports the program. Some in the environmental
community do support the program. There is an evenly- divided opinion.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW
ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE (AB2011 -431) (9:04:40 PM)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
adopt the ordinance.
Crawford stated he is in favor of the ordinance. It's a great thing. Given the
changing times and potential Code scrub, they should allow other things in many of these
zones. This change makes sense.
Brenner stated she supports the ordinance. Any Code scrub should say, in every
section necessary, any use not mentioned in the Code is allowed. There is no way they can
keep up with everything, including really good environmental solutions. They violate the
law all the time without knowing it. Make sure that people aren't violating the law just by
doing something if it's not in the Code.
Mann stated he supports the ordinance. He would like to see a more permissive
proposal come out of the Planning Commission. It's reasonable to have these charging
stations in other places. Given the time it takes to fill a car with gas versus to charge a car,
someone would need a station larger than a typical gas station. It's fine as it is now. They
won't need charging stations on every corner soon. If they see a need for more charging
stations, they can change the Code. Adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Knutzen (out of the room) (1)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP AND ZONING MAP TO REMOVE A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS (MRL)
ZONING OVERLAY FROM THE EXISTING RURAL (R10) ZONE AND CHANGE
THE MRL DESIGNATION TO RURAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES ON
ALDRICH ROAD (AB2011 -435)
(Clerk's Note: This item was withdrawn from the agenda.)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON
COUNTIES INSURANCE POOL AND COUNTIES AND OTHER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF JOINT PURCHASE OF
INSURANCE AND FOR FUNDING OF SELF - INSURED BENEFITS FOR
EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS (AB2012 -034) (9 :08 :17 PM)
Crawford 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. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
THE OPERATION OF VARIOUS HEALTH DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,401,597 (AB2012 -035) (9:08 :59 PM)
Kremen 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)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BENNETT ENGINEERING TO
PROVIDE REQUIRED MONITORING SERVICES FOR THE CEDARVILLE AND Y
ROAD LANDFILLS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,290 (AB2012 -036) (9 :09 :37 PM)
Crawford moved to approve the request and asked the Chair to read an email from
John Hutchings from the Public Works Department.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
6. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF CHECKS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL INMATE TRUST FUND
(AB2012 -038) (9 :11 :17 PM)
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. ORDINANCE REPEALING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 2.65, ELECTION
PRECINCT OFFICERS (AB2011 -432) (9 :11 :43 PM)
Crawford 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. ANNUAL COUNTY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON
VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES: VARIOUS
APPLICANTS (APPOINTMENTS TAKE EFFECT ON FEBRUARY 1, 2012)
(AB2011 -389) (9 :12 :35 PM)
Kershner thanked everyone who applied to serve.
Birch Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Council appointed Bradley Carter.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
Board of Equalization - District 2
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Council appointed Sonya Merk.
Horticulture Pest and Disease Board
Crawford moved to appoint Brian Ciesler and John Davies by acclamation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Planning Commission - District 2
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Council appointed Gary Honcoop.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Crawford moved to appoint Marjorie Ann Leone.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Surface Mining Advisory Committee
Brenner moved to appoint James F. Carr, Chris Hatch, and Jason Vander Veen by
acclamation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
9. ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BIRCH BAY
WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (BBWARM)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE THREE FLOOD SUBZONE ADVISORY
COMMITTEES FROM ACME /VAN ZANDT, LYNDEN /EVERSON, AND
SUMAS / EVERSON/ NOOKSACK: VARIOUS APPLICANTS (APPOINTMENTS
TAKE EFFECT ON FEBRUARY 1, 2012) (AB2011 -389A)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee - Impacted Cities
Knutzen moved to appoint Robert Bromley and John Perry by acclamation.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee — Geographic Areas
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Board of Supervisors appointed Scott Bedlington, Steve Seymour, and Dan
McShane.
Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee — Special Districts
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Board of Supervisors appointed Ron Bronsema and Harry Williams.
Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resource Management (BBWARM) Advisory Committee
Crawford nominated Carter, Garman, and Inloes. He asked if applicant Scott Inloes
meets the residency requirement of the position, or if the applicant is a British Petroleum -
(BP) represented position.
Kathy Berg stated BP is a part of BBWARM Advisory Committee. They originally had
an employee who was very qualified for this kind of work on the Advisory Committee. It's
appropriate to carry on the tradition of allowing BP to be represented.
Crawford asked if there is already a BP representative on the Advisory Committee,
and this would be a second seat for BP. Berg stated she doesn't believe so.
Crawford stated there was testimony that most people on the Advisory Committee
don't live in the area. He asked if that is correct. Berg stated she doesn't know about the
resident requirements.
Crawford stated the address on Mr. Inloes' application is the business address for BP.
He has questions, given the concern raised earlier, but he doesn't know if that's true. Berg
it's not true that all the committee members live in Bellingham. Everyone knows they work
for BP. She doesn't know their personal residences.
Brenner asked if Bradley Carter lives in the area.
Crawford stated he does.
Brenner asked if there is a problem with the appointment if a person doesn't live in
the district.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she can look at the ordinance.
Brenner moved to hold these appointments in Council until the Council receives
answers.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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 failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Kremen (2)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Crawford voted for Garmen and Inloes.
Kremen asked how the Council can proceed if it's unclear or unknown whether the
applicant must reside in the district. Frakes stated she can look at the ordinance.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item continued later in the meeting.)
Acme /Van Zandt Flood Subzone Advisory Committee
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Board of Supervisors appointed John La Monte and Galen Smith.
Lynden /Everson Flood Subzone Advisory Committee
(Clerk's Note: See the attached voting tally.)
The Board of Supervisors appointed Ron Bronsema and Jeff De Jong.
Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resource Management (BBWARM) Advisory Committee
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item is continued from earlier in the meeting.)
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the ordinance regarding residency
requirements isn't clear. She prefers that the Council hold appointments until they can
review the ordinance.
Brenner moved to hold in Council the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources
Management appointments.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
10. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS
AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES IN
PREPARATION FOR THE YEAR 2012 (AB2012 -037) (9:41:15 PM)
Brenner moved to confirm all the appointments by acclamation.
Weimer asked if these appointments are being made by Executive Louws or former
Executive Kremen.
Jack Louws, Executive, stated he hasn't had the opportunity to meet with the
applicants, so the appointments are the work of former Executive Kremen. He defers to Mr.
Kremen, who has done a good job of vetting these people. He looks forward to working
with the appointees.
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
Weimer asked if he could see the names of all the people who applied, not just who
is appointed, in the future.
Kremen stated that in most cases, these were sole applicants. A couple of the
positions had one or two other applicants. That's been the case for the 16 years during
which he was County Executive.
Brenner read the committees and the names of all the appointees.
Kremen asked if he has to abstain or if he is able to vote.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO CREATE A MINERAL
RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION AND ZONING OVERLAY OFF OF DORAN AND
BOWMAN ROADS IN THE SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK VALLEY, SOUTH OF ACME
(AB2011 -232)
(Clerk's Note: This item was withdrawn from the agenda.)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP AND ZONING MAP TO REMOVE A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS (MRL)
ZONING OVERLAY FROM THE EXISTING RURAL (R10) ZONE AND CHANGE
THE MRL DESIGNATION TO RURAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES ON
ALDRICH ROAD (AB2011 -435)
(Clerk's Note: This item was withdrawn from the agenda.)
3. MOTION AND VOTE TO APPROVE THE ABOVE - ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS CONCURRENTLY (AB2011 -104)
(Clerk's Note: This item was withdrawn from the agenda.)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (9 :46 :27 PM)
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items, including a substitute for
Introduction Item one.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FOURTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF T961,659 $1,189,558 (AB2012 -039)
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, 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
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.14 WIND ENERGY
SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223)
3. ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO GEORGIA MANOR
WATER ASSOCIATION TO ALLOW FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER TO
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, APPLICATIONS FOR SAME HAVING BEEN FILED BY
LINNEA G. SMITH, AUTHORIZED AGENT, RECEIVED BY COUNCIL 5/4/11
(AB2011 -181)
4. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS SMALLER
THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2012 -040)
OTHER BUSINESS
Kershner stated that on future Council agendas, public hearings items will be
scheduled before the open session. Public hearings are announced to the community, and
many community members come to speak at the hearings. Also, many county staff
members attend to give staff reports for those items. The change respects the community
members who come to speak on those items.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Kremen stated he commends Councilmember Kershner for doing an excellent job
chairing the first Council meeting of her term as Council Chair.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on February 14 , 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Whatcom County Council, 1/10/2012, Page 15