HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil December 6 20111
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
54
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
December 6, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Tony Larson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:02:47 PM)
Crawford recognized and thanked Councilmember Larson for serving on the County
Council and campaigning for the position two years in a row. He read from and presented a
certificate of appreciation.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION BY PETER DWORKIN AND LISA MCSHANE REGARDING JAIL
PLANNING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS (AB2011 -078C) (7:03:41 PM)
Crawford introduced the speakers.
Peter Dworkin, Jail Planning Task Force Co- Chair, referenced the Jail Planning Task
Force Recommendations to the County Council, dated December 6, 2011 (on file) and
described the three main points: retain a professional jail planner; continue the Task Force,
and; Reestablish the Law and Justice Council.
Lisa McShane, Jail Planning Task Force Co- Chair, stated it's important to hire a jail
planner quickly. She thanked members of the public who come to their Task Force
meetings.
MINUTES CONSENT (7:08:56 PM)
Mann moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2011
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2011
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2011
4. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR NOVEMBER 22, 2011
OPEN SESSION (7:09:25 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Mike McKenzie spoke about the ferry and Lummi Island Task Force
recommendations.
• Stewart Rich submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the Lummi Island
Task Force recommendations (handout).
• Clayton Petree submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about housing
affordability.
• Kay Sardo submitted a handout (on file) and spoke about the loss of social
services and jail costs.
• Don Hansey spoke about serving on the County Council for its first 13 years
and thanked Tony Larsen.
• Irene Morgan, Whatcom County Reentry Coalition Founder, spoke about the
Jail Planning Task Force and alternatives to jail.
• Joy Guilfillen, Whatcom County Reentry Coalition President, spoke about
restorative justice.
• Ronna Loerch spoke about the Occupy Movement and using a consensus
process for decision - making.
• Dick Whitmore spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Tom Westergreen spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Diane Kanda, Right Size Jail Coalition Member, spoke about the Jail Task
Force Recommendations.
• Eric Copine spoke about the Occupy Bellingham movement, mental health
facilities in the jail system, and commuter rail service from Bellingham to
Seattle.
• James Bachman spoke about jail alternatives to help those in need.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following James Bachman requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Steve Howie spoke about creating a public, education, and government (PEG)
station with Comcast.
• Shane Roth, spoke about Consent Agenda item 4, AB2011 -400, regarding the
contract with ReSources.
• Katie Fleming, ReSources Youth Education Manager, spoke about Consent
Agenda item 4, AB2011 -400, regarding the contract with ReSources.
• Greg Brown spoke about the Jail Planning Task Force.
• Mike Gleason spoke about E- Verify and the Economic Development
Investment (EDI) programs.
• Larry Helm spoke about the Jail Planning Task Force.
• Christina Maginnis spoke about Consent Agenda item 32 regarding EDI
funding.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 552
ACRES IN THE SMITH ROAD /GUIDE MERIDIAN AREA (CAITAC USA) FROM
R10A TO RSA (AB2011 -345) (8:02 :26 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Michelle Luke submitted and read from a handout (on file) and described the
Planning Commission process for it's review of the Caitac rezone applications and limited
area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD). The Planning voted to recommend
approval. Most believed that the best use of the property is urban development.
Becky Taylor stated she supports the ordinance. The Association of Realtors support
the proposal. Caitac is a natural extension of Cordata. It has existing infrastructure.
Caitac is not suitable for agricultural protection.
Perry Eskridge submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated the
Association of Realtors supports the ordinance. It is not agricultural land. It is a property
rights issue. The City of Bellingham has opposed the project, but it won't update their plan
until 2016. The area has water and sewer nearby from the City.
Ronna Loerch stated she is against the ordinance. The property is rural. Leave the
perennial grass. It is good for the environment. They are acquiescing to a developer.
Caitac owns a lot of property and is a sizeable corporation. This speaks to the issue of
greed.
Thelma Follett submitted a handout (on file) and stated she is against the ordinance.
It sets an unhealthy and dangerous precedent to upzone. There is no need for increased
rural development. According to the Cascadia Weekly, the plan will result in sprawling
Bellingham to double its size. According to a blogger, Caitac has not fulfilled its promises
that include affordable housing, youth sports, schools, farmland conservation, and salmon
recovery. Don't rely on the testimony of Caitac. She continued to quote from the Cascadia
Weekly's coverage of the issue.
Carol Follett stated she is against the ordinance. Once they cover fertile ground,
they can't go restore it. They must wait to make these decisions more carefully. They don't
need this land now. Instead, redevelop existing places. Protect the farmland.
Patrick Alesse stated he is against the ordinance. Other people's service dollars must
support people who want their property rights protected. Leave development in the city.
Kane Hall stated he's concerned the Caitac development will adversely affect
downtown and development in the city. The zoning amendment is not consistent with the
Growth Management Act (GMA). They must protect a strong urban core and sustainable
agriculture. Develop within the urban growth area (UGA).
Brian Evans submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated he is the
Executive Officer of the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, which supports
the ordinances. The rezones make the zone similar to surrounding properties. It will
benefit the building community. The cluster housing concept impacts less area. This
project embodies green building and low impact building. He is a member of the Meridian
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
School District School Board, which supports doing business with Caitac and supports the
increased taxes. He lives in the neighborhood, and supports the ordinance as a citizen.
Dan McShane described the history of this area. Feeling sorry for Caitac because it
was left out of the urban growth area is not the issue. The decision is changing the rural
zoning of this rural area. He referenced Comprehensive Plan policy 2GG -4. If the Council
approves this ordinance, it will violate this policy. They want rural character to be defined
by existing rural character that is there. Therefore, they ought no change the rural
character in a pocket surrounded by rural areas. The clustered lots proposed are 12,500
square feet. If including the roads, that's not near the density the Council established for
urban density for the city of Bellingham.
David Christensen stated he supports the ordinance in order to be consistent with
surrounding properties. The people are already coming to the area for recreation. It would
create jobs in a way consistent with the way it's already used. It is consistent with existing
uses and planning principles.
Chet Dow stated he supports the ordinance. Failing to approve the ordinance will
perpetuate sprawl and leapfrogging out into the county. There is a lot of land in one place
to build housing efficiently to provide modestly priced housing.
Bonnie Barker stated she is against the ordinance due to traffic concerns.
Bob Carmichael submitted a handout (on file) and stated this project is different from
the project proposed in 2006. One objective is to preserve the rural character of the
property. Another objective is to preserve the potential of the property for future urban
growth. This will preserve the rural character and potential for future urban growth per the
development agreement. He described the conditions of the development agreement.
Adopt the ordinance.
Jean Melious stated she is against the ordinance. The development is in a rural area.
It doesn't make sense to say they are going to decrease rural development by increasing
rural development. They don't need more rural population. They can already accommodate
the future rural population.
Nathan Vickers stated he supports the ordinance. Caitac has been a good employer
for him and other long -term employees. Caitac supports the local community. Caitac wants
to help the City and County residents with unemployment.
Jack Petree stated he supports the ordinance. The golf course is surrounded by
nothing. There are miles of development beyond Bellingham. Caitac will help funnel
development closer to Bellingham.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone is a rural zone, despite
what Futurewise said it was in a previous document. Her support of this item doesn't mean
she supports the next item.
Kershner stated she has considered all the information and listened to the public
testimony. She rejects any article placed in the Cascadia Weekly or anybody's blog as being
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
factually based. She finds that the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner are true, accurate,
and have merit.
Larson stated it's not a fact that he or any other councilmember feels sorry for Caitac
or any developer. These decisions don't have to do with who the applicant is. They look at
a lot of information. What matters is whether or not it makes sense. They don't always
seem to look at the big picture. This is transition zoning from rural, one unit per ten acres
(R10A) to R5A, consistent with the areas around it. He supports the ordinance.
Mann stated that in the big picture, this is a good place to put people. He is against
the ordinance. It will damage the existing housing market in the City of Bellingham. They
have a housing glut right now. If this is supposed to be affordable housing, it will be the
first affordable golf course community in the history of America. He doesn't believe the
assertion that this will be an affordable housing project. His vote on this doesn't reflect his
vote on the next item.
Weimer stated he consistently supported the original Caitac proposal. It was a well -
thought out and environmentally friendly proposal. It was everything they want for urban
planning in a green field. The problem was they just didn't need it yet due to the existing
urban growth areas in the City of Bellingham. They still don't need it. He agrees that this
won't be developed as affordable housing. They hear how the City of Bellingham is not
doing enough infill. Building 100 houses outside the City of Bellingham won't help that
problem. People aren't building in the City because they have thousands of lots in rural
areas that shouldn't be there. Those lots have no impact fees, urban services, or good
building standards, so they're cheaper. As long as they continue to build lots in rural areas,
the cities will continue to have problems developing. He is against the ordinance.
Brenner stated their charge isn't to just do what someone subjectively decides is
needed. Their charge is to provide predictability. The area has R5A zones all around it. It
is rural, and they're keeping it rural. The developer is going to put all the lots close
together and have a big open area that will never be developed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP
AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 9
ACRES IN THE SMITH ROAD /GUIDE MERIDIAN AREA (CAITAC USA) FROM
R10A TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC), AND AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL TO RURAL
TOURISM (AB2011 -346) (8:54:19 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Terry Sirmans, Holiday Inn Express General Manager, stated Caitac is good to work
for and employs 35 people at the Holiday Inn Express. Eighty percent of them have been
there five years or longer. Their occupancy rate is about 88% and bring tax revenue to the
City. Another hotel would do the same for the county. The company takes good care of its
business and their people. They do a lot of donations to community organizations.
Robert Anderson, Holiday Inn Express Front Desk Manager, stated Caitac is a good
company to work for. He's been with the company for eight years. He has been able to
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
grow in the organization. Building another hotel would give young adults an opportunity to
grow in the hotel and hospitality business.
Crawford stated that Carol Follet applies her testimony from the previous hearing to
this hearing.
Brian Evans stated there is an economic benefit to the county from the hotel and
commercial development. The Smith Road and Guide Meridian are highly - traveled routes in
the county. It would be an amenity for the existing golf course. He supports the rezone.
Wendy Harris stated she is opposed to the ordinance. She is concerned about water
supply. The County has not addressed this issue, even though it is usually addressed
during the building permit phase. The Department of Ecology (DOE) raised concerns about
water rights during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process that haven't been
adequately addressed. DOE commented that the source of the water is unclear due to a
lack of an existing water right to serve the increased development, and that it is not likely
to issue permits for an exempt well. There's no assurance that enough water will be
available to support the anticipated population growth resulting from this proposal.
Patrick Alesse stated he is opposed to the ordinance. He is concerned about the
availability of water, sewer, and fire services. There are no impact fees to pay for those
services.
Bob Carmichael stated the proposal would compliment the existing golf course and
restaurant already on this site. This project encompasses 1.6 percent of the entire
property. The Department of Ecology referenced new consumptive rights, which isn't
necessary. Water is available. The location is good for a hotel. They are experienced hotel
operators in Bellingham. It will bring tourism and jobs to the county. The County
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for good, clean rural tourist industries, which is
what Caitac is trying to do. It won't change the character of the area.
Paul Schissler stated he is not for or against the request. When they change the
zone, they change the value of the land. The previous decision added over 50 development
rights to the property. Each development right equals approximately $50,000. Such a
decision has a bearing on predicting farmland value and buying development rights off the
farmland when there is no transfer of development rights system.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Kershner moved to adopt the substitute ordinance.
Brenner stated she is against the ordinance. It's unnecessary to tell the Council the
value of the development right. It's not about granting any right or value to someone. This
isn't about who is making a proposal and who isn't. She can't support the ordinance. It
feels too big and too close to Bellingham. It's not rural.
Mann asked Planning staff about creating a limited area of more intense rural
development (LAMIRD) here, and if that will create a problem with converting the area to an
urban growth area (UGA) in the future.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the he's
not aware of any language about expanding or locating UGA's in those areas. UGA's do go
into rural areas. There is not a State law that requires a UGA expansion to look at the
proximity to established LAMIRD's.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
Mann stated he supports the ordinance. It is a legitimate business investment and
will create needed jobs. It's not a polluting industry. It doesn't have a downside to the
community. It falls into the description of a type II LAMIRD for tourist commercial. There
is already a golf course and infrastructure.
Kershner stated she supported the original proposal from Caitac two years ago and
all its amenities. Unfortunately, that wasn't supported. This project is a scaled -down
version to start some kind of business out there. She supports the ordinance, but is
disappointed that they let go of the wonderful opportunity provided by the original proposal.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Weimer (2)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 9.32, UNLAWFUL
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS, TO ESTABLISH A NO- SHOOTING ZONE IN THE
GLENHAVEN LAKES AREA OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2011 -275A) (9:14:39
PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Joe Rosinski stated he lives in the area, which is a quiet area. He is concerned about
the use of firearms. A firearm was discharged two years ago, and he saw a bullet skipping
across the water. Recently, he discovered a bullet hole in the side of his house. He is
concerned about family safety.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner asked who owns a nearby large, undeveloped parcel to the southwest.
Crawford stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife were concerned about protecting
hunting areas, but he explained to them that the area has potential for development, which
they understood.
Dewey Desler, Former Deputy Administrator, stated that undeveloped large parcel is
a location for a private school.
Brenner asked if someone notified the property owners.
Crawford stated they went through the public notice process that everyone sees.
He's not aware that people received a mailed notice or a phone call.
Brenner stated she is concerned about including the large parcel that is on the edge
of the boundary and is not close to development. She asked if there is a legal problem with
that.
Knutzen stated he voted against this last time. He's changed his mind. It's
unfortunate that a few people have to ruin it for everyone else. He is a responsible gun
owner and hunter. Some people are doing some very irresponsible things, and regulations
won't allow them to do anything about it. These kinds of incidents are unacceptable.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
Crawford stated no shooting zones don't stop people from shooting. It gives the
Sheriff's Office another legal tool to deal with people who shoot. What Mr. Rosinksi
described is already not legal. However, it's difficult when the deputy responds much later
and doesn't get to witness the activity. If the deputy can ascertain that they are
discharging a weapon in a no shooting zone, at least a citation can be issued. That was the
situation in Kendall. The Sheriff's Office has been dealing with the problem person in this
area. They need additional tools to get involved appropriately in the justice system.
Larson stated asked how many citizens requested the restriction.
Crawford stated two citizens requested it.
Larson asked if the Sheriff's Office was called to the location. Desler stated there is
a problem when people decide to shoot inside an urban area. This is a unique area of
Whatcom County. It's highly urbanized with small lots. It's like a city neighborhood.
People shouldn't walk around the neighborhood shooting a gun, which is what is happening.
The Sheriff has said he can't do anything about it unless the Council creates a no shooting
zone. The County has done that in other rural areas that have a highly urbanized area in
them. It creates a fear and a dangerous situation that isn't necessary.
Larson asked if there are many people shooting in the area. Desler stated one
person shooting in this area is too many. Guns are consistently going off. It's
disconcerting.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Larson (1)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, URBAN GROWTH
DESIGNATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP
DESIGNATIONS FOR PROPERTY IN THE YEW STREET RESERVE UGA
(AB2011 -210) (9:32 :11 PM)
Dan McShane stated this entirely ignores County Code 2.160 that describes the
process of amending the Comprehensive Plan during a settlement. Nothing is getting vetted
appropriately, including the facts. It takes a piecemeal approach toward growth, which is a
problem. The record includes the City of Bellingham 2008 annexation analysis of this area,
which rejects the area because it is too expensive. Ultimately, the City has to provide the
services for that area. The ordinance includes a statement that isn't supported regarding
stormwater and water quality. He referenced a document called Forest Cover Impervious
Surface Area and Mitigation of Stormwater Impacts by Booth, Hartley, and Jackson, which is
the best available science and on which the stormwater manual is mostly based.
Betsy Gross stated she speaks on behalf of People for Lake Padden. She asked the
Council to postpone action until the County has sufficient land use information and scientific
information to make a knowledgeable decision that protects the Lake Padden watershed and
water quality. She described the work of the People for Lake Padden group. Wait until
studies are done before making decisions about rezoning.
Todd Donovan, Futurewise, stated the Yew Street Road proposal is bad policy.
Certain points are inconsistent with State law. There is a tremendous cost to it. This
proposal doesn't meet the goal of a higher density in the urban area. There isn't an
urgency for this now. The rates of growth were based on robust assumptions about housing
development in this area. The staff report reflects that. Good policy should involve robust
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
collaboration between the City and County. The City of Bellingham is clear that it isn't
interested in this area being in the urban growth area (UGA). There is no capital facilities
plan. There is density of rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) in the proposal, which is
designated to be an urban area, which the Growth Management Hearings Board won't
approve. It will put the County on the line for further appeals it will probably lose. Wait to
do this.
Pat Gallery stated he supports the ordinance. The State mandated that each county
meet projected growth. Based on information he's seen, they underestimated the amount
of growth actually taking place in the county. The County Planning Commission studied this
for some time, and recommended that this area be part of the UGA.
Jack Petree submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated he supports the
ordinance. The Council must choose between rejecting sprawl and embracing "not in my
backyard" attitudes. The Council must begin its job of reducing sprawl.
Brad Swanson stated he represents area property owners. He asked the Council do
adopt the ordinance. The substantial written record supports the ordinance. Reasons for
adoption include the new school, fixing an error in the land capacity analysis, changed
conditions since ordinance 2009 -071, and resolving a petition from the Hearings Board.
Don't be scared of the City's politics. This is a County decision. The Hearings Board said
many times that the ultimate authority resides with the counties. The County may
designate a UGA as it deems appropriate. The City wants to delay this indefinitely.
Stormwater and future development will be dealt with by the most stringent regulations.
The capital facilities exist and are planned for. The area is partially developed. The rezone
mentioned earlier simply reverts back to previous zoning. The moment the City stopped
providing services to the UGA, the density went to rural areas. The City's infill concept
doesn't work, because the neighborhoods in the city won't accept new lots. The high rise
urban village model isn't making progress. They must put this area back in the UGA. The
City may not service the area until annexed, but the City won't consider the area for
annexation if it's not in the UGA.
Chris Moench stated he is a property owner in the area and is against the ordinance.
He likes the area as it is. He's seen water quality and wildlife habitat degradation since
1989, particularly since the South Hills subdivision was built. The data is being collected
about the Lake Padden water quality. Recently he's noticed significant algae blooms.
Higher density will result in the degradation of Lake Padden. Best available science and
development standards aren't working.
Clayton Petree submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated the capital
facilities plan isn't missing. There are fires services by the South Whatcom Fire Authority
and the City of Bellingham. At a past UGA settlement conference, the Mayor told the
County that Bellingham would accept the restoration of the Yew Street area to settle the
appeal. The Council has met the public participation plan. The fiscal study mentioned isn't
an equal comparison. The City supports the density. Look at the Jones Engineers report
showing the clean stream from the developed areas of this UGA versus the dirty stream
from the dog park and golf course.
Wendy Harris stated she is against the ordinance. It violates local, State, and
federal procedure and substantive requirements. The County staff wasn't involved in
writing the ordinance. There is no staff report from the planning professionals. There is a
letter from the Planning Department against the proposal because it is procedurally flawed.
Councilmembers are attempting to ignore staff decisions and professional advice. This will
have impacts to water quality on the Lake Padden watershed. Consider the updated
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
information about the Asian clam infestation. Lake Padden is an impaired body of water.
This ordinance is inappropriate and disturbing.
Mimi Brooks - Furlan stated she supports the ordinance. The street has been widened
and improved. The new school was built with the understanding that the area would
develop. They have a fire station and parks. The facilities are already there. It's close to
downtown.
Frank Muljat stated he owns property in the Yew Street Area and supports the
ordinance. He understands the real estate market. There's no glut of homes. There's a
shortage of homes. The median price is $208,000. That's affordable. People don't want to
live in high rises. They want to live on one -third or one - quarter acre. If in the UGA, the
area can create housing.
Darcy Jones, Jones Engineers, stated County staff in 2004 was working to design
infrastructure for the area. The City Comprehensive plan shows that infrastructure. There
is a lot of public benefit to having the infrastructure outside the UGA. It serves the entire
city. The area has sewer and water lines sized for urban density. Millions of dollars of
public money was spent on infrastructure in the Yew Street UGA. There is an overlay to
protect water quality. A PCB found in a trout was from the hatchery, not the lake quality.
The outlet from the golf course is worse than the stream from the UGA.
David Stalheim submitted a handout (on file) and stated he is against the ordinance.
His stance is not related to his employment. Councilmembers must stop saying that it is.
Recent court cases support the requirement for capital facilities. It will cost $15 million to
finish the Yew Street Road improvements. None of the developments contributed to the
road improvements. He questions who peer- reviewed the findings and census numbers
from Mr. Petree. There is no source for data. It quotes population numbers that didn't
exist. In the 2010 Census, the population numbers are off between 2008 and 2010 because
the Office of Financial Management (OFM) underestimated the number of people per
household. They don't create new demand or size urban growth areas based on those
numbers.
Jean Melious stated she is concerned that the Council doesn't give bloggers any
credibility. Only Bellingham's UGA was used to calculate population density. They didn't
look at the entire county. There is a grossly disproportionate capability for rural population
allocation for more growth in rural areas. The County was fighting to have rural limited
areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs) adjacent to the city of Bellingham. The
County needs to stop saying it's the City's UGA's that aren't big enough. County planning
advocates new growth in rural areas. There aren't any impact fees.
Cal Leenstra stated he is in favor of the ordinance. It was in an urban service area
before the UGA. It's been in the UGA since 1997. It's a perfect place to develop a
community. It's no good for farming. It has City water and sewer. There are a hundred
acres of parks in the area. His property is adjacent to a fully - developed community and
elementary school. A fire department is nearby. A preliminary plat was approved, which
can't be done without capital facilities. He was never discouraged from spending money in
this area. He's cooperated with the City and County staff on the project. There is a
demand for housing in the city. Let him get on with his work.
Kane Hall stated he is against the ordinance. The time is passed to expand the UGA
and have more development. Concentrate on high density infill. Promote development
within the UGA. This amendment doesn't do that. A lot of money was spent on this area,
but that doesn't make it the right decision for now. They must adhere to the Growth
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
Management Act. He hopes that encourages development within the city. They must
consider how they want their community to be. Efforts to develop downtown will be diluted
by these actions. Constrict the land supply and create a community where they would like
to live in the future.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Kershner moved to adopt the ordinance. She apologized for her comments about
the Cascadia Weekly. She meant that it is not part of the public record. This has been a
very long process that goes back to an appeal process in 2010. This area is surrounded by
the City of Bellingham on three sides, and was in the City's urban growth area (UGA) for
years. The area is already half developed at urban levels. It has water, sewer, and a
school. Settle the appeal by putting the area back into the UGA. There have been many
public hearings to satisfy requirements allowing everyone to comment. Last year, the City
of Bellingham asked the County Council to delay through 2011 so they could update their
Comprehensive Plan. The County honored that request. However, the City in July indicated
it would not update its Comprehensive Plan, which effectively left this area in the City's
UGA. If the City wanted to make a statement to the County, it would have removed this
area from its Comprehensive Plan. Adopting the ordinance will make all comprehensive
plans back into the Growth Management Act (GMA). They are correcting a population error
that was made in the land capacity analysis. This will set the record straight.
Larson stated growth was a big issue when he decided to campaign for County
Council. At the time, he supported including the area in the UGA. Development is
sprawling into rural areas. They can't force people to live a certain place. Families make
their decisions based on economic choices. There has to be a balance. The area has a
school, fire department, water, and sewer. There are environmental impacts to sending
kids from out of the area to the school. The improvements seem to make sense. He tried
to find out why people think it doesn't make sense. They need to make smart choices, not
just stop all development because they don't like it. He met with three Bellingham City
Council Members, who said they don't have a problem with the area being in the UGA. It's
clear that politics are going on. The community needs affordable housing. They don't get it
by subsidizing it or constricting the land supply. At some point they need to decide if they
want people to sprawl into the county or provide smart opportunities for people to live here.
They can't keep saying no to development without a plan that makes sense. This makes
sense.
Mann stated they end up doing a lot of planning by litigation. The official statement
from the City of Bellingham is that it doesn't want the area. He is hoping this would wait
until the new administration takes office after the first of the year. If the City doesn't want
it, and if the City threatens to sue the County, he doesn't want to force the UGA on the City.
Wait until the new City and County administrations take office, and see if they can find
common ground. He can't support the ordinance right now.
Brenner stated the City doesn't want the area as a UGA. People hate both sprawl
and infill in their backyard. The County has never forced a UGA on any City. Those are the
jurisdictions that will provide services. They must work collaboratively. It sets a bad
precedent to put a UGA on a City that it doesn't want it.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. The City is saying it doesn't
want the UGA. The Council is setting the County up for spending County taxpayer money
on lawyers fighting with each other. The City, County, and Department of Ecology are
working on water quality studies that may help answer concerns about stormwater in Lake
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
54
Whatcom. There's no need to hurry and move forward. Wait until the City decides it's
ready. He is against the ordinance.
Knutzen stated he's torn on the issue, but he will support the ordinance. The County
was told a number of things by the City that turned out to not be true. The County has
been asking these people to wait and wait. The area is surrounded by the City and almost
developed to City standards. It's the right thing to do.
Mann moved to postpone consideration until the second meeting in February.
Possibly the new Executive and Mayor will be able to work together.
Crawford stated it was a mistake to put it in reserve status. This area had more
than a decade to develop as an urban growth area. It was done in a coordinated and logical
manner with all the applicable standards that the Growth Management Act suggests.
Padden Hills developed in the area. The school district put in a new school due to the City's
plans that the area would grow as a UGA. The Yew Street Road is planned for and has had
substantial improvements, based on this being a UGA. The water system was a huge
design effort that the City encouraged. It was all part of a coordinated plan that was
supposed to work under Growth Management.
Lake Padden has not been identified as an impaired water body, other than for
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB's). The People for Lake Padden website implies a massive
pollution problem and suggests that the County is involved in that effort. He is not aware
the County is doing any studies on Lake Padden. It is not a drinking water source, and
must be considered different from Lake Whatcom.
Mayor Pike committed the City government to address this issue in the 2011 City
Comprehensive Plan update. Then the City pushed it back to 2016. That is a broken
promise. He talked to County attorneys about the capital facilities plan. The City had to
have a capital facilities plan when the area was a UGA before. He doesn't understand why
the City is saying now that it doesn't have a capital facilities plan.
He also talked to City Council Members. It seems the current majority is prepare to
litigate in front of the Hearings Board on this issue. The City has tied the County up in a
procedural knot. It is unfair and is poor planning practice that undermines the intent of the
Growth Management Act. It is incumbent upon the City to address concerns soon, not in
2016. It's a matter of common sense and fairness. The City's long -term planning effort
was derailed by creating the reserve designation. The capital facilities plan update and
adoption, and a willingness to participate in a population projection analysis that is robust
and meaningful should be the highest priority for both the County and the City.
He is committed to make this one of their highest priority items on the 2012 docket.
The City and County Planning staff should go through a thorough review process to address
the City's concerns. The County will do what it can to help the City. He reluctantly supports
the motion to postpone consideration. They need a collaborative approach. There is no
gain to adoption tonight, knowing it will go into litigation. Instead, work in a collaborative
process to get through the issues in the next year. He reluctantly can't support adoption,
knowing that is coming from the City.
Kershner stated they have a current, valid, legal appeal right now that this ordinance
is designed to settle. Postponing the decision won't get the County out of it.
Crawford stated that if they continue to litigate in front of the Hearings Board, and
the County loses, he will approve that decision. That's not where they're at tonight.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, 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
53
Knutzen stated he is against the motion to postpone consideration. Deal with it now.
They've waited long enough. The County and City gave these people expectations on how
this would be handled. The City has been under the impression that it is in charge of
growth prohibition instead of growth management. The City is supposed to infill, but it isn't.
This area is a perfect example of where the City should grow.
Brenner stated they can have a professional respect even though the jurisdictions
don't agree. The City is in charge of what happens inside the city. They must work with the
other jurisdictions, not force it. If it becomes an urban growth area, the County will have to
provide more services. They have to think of all the taxpayers, not just the owners in that
area. It will cost the County if the area is a UGA and the City doesn't annex it.
Mann stated his vote to postpone doesn't indicate that he supports the City's
planning decisions. He has serious complaints about their decisions. This isn't about
sticking it to Bellingham or proving a point. It's about working together in the future.
The motion to postpone to February 28, 2012 carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer and Mann (4)
Nays: Larson, Knutzen and Kershner (3)
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break at 10 :49 p.m.)
CONSENT AGENDA (10 :56 :27 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through three, five through 31, and 33.
Knutzen withdrew item nine.
Kershner stated three items on the Consent Agenda deal with funding from the
general fund: the Commission Against Domestic Violence, the Food Bank, and the Humane
Society. Last year she voted against all three because the County was spending the general
fund into a deficit. This year, the Finance Department and the County Administration has
managed the finances successfully. They have increased the reserves. This year, she is
happy about and comfortable with voting for these items. She supports the local food bank,
ensuring animals in Whatcom County are treated humanely, and preventing domestic
violence.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MICHAEL BOBBINK LAND USE
SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $82,589.40 (AB2011 -371)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
SKAGIT COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EACH OTHER WITH
LABOR, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS FOR ROAD
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FROM JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER
31, 2015 (AB2011 -398)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR THE JOINT USAGE OF
THE VACTOR WASTE SITE FACILITY FROM JANUARY 1, 2012, THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2012 (AB2011 -399)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RE SOURCES TO PROVIDE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROMOTE WASTE PREVENTION, RECYCLING
EFFORTS, AND PROPER HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2011 -400)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Crawford stated he is against the request. He is concerned about the way ReSources
has inserted itself into the public dialog on some very challenging issues, in terms of the
information it puts out to the community, particularly on the Cherry Point proposal. The
Council hasn't had the benefit of doing any analysis. They've riled people up. He's
concerned that some of that message gets put into the schools. He's not sure an
organization who so vocally advocates a political position should be doing these kinds of
educational programs in the schools. He would say that for any organization, regardless of
their political leanings. Also, ReSources has decided to address issues in the community by
means of litigation and in an adversarial way. They will initiate civil lawsuits where the
Department of Ecology has already issues fines in pollution violations. It's time to wean
them from providing County services because there is so much going on and so they can
stand alone and become the political advocacy group they want to be. This is an
opportunity to send that message.
Brenner stated she is concerned about organizations that the County contracts with
becoming very political. The County should work on a policy about what it expects and
doesn't expect from contractors. ReSources was the only group that responded to this
request for proposals (RFP). It's an important program. ReSources's biggest platform has
been to reduce, reuse, and recycle. She's not comfortable about some of the areas they're
heading into. However, the Council must first have a policy before denying someone for
that reason. She wants the program in the schools this year.
Larson stated that Whatcom County government's role doesn't include educating the
kids about anything. Education should be done through the school's curriculum. There are
many other kinds of projects in the budget.
Kershner stated she originally voted against this today in Committee, based on
Councilmember Crawford's comments. She received a phone call from a teacher who
benefits from this program. She was very complimentary of the staff who testified tonight.
She would like more information on exactly what is happening. It's good to educate kids to
reduce, reuse, and recycle. It's not good to indoctrinate children on various political
agendas. She's not ready to say this contract does that. She's willing to postpone her vote,
or else she will vote in favor tonight.
Mann stated he supports the request. ReSources has been doing this program long
before the coal issues came up. He deliberately has no opinion on any coal project
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
anywhere in Whatcom County. This is a good education program that has been going on for
a long time. Resources is the only respondent to the RFP. The program is in the Solid
Waste Comprehensive Plan. If they want to punish ReSources for being politically active,
they are really punishing the kids in this case. They are not punishing ReSources. He
agrees it would be better to not contract with folks who have political agendas. He doesn't
want to indoctrinate the kids on something he might not agree with. It's reasonable to
assume that they've been able to do the education program without talking about the
political issue of coal. He would support having a better policy to decide how political a
contractor can be.
Knutzen stated he is against the request. He doesn't know how much of an effort
the County made when putting out the RFP. He would like to see more entities apply. The
question is where they draw the line. They are paying Washington State University (WSU)
Cooperative Extension to teach kids what to eat. Now they're paying ReSources on how to
dispose of what they eat. There may be some duplication. Maybe Cooperative Extension
would be willing to bid on the project. If no one else is really willing to do the project, he
may be more willing to support it. Now, he will vote against it.
Weimer stated this program has been going on for 20 years. It's part of the Solid
Waste Management Plan. The Department of Ecology requires the County to do some sort
of waste reduction and recycling outreach. If this doesn't pass, they will have to come up
with something else. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee and Solid Waste Executive
Committee both reviewed this. There wasn't any negative concerns about this contract
moving forward. Even the Sheriff has talked about bringing in Paul Akers and using his lean
program. That's exactly what the school education program is. He supports the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen and Larson (3)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE &
SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES FOR FUNDING TO SUPPORT AND REPRESENT
THE COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,000 (AB2011 -401)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM VOLUNTEER
CENTER FOR THE PROVISION OF VOLUNTEER SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000 (AB2011 -402)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM
HUMANE SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTER SERVICES IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $403,178.01 (AB2011 -403)
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM HUMANE
SOCIETY FOR THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AT 1661 BAKER CREEK PLACE,
BELLINGHAM, FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTER SERVICES IN AN
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $10.00 (AB2011 -404)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUSTAINABLE CONNECTIONS
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF
AGRITOURISM IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,200
(AB2011 -405)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. They neglect commercial agriculture. He
would vote for this if there were progress from last year, when he said the same thing.
Crawford stated the councilmembers received an email today that included a survey
of farm tour goers. It looks like Sustainable Connections was prepared to collect that data,
but then the speaker today said they weren't. He will support the motion, based on what
the representative said in the email about conducting the survey. For the hotel /motel tax to
break even on the investment, the agricultural tourism industry in Whatcom County would
have to generate 7,800 hotel nights per year, outside the incorporated cities. He looks at
the issue based on the return on investment. However, this time next year, they will have
the specific data that will tell them what they're getting for this investment. He's willing to
fund this for another year to see if the program pays off.
Mann stated the tax is voluntary by the hotel and motel industry. They chose to levy
the tax on themselves. Then they formed the Lodging Advisory Committee to allocate how
those funds are used. The Council should not micromanage their decisions on how to
market. If they think marketing agritourism is worthwhile, it's their business. He's fine
with approving the request, regardless of how many lodging nights per year are attributed
to agritourism. The program is open to any farm to participate. Everyone has to pay a little
to help with the printing cost. There's no reason any farm can't be on the list.
Brenner asked whether lodging nights calculation includes ancillary things such as
gas and food.
Crawford stated he's calculating the direct reimbursement to this fund that pays for
this promotion.
Brenner stated there are other indirect benefits to the community. For some reason,
the bigger farms aren't interested. Find out why the bigger farms aren't interested. She
would like the answer. She agrees with the request because this group is taxing
themselves, and they're the ones who make the decisions on how the money is spent.
Knutzen stated the two biggest draws of agritourism aren't on the list. He doesn't
know why. It seems they're trying to promote a certain type of organic, smaller farm. It
seems like any commercial agriculture is neglected and not promoted. It seems like they're
trying to promote what their view of agriculture should be in Whatcom County.
Mann stated that is a big assumption. Councilmember Knutzen should check that
assumption. Get the facts.
Weimer stated everyone is able to be on the list. It is targeted to farms that have
activities for tourists, such as farm stands, u- picks, or tours. Some of the big commercial
operations don't want tourists poking around on their property. That may be why they
choose to not be a part of the tour.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER FOOTHILLS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CHAMBER
OPERATIONS AND TOURISM PROMOTION OF THE MT. BAKER CORRIDOR IN
THE AMOUNT OF $78,505 (AB2011 -406)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BELLINGHAM WHATCOM
COUNTY TOURISM TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO PROMOTE TOURISM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000 ANNUALLY, FOR A THREE YEAR TERM FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $600,000 (AB2011 -408)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM EVENTS TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADVERTISING AND TOURISM PROMOTION OF THE
ANNUAL SKI TO SEA RACE IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000 (AB2011 -409)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE HERITAGE FLIGHT
MUSEUM TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADVERTISING AND TOURISM
PROMOTION IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,816 (AB2011-
410)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST REGIONAL
COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW
BOARD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000 (AB2011 -411)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE BELLINGHAM FOOD
BANK TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PROVISION OF COLLECTION,
WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD BANKS
THROUGHOUT WHATCOM COUNTY, AS WELL AS SUPPORT FOR THE FOOD
BANK'S GLEANING PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,000 (AB2011 -412)
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST
YOUTH SERVICES FOR THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$18,500, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,000
(AB2011 -413)
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE MODERATE
RISK WASTE FACILITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $428,328 (AB2011 -414)
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KPFF CONSULTING
ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR LIGHTHOUSE
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
MARINE PARK — BOAT LAUNCH RENOVATION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$55,397 (AB2011 -415)
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM FOR USE OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500
PER YEAR FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS (AB2011 -416)
20. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND COSCOMM
INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND
INSTALLATION FOR THE REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,761.21, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,964.47 (AB2011 -417)
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WOMENCARE SHELTER TO
PROVIDE 24 -HOUR CRISIS SUPPORT SERVICES THROUGH ITS HELP LINE
AND EMERGENCY CONFIDENTIAL SHELTER TO VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,000 (AB2011-
418)
22. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUN
COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
SERVICES AT GLADSTONE PROJECT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,020, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,040 (AB2011 -419)
23. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM FAMILY &
COMMUNITY NETWORK FOR SUBSTANCE PREVENTION SERVICES WITHIN
THE FERNDALE AND BELLINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$50,000 (AB2011 -420)
24. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL
TO PROVIDE OPERATING FUNDS FOR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROGRAM AND TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR DSHS MEDICAL CARE
RECIPIENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,776 (AB2011 -421)
25. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PIONEER HUMAN SERVICES
TO PROVIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR OFFENDERS RE-
ENTERING THE COMMUNITY, AND CHRONICALLY HOMELESS VETERANS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $303,255 (AB2011 -422)
26. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR SOLID WASTE COMPLIANCE
MANAGEMENT AND LITTERING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,885.33 (AB2011 -423)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
27. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT SUN
LIFE STOP -LOSS POLICY FOR INSURANCE PROTECTION FOR THE SELF -
INSURED MEDICAL PLAN IN 2012 IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,852 (AB2011-
424)
28. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
USE OF WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT FOR THE ANNUAL 2012 SUPPLY OF
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL PRODUCTS FROM A CONTRACT LIST OF VARIOUS
SUPPLIERS IN AN AMOUNT THAT MAY EXCEED $35,000 (AB2011 -425)
29. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
USE OF WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE RADIOS AND
RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE SHERIFF'S VEHICLES FROM VENDOR HARRIS
CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,221.16 (AB2011 -426)
30. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTION ENVELOPES FROM THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, K
& H INTEGRATED PRINT SOLUTIONS, IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$65,853 (AB2011 -427)
31. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ACS ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
(EXIGENT) FOR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IMPLEMENTATION AS A PART OF
THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE RECORDING SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,270
(AB2011 -428)
32. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDI FUNDING — BELLINGHAM
TECHNICAL COLLEGE NW CENTER FOR FISHERIES AND CITY OF LYNDEN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT (AB2011 -429) (11:19:57 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval.
Brenner moved to amend to add that the City of Lynden's water treatment plant
project include a stipulation that this County funding would be last in and last used if the
bids are lower or the contingencies are not used. Reductions would be first from the grant
portion, then second from the loan portion.
Crawford asked how the Council expresses its preference on this issue.
Dewey Desler, Former Deputy Administrator, stated the City of Lynden is seeking
assurance that it will have money to pay for the project. The project has not yet gone out
to bid. There is a nearly $4.5 million contingency budget as part of the cost of the project.
Economic Development Investment (EDI) Board members would like the money used for
construction. If Lynden spends $24 million on a $25 million project, the County would
provide $1 million to meet the goal. The administration can work that out with the City of
Lynden. The agreement can be constructed in that way.
Kershner asked if this requirement will reduce the City's ability to get other funding.
Scott Korthuis, City of Lynden Mayor, stated the motion allows the City access to the
full funding if the bid comes in high. If the bid comes in lower, the City understands that
this money is the first to come out. That works for the City.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 19
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
54
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend to require the City of Lynden to use contractors who use
E- verify on the project portion that is paid using the EDI funds.
Crawford stated the Council is aware that the City of Lynden has already weighed in
on the E- verify issue, and voted unanimously to not adopt those policies. The Council is not
saying the City of Lynden must now adopt those policies for the funds to be available. The
intent of the motion is that the City would use contractors who use E- verify for the portion
of this project that is funded with the EDI money.
Korthuis stated that if E- verify is required, the City would use it. The City already
uses it when required of its contractors. However, he doesn't want to be selected to be the
only EDI recipient required to meet this requirement.
Crawford restated the motion to amend to require the City of Lynden and
Bellingham Technical College use contractors who use E- verify on the project portion that is
paid using the EDI funds.
Kershner asked if it's correct that the County requires E- verify on all contracts over
$100,000. Desler stated it is correct, but the County has not imposed the requirement on
other governments when there is a contract with the government. The E- verify program is
an emotional issue. From the administration's perspective, it's not a big deal. Once it's
being used, people find that it allows them to comply with the law. The contractor for
Lynden would benefit in some ways.
Crawford stated he speculates that the City of Lynden voted as it did as a political
statement to support its agricultural industry, which is really challenged.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann stated he is against the request from the City of Lynden. It is not an
appropriate use of EDI funds. It is the biggest EDI request they've ever had. It's not
sustainable economic development to fund a one -time construction project. The City of
Bellingham is raising its water rates on its rate payers. The City of Lynden should do the
same thing, and charge its residents what it costs to provide water. The councilmembers
have heard that the County shouldn't give money to people who sue the County or provide
subsidies. This is clearly a subsidy for a municipal function.
Knutzen stated the City of Lynden is a taxpayer in Whatcom County. It voluntarily
pays the EDI tax. It is the same argument Councilmember Mann made regarding the
tourism fund. The EDI Board came out with a unanimous recommendation. Don't
micromanage that Board.
Brenner stated the project will help existing businesses expand and bring in new
businesses. Businesses want to locate where services are available. The County paid the
City of Ferndale for permitting to build affordable housing. This has a direct affect on
business location, which must have adequate and safe water.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 20
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
54
Mann asked if they are trying to encourage the City of Lynden to develop a
disproportionate level of business infrastructure. He thought they are trying to make
Bellingham the employment center of the county.
Brenner stated Bellingham is the employment center. That doesn't mean she wants
to constrict business in the county.
Mann stated this is the opposite of constricting business. This provides $6 million to
a one -time building project. This is not the same situation as the lodging tax, which is a tax
the owners instituted on themselves. They choose how to distribute it. This is not a
voluntary tax. This is a State tax the County is allowed to keep. The EDI Board did not
discuss this for very long, and they got the proposal the day before the meeting. The EDI
Board doesn't include all the people who pay into the EDI fund. The Board is made up of
elected officials. Sometimes, there is an incentive to grant a request from one elected
official so that elected official will grant their request in the future. In the big picture, it is
not economic development investment.
Brenner moved to postpone for more information and to refer it back to the EDI
Board for further review.
Weimer stated he supports the motion to postpone. He has the same concerns as
Councilmember Mann. He also has concerns about water rights. The constriction is about
how much water Lynden has versus how much water the surrounding farmers have. They
are building the project to expand, according to the Mayor. He would like information from
the Department of Ecology about whether that's accurate.
Larson stated he is against the motion to postpone. Generally, a number of projects
the Council has approved have not met the criterion of being about economic development.
He prefers all projects funded from the EDI fund have a direct impact on long -term,
sustainable jobs. However, the number of projects that meet that criterion are limited. The
entire EDI program must be evaluated. There must be some mechanism outside the EDI
Board that is doing economic development work. The Northwest Economic Council is going
through a major restructure right now. There is an opportunity to look at that funding
mechanism and get people who will start recruiting. Then, they will see more projects that
have a more direct impact. In the meantime, that fund is growing. Public infrastructure is
one of the specific purposes of the fund. He supports the project. The EDI funds are few
relative to the overall cost of the project. Sending it back to the EDI Board will not result in
a different response. The Board will think the Council is questioning the Board's review.
The Board includes capable people. Don't postpone the requests.
Brenner withdrew the motion and moved to vote on the two projects separately.
The motion to vote on the two projects separately carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (5)
Nays: Kershner and Larson (2)
Mann moved to approve the Bellingham Technical College project as amended.
The motion to approve the Bellingham Technical College project as amended carried
by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to approve the City of Lynden project as amended.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 21
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
54
Brenner moved to postpone and refer it back to the EDI Board to reconsider. Mr.
Desler said there wasn't much discussion by the EDI Board. Desler stated all the questions
the EDI Board had were answered. This is a large project, there was an extensive
discussion. The EDI Board has a presentation in October. The application came forward
and was discussed. There wasn't any discussion like this.
Brenner asked if the EDI Board had enough discussion. Desler stated he made the
motion to support the project. The Council's amendments strengthen the program.
Brenner withdrew her motion to postpone.
Larson stated it's possible that the EDI Board will be different when this is referred
back to them. They could be starting from scratch. That isn't prudent.
Mann stated he is amazed this is going to be approved. He asked where they get $6
million dollars from a countywide fund to give to a population of 12,000 people. He asked
how that is proportional and reasonable.
Brenner stated this is an economic development fund. Decent infrastructure is
required for economic development.
Weimer stated he will vote against the request for the same concerns. It's not wise
to spend the EDI money in this fashion. The City of Blaine is in debt on a sewage treatment
plant, and will ask for this money. The City of Bellingham has the same problem, and could
ask for EDI money for its infrastructure on Yew Street Road. It isn't a good precedent.
The motion to approve the City of Lynden project as amended carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
33. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDI FUNDING — CITY OF BELLINGHAM
WEST BAKERVIEW OVERPASS PROJECT (AB2011 -430)
34. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER
FOOTHILLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR A MULTI -MEDIA YEAR -ROUND
SCENIC BYWAY CORRIDOR & BIRCH BAY TOURISM PROMOTIONAL
CAMPAIGN FOR A THREE YEAR TERM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000, WITH
THE INITIAL FUNDING FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROJECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $153,000 (AB2011 -407)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval of the request with the substitute scope of work, Exhibit A, and compensation,
Exhibit B.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 22
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
54
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,803 (AB2011 -385) (11:55:06 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TWELFTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,026,569 (AB2011 -386) (11 :55 :46 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, THIRD
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,894 (AB2011 -387) (11 :56 :45 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. ORDINANCE FOR 2012 PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST #1, LIGHTHOUSE
MARINE PARK DOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $240,000
(AB2011 -388) (11 :57 :26 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. RESOLUTION PROVIDING A CONSISTENT APPROACH IN COUNTYWIDE
RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS RESULTING IN A COUNCIL
CHAMBER ARMREST PLACARD (AB2011 -391) (11 :57 :46 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 23
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
54
6. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE
WASHINGTON COUNTIES RISK POOL BOARD (AB2011 -392) (11 :58 :22 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS 2008 -077 AND 2010 -053, RELATED
TO SALARIES AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY
EMPLOYEES (AB2011 -393) (11 :58 :37 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution with the substitute language submitted earlier by Human
Resources Division staff.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY,
WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND LUMMI NATION
FOR THE SAXON REACH IN- STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT, SOUTH FORK
NOOKSACK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 (AB2011 -394) (12 :00 :39 AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BROWN AND
CALDWELL FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE DEMING LEVEE UPSTREAM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,600, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,600 (AB2011 -395) (12 :01 :40
AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 24
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
54
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PACIFIC
SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING FOR ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR SWIFT CREEK INTERIM
MITIGATION MEASURES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,330, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $336,855 (AB2011 -396) (12:02:10
AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELEMENT
SOLUTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE NOOKSACK RIVER SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,500, FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB2011 -397) (12:02:53
AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Weimer stated this is a black hole of money. Paula Cooper said this morning that
she'll be back with more requests. It makes more sense to phone the State and federal
agencies to ask if they're wasting the County's money than it does to engineer something
for $50,000 to find out the agencies aren't going to approve this.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.12, COUNCIL DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES (AB2011 -035A) (12 :04 :30 AM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she is against the motion. She can't support the ordinance with the
big change along the Guide Meridian. It used to be a straight boundary. It's important for
people to be able to visualize their district.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 25
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
54
13. RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHIEF DEPUTY AUDITOR DEBBIE ADELSTEIN TO
SERVE AS INTERIM WHATCOM COUNTY AUDITOR FROM DECEMBER 31,
2011, UNTIL JANUARY 9, 2012 (AB2011 -434)
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (12:07:48 AM)
Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Knutzen asked if the Council has to have a decision on Ruckelshaus by January 22,
2012.
Roxanne Michaels, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that's
correct.
Knutzen asked if the Council is tying its hands to opting out if they don't do
something with this in the near future. Michaels stated they're introducing it tonight.
Knutzen asked if they can meet all the requirements if this isn't addressed until
January 10, 2012. Michaels stated they hope to have a decision on January 10. In addition
to deciding whether or not to opt in, they must also decide on the watershed boundary.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OPTIONS
AS ALLOWED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THROUGH ESHB 1886, AS AN
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CRITICAL AREAS PROTECTION FOR
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES (AB2011 -279C)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW
ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE (AB2011 -431)
3. ORDINANCE REPEALING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 2.65, ELECTION
PRECINCT OFFICERS (AB2011 -432)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP AND ZONING MAP TO REMOVE A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS (MRL)
ZONING OVERLAY FROM THE EXISTING RURAL (11110) ZONE AND CHANGE
THE MRL DESIGNATION TO RURAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES ON
ALDRICH ROAD (AB2011 -435)
OTHER BUSINESS (12:11:20 AM)
There was no other business.
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Larson stated he thanks and appreciates everyone. He has a lot of respect for what
everyone does.
The Councilmembers thanked everyone for their work this year and wished everyone
a Merry Christmas.
Knutzen congratulated the Lynden High School football team for winning the State
championship.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:14 a.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2011.
The Council approved these minutes on January 10, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 12/6/2011, Page 27