HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 8 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
May 8, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (7 :01 :30 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
MINUTES CONSENT (7 :02 :28 PM)
Mann 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. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 10, 2012
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APRIL 10, 2012
3. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR APRIL 17, 2012
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.10 (AB2012 -125A)
(7:03:15 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner stated that specific information about some of the items has not been
provided. She wants to know the condition of the items. They aren't declaring items
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
surplus to get money from the sale. The County doesn't receive more than pennies on the
dollar. The County should be declaring items surplus because the items aren't working well
anymore, and it costs more to repair them than to replace them, or the items aren't
working at all. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with some of these items. She's
not comfortable supporting the request without that information.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.14, WIND ENERGY
SYSTEMS (AB2011 -223A) (7:06:37 PM)
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services, stated the memo to the Council
referenced revised sections of the proposal that are indicated by italics, but the version of
the proposed ordinance in the packet did not have those sections italicized. He described
the changes were not shown in the packet and clarified each amendment.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Abe Jacobsen submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated don't give
special treatment to wind energy systems in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The science
doesn't indicate that problems with the lake have anything to do with solar or wind. Also
strike the abrupt switchover from 50 kilowatt threshold from 120 percent of total height to
2,000 feet. Nothing different happens at 50 kilowatts.
Joan Dow submitted a handout (on file) stated wind turbines are not needed.
According to science, they have not reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or caused the
closure of coal - powered plants. Emissions have gone up, and new coal plants have gone
online. The wind turbines are a danger to birds and bats. Property values have decreased.
There are negative health effects to people. Wind power is not reliable. Handout to clerk.
William Cox stated people neighboring wind turbines in California complained about
their size and visual blight. He moved to Bellingham for the natural beauty of the
mountains. The proposed wind ordinance will allow mountain scenery to be defaced. The
industrial wind facilities are out of scale with the community and environment. The public
opposes turbines in populated areas and on scenic hillsides. There is no public benefit in
Whatcom County. Prohibit industrial wind turbines in populated areas and from mountains
and ridgelines.
Alex Ramel, Sustainable Connections, stated the ordinance should not prohibit all
economically viable wind energy development in Whatcom County. Many in the community
are in favor of clean energy potential and the economic potential from wind energy systems.
This ordinance is a compromise.
Brenner asked what makes a project economically viable. Ramel stated the project
can work for project developers.
Brenner asked if project developers get subsidies that aren't necessarily a benefit.
Ramel stated the credits are based on production.
Ellen Baker stated wind energy systems are not sustainable without subsidies. She's
concerned about the compromises. Rural citizens must retain rural character, yet a wind
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
turbine can be on a ridge. They make noise and have impacts. A special activity will be
allowed to operate while citizens are constrained.
Wendy Harris stated she is opposed to the ordinance the permit approval process
requires a consultant report, but consultants can be hired to say anything. The ordinance
doesn't adequately protect wildlife. It doesn't protect bio- diversity or habitat. The critical
areas ordinances is weak in terms of protecting habitat. The requirement to camouflage is
dangerous to wildlife. Don't expand limits in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Consider the
impacts of roads to the turbines.
Atul Deshmane, Whole Energy Fuels President, stated he supports renewable energy.
They must create an environment in which they are creating fewer impacts than they are
creating today. Today, most electricity in North America comes from coal. All energy
sources have impacts. None of the choices are perfect. The challenge is to promote ideas
that have the fewest impacts. The impact of wind to birds is less than the impact of coal or
any other alternative. The impact of wind creates a source of diversity for the energy
supply that benefits them financially, creates jobs, and strengthens the economy. It's not
credible for people to oppose every idea. People have to find something to support.
Terry Meyer stated he supports the wind energy systems. They don't have a huge
impact to the watershed. There should be better precautions against visual impacts for
residents. Due to the untrue rumors about wind power, he can no longer employ his
employees.
Greg Brown stated that if this was a good business, the entrepreneurs would be
doing it. The gas companies built their own gas stations. The public shouldn't build
electrical stations to plug in cars.
Jim Grey stated he opposes wind turbines on top of Galbraith Mountain. Regardless
of the benefits of wind power, it would be a terrible blight on the ridgeline and viewscape.
People on the lake are prevented from cutting down rotten trees, so don't support a 500 -
foot tower.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the open session.
(7:36:08 PM)
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann moved to amend section 20.14.010, "The purpose of the ordinance is to
faeolitate regulate the installation and l-enst..uetien operation of wind energy systems in
Whatcom County for private landowners, subject to reasonable restrictions." It's important
that this ordinance is going to regulate operation, not just construction.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.020, "11. Rotor - A system of airfoils,
imn9oted to a blade with a flat eF eurved ^ ...faee- designed to provide a desired reaction force
relative to the movement of the surrounding air. The rotor is connected to a hub that
rotates around an axis."
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
Kershner asked if staff is okay with the amendment. Harrison stated he has not
received this information. It sounds okay.
weeks.
Crawford stated there are a lot of changes. They may have to bring it back in two
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.020, "16. Wind Turbine - The parts of the wind
energy system including the blades, generator and tail."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041, row two, "One or multiple SWES per parcel with
a cumulative rated output up to and including 50kW."
Kershner stated that amendment changes the multiple small wind energy system
row from an administrative permit to an outright permit, and would include all the zones for
permitting. She asked if that's the intent of the motion.
Mann stated it is. He asked if there is a problem with having two towers instead of
one, with half the energy output, on the same parcel.
Kershner asked how much energy a 50kW system will provide. Harrison stated it will
power ten to twenty homes.
Kershner asked if there is any benefit to installing five 10 kW towers instead of one
50 kW tower. Meyer stated there is no benefit.
Knutzen stated these are substantial changes. They will have to bring it back to the
Council. Forward these changes to Mr. Harrison for review and bring it back to the Council.
Anyone else who has changes should also forward them to Mr. Harrison.
Knutzen stated the Council should indicate which changes it is willing to accept
before Planning staff does work the Council isn't willing to accept.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. Allowing one tower that is 50 kW or less in
all zones is a good intermediate step. The fourth item allows multiple towers in certain
zones. That's reasonable.
Brenner stated people can have residential -sized wind generators that other people
wouldn't complain about. They're not very big. They're very functional. She has a real
problem with big generators. She will try to compromise and support the amendments, but
the enormous size of these systems should be in an area that doesn't have any other
options. Smaller, less harmful systems are an option. She worked on this for years, when
the industry brought forward the industrial size at the last minute, but she has problems
with these industrial systems.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Knutzen (3)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041, row three, "One or multiple WES with a
cumulative rated output greater than 50 kW up to and including 500 kW." The amendment
combines rows three and six.
Weimer asked if the required permit would be administrative or conditional use.
Mann stated it would be an administrative permit.
Kershner stated she won't support the amendment. Systems referenced in row six
can be substantial.
Mann stated that's why he capped it at 500 kW. The chart is out of order, which is
why he wants to make the changes.
Crawford asked the height of a tower that generates 500 kW. Harrison stated it can
be up to 500 feet, but that's not likely. Total height is more likely to be between 250 and
350 feet, depending on the site.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Kershner and Knutzen (5)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.041, to delete row four.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Crawford and Knutzen (2)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.052(1), row one, "1.2 times tet-a4 the tower height, to
a maximum of total height plus 20 feet."
Brenner stated that amendment does not include the rotor height.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann (1)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Mann moved to amend 20.14.052(1), row two, "2,000 feet from a property line,
unless the neighboring property is a CF, AG or HII zone, in which case the setback is 1.2
times the total height from the property line a+i-d or 3 times the total height from any
existing residential structure, whichever is more restrictive."
Kershner asked what happens if a residential structure is planned in the agriculture
zone, but not yet built, when someone installs a wind turbine. She asked if they are out of
luck.
Mann stated that as it is written, a turbine can be built 1.2 times away from an
existing house.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
Brenner stated that originally, these were not intended to be in the agriculture zone.
The agricultural advisory committee should review the amendment.
Mann stated the Council ran it past the Agricultural Advisory Committee twice.
Brenner stated they had one meeting on it. They had little background on it. She
wants to specifically know if they are comfortable with a 500 -foot wind tower and a
generator near the house. There could be many unintended consequences. They need to
talk to them more.
Mann asked if the agricultural advisory committee reviewed this. Harrison stated the
committee had a special meeting to review the ordinance and receive a staff presentation
on the impacts. The committee had a lot of discussion and proposed some
recommendations. They confirmed those recommendations at a regular meeting of the
committee six weeks later.
Mann asked if the committee was aware there could be a 500 -foot turbine in
agricultural lands. Harrison stated they were clearly aware.
Knutzen moved to refer to the Planning and Development Committee.
The motion to refer to the Planning and Development Committee carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner stated that councilmembers should send any other amendments to the
Clerk for inclusion in the packet for the next Planning Committee meeting.
OPEN SESSION (8:13:24 PM)
Kershner stated The Council has received a written legal opinion from the Whatcom
County Prosecutor's Office clarifying for us the question of whether or not we should receive
public comment on the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project during "open session."
We have been advised that such comment should not be allowed at this time.
The Prosecutor's Office advises that the basic principle of a fair hearing process is
that decisions are made entirely on the basis of the evidence contained in the record at the
time of the proceedings. Because of this, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, as codified
by Chapter 42.36 RCW, prohibits ex parte communications. An ex parte communication is a
one -sided communication between a decision -maker and the proponent or opponent of a
particular proposal which takes place outside of the formal hearing process on a quasi -
judicial matter. Our Prosecutor's Office believes that comments during open session,
outside of the formal hearing process, are ex parte communications. It should be
emphasized that the statute does allow for the submission of written comments, provided
they are made a part of the record.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
The following people spoke:
• Wendy Harris spoke about the aquatic invasive species plan.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Wendy Harris requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Greg Baker submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the Snowline Bear
Paw Lodge.
• Jim Hansen spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Greg Brown submitted and read from a handout (on file) and spoke about the
South Fork Park.
• Natalie Everett spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Karl Uppiano submitted and read from a handout (on file) and spoke about
government regulation and individual liberty.
• Rayma Blake spoke about the vacancies on the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory
Committee.
• Shane Roth spoke about the legal opinion regarding open session comments
about the Gateway Pacific Terminal.
• Russ Pfeiffer -Hoyt spoke about the South Fork Park and the appointment to
the Natural Resources Board of the Washington State Association of Counties
(WSAC).
• Tim Seratt spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Ellen Baker spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Lisa Oostema spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Elizabeth Green spoke about the South Fork Park.
• Leroy Harkness spoke about the South Fork Park.
CONSENT AGENDA (8 :53 :00 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 APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE ADDING AN
ADDITIONAL VENDOR, ENNIS PAINT, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF
WATERBORNE TRAFFIC LINE PAINT BY PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONS (AB2012 -168)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #12 -22
AND ENTER INTO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH THE LOW BIDDER,
MIKE'S ROOFING, INC. FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PORTIONS OF THE
COURTHOUSE ROOF, IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,527 (AB2012 -169)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -12 FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC MIXES TO BOTH
VENDORS WHO PLACED BIDS AND THEN PUBLIC WORKS STAFF WILL
SELECT THE VENDOR THAT IS THE BEST VALUE BASED ON PRICE AND
TRANSPORT COST TO THE SPECIFIC JOB SITE IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
APPROXIMATELY $85,000 (AB2012 -170)
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SOUTH FORK REGIONAL PARK CONCEPTUAL
PLAN (AB2012 -101) (8 :53:51 PM)
Kershner stated the resolution was up for consideration before the Council on March
27, when Councilmember Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Following much
discussion by the Council, the Council moved to postpone consideration of Councilmember
Crawford's motion to approve to this meeting. Therefore, Councilmember Crawford's
motion on March 27 to approve the resolution is on the floor and open for discussion.
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee, which recommended
approval of the resolution.
Brenner stated she does not support the motion. The Council needs to decide what
are essential public services and what are nice things to have. In this economy, the County
doesn't have a right to fund major parks, regardless of what it has already spent. The
ongoing costs of this park will be enormous. There is no decent protection of the people in
that area. The County needs to be able to afford enforcement and liability. She met with
the Executive to discuss the budget. The County will likely spend more than it brings in.
Liability and enforcement are ongoing costs. The Council hasn't seen a real estimate of
those costs. They must prioritize, and public health and safety are top priorities. A park
will bring in a group of people who ride all- terrain vehicles (ATVs) during all hours of the
week.
Knutzen stated he is against the resolution. The Nessetts gave their property to
Whatcom County so school kids could view a turn -of- the - century farm. It has become a
690 -acre playground for the Backcountry Horsemen. The original vision has changed into
something it wasn't meant to be. The Council has heard different justifications for the
expenditures. There is a million dollars plus interest sitting in an account. They're going to
have to cut money from the general budget. It would be nice to have that extra million
dollars. He is disappointed in the entire process. They have surrounded the Everett family
with a park. That has been poorly thought -out. The donations didn't turn out to be
donations. He won't support this.
Mann stated they need to work separately on the problem of people riding innertubes
down the river. The park history isn't perfect. He looked into all the conspiracy theories.
He's not comfortable with the question of the timber rights. The County Council spent a
long time on that decision, and voted for it. He can't find any evidence that they didn't
know what they were voting on. It's not fair to point fingers and make innuendoes about
backroom deals, dishonesty, and conspiracies. The Parks Department leadership wasn't
with Whatcom County when most of this happened. Mr. McFarland is incredibly
knowledgeable and hard - working. He didn't appreciate being threatened about not ever
having access to a particular property. The Council is trying to come up with something for
everyone. They may disagree. It's not true that the Council isn't listening. They just don't
agree. He will vote for the plan. It's extremely low- impact. It won't cost a lot of money to
implement.
Brenner stated the Council did not know the Nessett property was land- locked when
it purchased the property. The Council was specifically told during executive session that
the property had access.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
Knutzen stated past councils have voted certain ways. It's convenient this wasn't
brought forward last year, when the vote would have been different. They can wait on
these projects until they think they've got the votes to do it. The Council was told it would
cost $1.2 million to $1.6 million to complete this project. The administration will apply for
grants, but it's still taxpayer money. That doesn't include over $1 million that is sitting in
an account for the Nessett property. That's not a small amount of money.
Mann stated he's not working from a cost of $1.2 million to $1.6 million. He asked
how much it would cost to develop the park.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated there is a cost
range for park development. The next step is to fine -tune the estimate. For example, the
parking lot, trails, signs, and restrooms at Lily Point were done for less than $500,000. This
particular trail system sits on existing State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) roads.
Some bridges need to be replaced. They have partners on the project. The range can be
very broad. At a high end, it would cost around $750,000. He can't give an exact figure
right now. It will all come back to the Council in the form of requests, budgets, and grant
applications. He originally gave an estimate for improvements of $1.2 million to $1.6
million as a high range, without any other donations or groups participating.
Mann stated that is a sizeable amount of money.
Crawford asked the timeframe for developing the park. McFarland stated they have
to line up the funding and permitting first. That isn't in the work plan for this year. They
will at it next year.
Kershner stated it's not an easy decision. She's not opposed to the South Fork Park
or the plan, which is reasonable. She hoped there would be some agreement between the
Parks Department and the community. It sounds like there will be a huge rift. They can do
better. Any kind of a park plan should have community support. Therefore, she will not
support it at this time. They can come to an agreement, but they're not there yet.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer and Mann (4)
Nays: Brenner, Kershner and Knutzen (3)
2. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING INITIAL RESPONSE TO
THREAT OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN LAKE WHATCOM (AB2012 -042)
(9 :10:37 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the proposed initial response, with one small adjustment in the memo presented
in the Council packet, "attend or coordinate events."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCIES ON LUMMI ISLAND
FERRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - VARIOUS APPLICANTS (AB2012 -044A)
(9:13:03 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
See the attached spreadsheet for the vote tally.
The Council appointed Stu Clark, Charles Antholt, Robert Busch, Mike McKenzie,
Crispin Colburn, Joshua Zender, and Greg Brown.
Mann moved the that the four appointees with the most votes, Robert Busch,
Michael McKenzie, Joshua Zender, and Greg Brown, be appointed to the full three -year
terms. The remaining appointees will serve initial two -year terms.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
RACHEL LUCY CECKA TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY
BOARD (AB2012 -171) (9:24 :20 PM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
KATHY MCNAUGHTON TO THE BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY
COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (AB2012 -172) (9:25:02 PM)
Mann moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
6. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCIES ON SPECIAL DIKING
DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. APPLICANT(S): MARVIN
VREUGDENHIL FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 15 POSITION 2
AND MIKE HORAT FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 15 POSITION 3
(AB2012 -123) (9 :25:27 PM)
Knutzen moved to appoint Marvin Vreugdenhil and Mike Horat.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF A WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES MEMBER TO REPRESENTS COUNTIES ON THE BOARD OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (AB2012 -017) (9:26 :08 PM)
Crawford moved to nominate McIntyre and Gross.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
The selection carried by the following vote:
Gross: Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, and Kershner (4)
McIntyre: Kremen, Weimer and Mann (3)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (9:27:48 PM)
Crawford moved to accept Introduction Item one.
Mann suggested a friendly amendment to also introduce the interim wind
energy system moratorium (AB2011- 223C).
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
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, EIGHTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,782,566 (AB2012 -173)
2. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER THAN
500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A CUMULATIVE
RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 10 KILOWATTS (AB2011 -223C)
OTHER BUSINESS (9:29:20 PM)
1. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH
PLANNING FOR A NEW JAIL (PRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE JACK LOUWS AND
SHERIFF BILL ELFO) (AB2012 -156A)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to recommend that the full Council support the three action items listed in the memo to the
Council dated May 8, 2012 regarding new jail recommendations.
Brenner asked if these three action items are consistent with the recommendations
of the Jail Planning Task Force.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the jail planning task force did not recommend
that he or the Sheriff recommend a property purchase outside the downtown core. Based
on the task force recommendations, he and the Sheriff have concluded that the only logical
location for a new correctional facility is going to be outside the downtown core.
Brenner stated she supports the other two action items, but will abstain from the
vote because she's not sure about that one action item right now.
Mann stated he voted against the plan in Committee because they are ruling out the
option for a downtown facility before they've updated the needs assessment or hired a jail
planner. Otherwise, he supports the Executive with this proposal.
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstains: Brenner (1)
(9:33:21 PM)
Crawford reported that the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requests
Whatcom County to name creek Rufus Creek. He moved to authorize the Council Chair to
write a letter stating the County Council does not object to the name.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner reported she will attend the annual Point Roberts Voters Association meeting
and possibly other councilmembers may attend. The meeting is open to the public.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen stated he respects Parks and Recreation Department Director McFarland,
even though they may disagree. He also thanked Mr. McFarland for his work to coordinate
a meeting with the mountain biking community and State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). He and Councilmember Mann attended the meeting, which was very productive.
They will probably bring forward a request to the Council to finance access to the North Fork
for the mountain bike community.
Kremen stated he recently celebrated his 40th wedding anniversary.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on June 5, 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 .w a.us
Whatcom County Council, 5/8/2012, Page 12
Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee Vote Tally
Nominated
by:
NON - RESIDENT / NON - PROPERTY OWNER
Knutzen
Weimer
Knutzen
Mann
Crawford
Brenner
Kremen
Kershner
Total
Mann
Zender
x
Zender
x
Zender
x
Zender
Zender
x
Zender
x
Zender
x
6
Mann
Colburn
x
Colburn
lColburn
x
Colburn
x
Colburn
x
lColburn
Colburn
Mann
2
Mann
Brown
Brown
x
113rown
x
Brown
x
Brown
x
lBrown
x
Brown
x
6
Nominated
by: RESIDENT /PROPERTY OWNERS and REMAINING NON- RESIDENT(S) - ROUND 1
Weimer
Knutzen
Mann
Crawford
Brenner
Kremen
Kershner
Total
Mann
Clark
x
Clark
x
Clark
x
Clark
Clark
Clark
x
Clark
x
5
Mann
Antholt
Antholt
x
Antholt
Antholt
x
Antholt
x
Antholt
x
Antholt
4
Mann
Dickinson
Dickinson
Dickinson
Dickinson
x
Dickinson
x
Dickinson
Dickinson
2
Mann
Baker
x
Baker
Baker
Baker
Baker
Baker
Baker
x
2
Mann
Busch
x
Busch
Busch
x
Busch
x
Busch
x
Busch
x
Busch
x
6
Mann
Zuanich
Zuanich
Zuanich
x
Zuanich
Zuanich
x
jZuanich
Zuanich
1 2
Mann
Richardson
Richardson
x
Richardson
Richardson
x
Richardson
Richardson
Richardson
2
Mann
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
McKenzie
x
7
See above
Colburn
x
Colburn
x
Colburn
x
Colburn
Colburn
Colburn
x
Colburn
x
5