HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 23 20121
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee
October 23, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(1:34:12 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Bill Knutzen and Kathy Kershner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES FOR
THE YEARS 2013 -2018 (AB2012 -327)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and stated this program is updated every other year. The proposed capital improvement
program (CIP) proposes seven County park projects. They are essentially the same
projects that are in the 2010 CIP. The CIP includes five trail projects, including projects in
the Lake Whatcom watershed on the reconveyance land. Five additional miles of trails have
been added to meet the level of service standard. A new 600 -bed jail continues in the plan.
Improvements are planned for existing county buildings, including the courthouse, civic
center annex, and Northwest Road annex. The CIP references the six -year transportation
improvement program (TIP) for transportation, which the Council approved in August. The
CIP also includes stormwater projects for Lake Whatcom and Birch Bay.
The proposal deletes the level of service (LOS) standard for maintenance and
operations (M &O) of buildings. The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not require LOS
standards for these types of facilities. He would like to delete the M &O standards from the
LOS section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission changes are shown in
the packet.
Mann asked if the second, final version of the Planning Commission discussion is in
the Council packet. Aamot stated it is.
Aamot continued the presentation and stated changes relating to law and justice are
on pages F16 through F18. Staff worked with the Sheriff's Office on language, and
proposed that language to the Planning Commission, which made modifications and adopted
them. He read the changes. The Council would initiate an amendment indicating that the
staff should review the LOS.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
Other changes are related to parks and trails, beginning on page F5. The original
acreage for developed parks at the beginning of the section must be revised, "1
6,374.61" given the inventory change by the Planning Commission.
On page F7, the Commission moved item six, the South Fork Regional Park acreage
to the inventory of existing developed parks to page F5. On page F9, funding for trails on
the Lake Whatcom reconveyance lands was modified. The funding starts in 2015 instead of
2013.
(1:41:27 PM)
Aamot asked if and when the Council wants to docket a proposal to review the LOS
for parkland and trail land. It can be done next year, in 2014 when the update to the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan is complete, or in 2016 with the Comprehensive Plan
update. They will have preliminary 20 -year population projections in 2014 and 2016.
Mann stated the definition of a developed park is significant. Changing the list of
existing parks based on an opinion of how a developed is defined may not be the correct
process. He asked how they define a developed park and if it's appropriate to make that
acreage change from 2,000 to 6,000. Aamot stated the process is to docket an amendment
to review the LOS. They don't have a definition of a developed park. They struggle with
this. The original 1996 CIP added existing County parks plus the proposed parks for the
next six years, added them together, and divided it by the population projected in six years.
The ultimate solution is to review it and create a definition or change the LOS.
Knutzen asked for an estimate of park land that includes the city and national parks.
Mann stated including the national parks in the inventory is a major change. They
are calculating the total population of the county, not just the rural population. When
calculating for the entire population base, they should use the entire park base.
Mann stated he suggests addressing the definition during work on the 2014 Park and
Recreation Open Space Plan.
Michelle Luke, Planning Commission, stated it was difficult without a definition of a
developed park. The Planning Commission struggled with total inventory versus developed
inventory. Park lands on the original list were equal to park lands not on the list. They
used a table that listed the parks and the uses that they provide. They developed a list of
parks that had the most uses.
Brenner referenced packet page 130, policy 4G -2, and asked about eliminating the
LOS standards for park facilities. Aamot stated that language on page 133 was just an
example to illustrate LOS, but the example no longer applies. The example was eliminated.
Mann stated the adopted level of service is in chapter 4, which they're not changing
for developed parks.
Brenner referenced packet page 135, item 20, and asked if the County owns Squires
Lake Park.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the County owns
Squires Lake Park.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
Mann asked if item 30, the Olsen property, is part of the South Fork regional park.
McFarland stated it isn't. The properties included in the South Fork regional park are the
Galbraith, Nesset, and Overby properties.
Mann referenced packet
practical effect on the County's
would need about 153 more ac
They must calculate how many
They don't need additional park
page 135 and asked if changing the list of parks has any
LOS obligations. Aamot referenced page F6 and stated they
-es to meet the level of service according to the calculation.
acres they need to get over the six -year planning period.
land to meet the LOS.
Mann stated they tripled the amount of developed parks. He asked the implications
in terms of maintenance or grants. McFarland stated the Planning Commission and Parks
Department wanted a list of all the park lands. County parks are diverse. When they
update the Comprehensive Plan, they need to know what they're talking about. Simply
having the list doesn't really mean a lot unless someone expects something to be there if
they visit.
Mann asked if there is liability to listing it as a developed park when it's not.
McFarland stated there isn't.
Brenner asked if they are going to pretend there isn't supposed to be a public park
on Portage Island. McFarland stated the State and National Park Service manage it. The
County gave up its interest in Portage Island. The State and federal government have the
burden of developing it as a public park. The County was reimbursed, and used that money
to buy Semiahmoo Park.
Brenner stated the County made a deal with the Lummi Nation to exchange Portage
Island in return for making the beach a public park, and they're not doing that. McFarland
stated that is correct, but that responsibility was transferred to the State.
Kremen stated he sent a letter to the State and federal agencies requesting them to
make Portage Island accessible to the public, but the response he received wasn't
productive.
Brenner stated there is plenty of open space /open space land that is supposed to be
treated as a park. She asked when will they begin to calculate open space /open space that
is available to the public, and asked that it be listed on the park list. Aamot stated include it
in the definition. When they add a lot of acreage to the inventory, they compare that to
what is needed, based upon LOS. This inventory far exceeds what they need. It implies
that they wouldn't need to add park acreage for years. If they revise the LOS in a couple of
years, it may not be that big of an issue.
Brenner asked if the Planning Commission is working on east county capital facilities.
Aamot stated they're done. It's a separate item.
Kershner asked if it is a problem to include the South Fork park in the list of
developed park and also include the funding. McFarland stated it's not. It's not a
developed park, but it is a park facility with open space lands. People can go onto that
property, but there's nothing there for them. By moving it off, it doesn't change funding.
This is a planning document, not a budget document. There is an additional service request
to move forward with the South Fork park planning. Additionally, there are park
improvement funds that will come forward in a budget supplemental request when the
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
project is scoped. Moving it into 2014 works with the timetable for the budget
supplemental.
Kershner stated the capital improvement program is incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan. Don't leave the County open for a challenge by the way they list
things. Aamot stated the acreage is typically added to the improvement project section.
McFarland stated they could put it into both places. The Planning Commission feels
it's really important to have it in the list. That's fine. Putting the acreage into the list of
park improvement projects is consistent. It will be developed.
Knutzen referenced council packet page 135 and asked if there is any place that
shows how many acres, in terms of the tax shift of property into open space /open space,
and also the tax shift related to lands dedicated to trusts in Whatcom County. Aamot stated
the councilmembers can talk to the open space staff person about open space /open space
and the geographic information system (GIS) staff about land in trust.
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they could
provide that information.
Brenner referenced Council packet page F9 and asked if Lake Whatcom trails on
reconveyance lands is delayed for a year. Aamot stated it is delayed for two years.
Brenner referenced packet page 147, the new paragraph, and asked which staff is
moving out of the civic center annex building. Aamot stated he doesn't know.
Brenner referenced packet page 148. She asked about current jail capacity and if
double- bunking is legal. She asked about the statement that says no new beds are needed
to comply with the adopted LOS, and if the adopted LOS must be legal. Aamot stated they
actually have and use 283 beds. That's what is in the inventory. This is just a numerical
exercise. There is a long- recognized need for more jail space.
Brenner stated amend language that shows an existing lack of space.
Kremen asked if staff worked with the Sheriff. Aamot stated he did. He also worked
with Wendy Jones and Jeff Parks on wording. The Planning Commission made minor
amendments.
Kremen asked if this is contrary to what the Sheriff expects. Aamot stated he
doesn't think so.
Brenner stated she's not comfortable with the language. It's very tame for what
they say is going on. She referenced packet page 151, and asked if the Horton Road
Connector is the extension of Slater Road. Aamot stated it is the extension of Horton Road
to Northwest Road, between Northwest and Aldrich.
Kremen stated this is to provide an alternative route from Northwest Road to
Cordata. It's not the same as Slater Road, which serves a different purpose. The idea is for
Slater Road to go all the way to the Mt. Baker Highway.
Mann asked for a map.
Brenner asked if they are talking about two separate roads.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
Kershner referenced page 152 and asked if there is not enough ferry service to
Lummi Island. Aamot stated that's correct. The ferry service does not meet the LOS. They
now have 305,000 trips, but need about 543,000 trips by 2018. There is a significant gap.
When updating the transportation chapter, it should be addressed.
Kershner asked if reducing ferry service to Lummi Island is contrary to this plan.
Aamot stated they can consider revising the LOS when the Comprehensive Plan comes up.
Kershner asked how they determine the LOS. Aamot stated a big part of capital
facility planning is funding. If there isn't funding, one option is to reduce the LOS to a level
that can be funded.
Mann stated the Council sets the LOS. Aamot stated the last time the Council set
the LOS was in 2002, when the Planning Commission decided to leave it the same as the
2000 LOS.
Brenner asked how they came up with a level of service of 513. Aamot stated that
level was established in the 1990's. They used the existing level and projected the
population out six years.
ferry.
Brenner stated the ferry was much cheaper then, and more people were using the
Luke stated the 513 trips per person includes delivery and service people.
Knutzen referenced packet page 155 and stated he has questions for Public Works
Department staff about Lake Whatcom projects. The Council can adjust these numbers if
necessary. Aamot stated this is updated every two years.
Kershner asked if projects must be in this plan to get funding. Aamot stated they
must, especially funding from real estate excise tax (REET) funds.
Kershner asked if park projects have to be in the plan to get grant funds. McFarland
stated they do. There is a list of projects that are REET - eligible. There can be placeholders
in case there is a catastrophic event.
Mann asked if other departments have an opportunity to add items as placeholders.
Aamot stated they do.
Brenner referenced packet page 159, items six through eight regarding configuration
of triage, the old jail, and the Northwest Annex. She asked if the Council has discussed
those items. Aamot stated he would have to ask Mike Russell about those items.
Kremen stated those amounts may have something to do with getting a new jail and
having to do whatever the County must do with the existing jail, when it's no longer the
main jail.
Brenner stated the Council has not ever talked about it. She wants to know what
they have in mind.
Kremen asked where the estimates came from. Aamot stated the estimates came
from Mike Russell.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
Kershner referenced packet page 159, item 1, and asked if it is a serious request.
She thought they already did that work. Aamot stated he would ask Mike Russell.
Kershner referenced packet page 159 about upgrading jail controls and whether they
already did that.
Brenner stated its part of the money from the bond.
Kremen stated they need to talk to Mike Russell about all this stuff.
Brenner stated they can hold this item in committee for those answers.
Aamot stated he will get information on open space and the Land Trust acreages
from staff. He will also get details from Mike Russell about projects one, two, and six
through eight.
Brenner stated the councilmembers will work on language for the jail.
Kershner referenced the old plan on packet page 186 and stated they just moved
those figures over to the new plan. If they've already spent that money, they don't need to
plan to spend it again. Aamot stated he will check with Mike Russell.
Aamot stated he asks the councilmembers to think about when they want to talk
about level of service standards.
Mann stated talk about it in 2014.
Kershner stated wait for firm population numbers.
Mann stated come with a suggested motion to bring it forward in 2014.
OTHER BUSINESS
Kershner referenced the presentation by Roger Brown a couple of months ago, and
asked if there was any committee action needed to move forward with Public Utility District
(PUD) and Economic Development Investment (EDI) money that was allocated to looking at
water rights in the community. She's heard people are waiting for a decision from the
Council. The Council authorized EDI funds to the PUD. A year ago, the Council expressed a
concern about the Planning Unit and has not provided feedback regarding that process, so
the PUD has not started its meetings and work.
(2:29:56 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated it's still a work in progress with the PUD and
other community players. They continue to identify where the major players are at. That
includes challenges by the Tribes at the federal level and how that ties to discussions with
water users in Whatcom County and the Coordinated Water System plans of the
municipalities and other major players. As soon as they find the appropriate path, he will
inform the Council. The out -of -water users would like Whatcom County to engage. He
doesn't know what role the County would play.
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
Kershner asked if the EDI money is being used, or if the PUD is waiting on the
Council. Louws stated he understands that contract isn't final yet. He will check into it.
Brenner stated have a presentation on water rights. The County should finance
legal action. She moved that Whatcom County agree to be involved in the water rights
test.
Louws stated seek legal advice before making major public statements about water
rights. The County doesn't own the water rights. They're held by private individuals, so the
rights are private. If the County is going to act on behalf of someone's private interest,
there are challenges. They must be able to act on behalf of the greater economic good of
Whatcom County. He understands the concern. If he finds a clear path to facilitate the
process, he would do that. Now they don't know what the process is. For now, allow more
of this to play out.
Brenner stated an important reason includes all the permits that will come through
the County. The County has led people to believe they are allowed to have water. A
second reason is that the County is obligated to the agricultural community. The County
made things difficult for everyone else to protect agriculture. The County has a very big
legal and moral obligation to be involved.
Louws stated he is very concerned about the agricultural and water users in the
County. This is a long -term process in which Whatcom County must engage appropriately.
There are some things Whatcom County must know before it can engage.
Brenner stated she's afraid that it will be too late by the time they get serious.
Mann stated they need to have a full, open discussion despite potential legal
barriers. Get a presentation in executive session from attorneys or water resource experts.
He's not ready to discuss how the County should get involved without discussion with legal
and water resources staff, which should probably happen in executive session.
Brenner stated there are too much politics from legal and water resources staff. The
Council should decide what it wants to do, and then hire someone outside the county.
Knutzen stated the frustration of the agricultural community is that the Tribal
interests already stated their intentions, which are contrary to what the rest of the county
wants to happen. The biggest concern is the long, involved, expensive litigation, and the
agricultural community doesn't want to see the County sit on the fence.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann and Kremen (2)
Mann moved to request the Executive and his legal and water resources staff give a
presentation in executive session at the Committee of the Whole meeting on November 7,
so the Council can understand what it's dealing with. He wants an opportunity to ask
questions without it coming up in a tribal lawsuit.
Louws stated not a lot has changed since the last time they addressed the Council
three or four months ago. There was a legal briefing in executive session. There also were
presentations from Roger Brown and Skip Richards. Not a lot has changed. Also, he asks
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, 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
that they wait a few more weeks instead of having Chris Brueske up -to -date by November
7. He would appreciate a little more time.
Brenner stated it sounds like they already got that information.
Mann stated it sounds like there are opinions that Councilmember Brenner has that
need to be shared with other councilmembers and staff. He has opinions and questions he
would like to discuss. It won't hurt to have a meeting. This issue is complicated. Having a
presentation once every four months isn't enough to analyze and understand the issue.
This is a huge issue. If there is a perception they aren't educating themselves or moving
forward, they must change it. They must at least educate themselves and move in one
direction. Keep exploring options. There is a limit to what they can discuss in public. He
amended his motion and moved to request the Executive and his legal and water
resources staff give a presentation in executive session at a Committee of the Whole
meeting in the future, when the Executive can arrange a meeting with staff.
Kershner stated she didn't intend for the committee to take action today, but to just
find out if action is necessary in the future.
Brenner stated she doesn't support the motion. It will be more of the same. Find a
way to do it. Don't find a reason to tell people they aren't going to do it.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Kremen (2)
Nays: Brenner (1)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@-.o.whatcorn.wa.us
Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 8