HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 15 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
March 15, 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 (7:01:31 PM)
Crawford reported for the morning Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the
presentation by the EMS Planning Committee and discussion of a "critical elements
list" (AB2011 -107) and stated councilmembers will put all questions in writing and have
another meeting in two weeks.
Crawford reported for the afternoon Committee of the Whole meeting regarding the
discussion regarding a draft ordinance amending Whatcom County Zoning Code
Title 20, the Official Whatcom County Zoning Map, and the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan and Maps, to implement changes related to rural land use
planning (AB2010 -072A) and stated the committee finished its work today. The Council
will introduce an ordinance tonight and have a public hearing in two weeks.
MINUTES CONSENT (7:03:37 PM)
Brenner 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)
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2011
2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (EXECUTIVE SESSION) FOR FEBRUARY
15, 2011
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2011
OPEN SESSION (7:04:03 PM)
Crawford announced that the resolution encouraging industrial investment in
the region's economic vitality (AB2011 -115) has been withdrawn from the agenda.
The following people spoke:
• Dennis R. Jones, Windward Drive, Bellingham, spoke on the Whatcom County
rural element.
• Abe Jacobson, 2314 Samish Way, Bellingham, submitted a handout (on file)
and spoke on the Lummi Island ferry.
• Fred DeHaan, Point Roberts, submitted a handout (on file) and spoke on
property tax increases.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Fred DeHaan requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Gary Koi, 205 Governor Road, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Matt Krogh, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry
Point.
• Bernie Walls, 132 Viewcrest, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Matt Wilbur, 100 South 34th Street, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Marion Beddill, 2700 Old Fairhaven Parkway, Bellingham, spoke on the
proposed SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Penelope Shaw, 3 Marigold Drive, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Michael Taton, 3 Marigold Drive, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Clarence Bob, Sr. 2524 Michigan Street, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed
SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Robert McLeod, Everson, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry
Point.
• Bruce Diele, Bellingham, submitted a handout (on file) and spoke on the
effects of smoking marijuana.
• Leigh First, 1814 W. North Street, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Crina Hoyer, 2100 Cody Avenue, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Sheridan Thurston, 1736 Bayon Road, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed
SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Chris Gregory, 2515 Crestline Drive, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Michael Stangland, 3416 Bennett Drive, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed
SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
• Laura Lee Brakke, 585 Pleasant Bay Road, submitted a handout (on file) and
spoke on the rural element updates.
• Charles Law, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier at Cherry
Point.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
• Mark Sexton, 1253 Jamison Street, Lummi Island, spoke on Lummi Island
ferry issues.
• Leroy Rohde, 4961 Noon Road, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier at
Cherry Point.
• Ron Reimer, 6595 Northwest Road, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier
at Cherry Point and the rural element.
• Greg Brown, 4363 Saddleston Drive, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping
Pier at Cherry Point.
• Kevin Foster, 5938 North Star Road, spoke on the proposed SSA Shipping Pier
at Cherry Point.
• John Cogswell, 2513 Racine Street, Bellingham, spoke on the proposed SSA
Shipping Pier at Cherry Point.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2011 ANNUAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE RECENTLY OBTAINED GRANT FUNDING OF FIVE
PROJECTS, ALTER CONSTRUCTION TYPE AND METHOD OF ONE PROJECT TO
REDUCE COSTS, AND BREAK ANOTHER PROJECT INTO TWO PROJECTS TO
ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2011 (AB2011 -103) (8:19 :12 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Abe Jacobson, 2314 Samish Way, Bellingham, submitted and read from a handout
(on file) and referenced item 20 in the program and stated about 20 households rely on the
Potter Road bridge. Consider proportionality of where taxpayer resources go and how many
people will benefit from this investment. Be prepared to make tough choices.
Matthew Thuney, 3457 Hillside Road, Deming, stated it's necessary to spend money
on jobs, education, and infrastructure. Whatcom County has maintained 159 bridges that
connect people and provide jobs. Continue to maintain the Potter Road bridge. It is
necessary for emergency services. The bridge services about 70 families, not 20 families.
Jane Taltan Rogers, 3728 Hillside Road, Deming, stated she requests a small, safe
bridge for their road. They pay taxes to all roads in the County. Their property will lose
value without a bridge.
Denis Delahoyde, 3468 Hillside Road, Deming, stated the residents need road access
via Potter Bridge. In the 1940's, the residents had three accesses to their area. The
County has chosen over the years to let go two of those accesses. This is the last remaining
access.
Marion Beddill, 2700 Old Fairhaven Parkway, stated she studied the need for the
bridge. She described her background in civil engineering. Before deciding to build a
bridge, make and publish a full evaluation of all the bridge and road alternatives.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Kershner moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner asked the reason for designing Potter Road bridge to that size.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated this bridge is the
most at -risk bridge in the county. The County sought Federal funds, and funds were made
available for replacement, but not rehabilitation. They received a variance to make the
bridge narrower than the federal design standards. They could build a one -lane bridge, but
would not have access to federal bridge funding.
Kershner asked about the expense. Rutan stated the bridge is long. Much
permitting is required. There are some environmental benefits. Most of the cost is in steel
and concrete.
Mann asked the cost of a one -lane bridge. Rutan stated they haven't reviewed the
cost of a one -lane bridge. It will cost more than half the cost of a two -lane bridge.
Knutzen asked what happens to the federal funds if the County doesn't do the
project or adhere to the guidelines. Rutan stated those funds are very competitive. The
County's success in competing for the funds indicates the County's need for the funds. If
not used, someone else will use the funds immediately.
Brenner stated she would like to see all the options and alternatives for access to the
area. Rutan stated that to look at other options, the Council would have to put the study on
the annual construction program and get money for such a study. They could potentially do
that study. They conducted a size, type, and location study.
Brenner stated she would spend County money on a safety issue. They don't seem
to have a lot of choices. She has no intention of keeping people from getting to their
property that has been there forever. There aren't other options. It's too bad they've had
to cause such fear in people who live in that area. It's not fair for the County to no longer
maintain the bridge. They've been committed to it.
Larson asked if the staff is asking for an increase of $830,000 more than budgeted
for 2011, for all the projects. He is concerned about spending and costs. He asked how
they justify the $830,000. He senses that some of the funds are coming from federal
grants. Those grants total $333,000. Rutan stated the grants themselves total over $10
million. They will spend this year about $333,000 from the grants. The request for
$830,000 is for additional funds they want to spend in 2011, spread out among all the
projects.
Larson asked about the last two projects. He asked what changed from the time
they developed the 2011 budget and now. Rutan described the projects.
Larson stated it seems like they had a budget for 2011, and then they received grant
funds from the federal government, so they're going to kick in another $497,000 to use the
grants. Rutan stated he has no spending authority for the grants. The authority to use the
grant money comes from the annual construction program. Once they approve the annual
construction program, he will create a budget amendment.
Larson asked the trigger for changing the budget for 2011. It looks like they are
spending $830,000 more than they weren't going to spend otherwise. Rutan stated each
projects are different. Some projects are moving forward. Some projects are spending
grant money that requires a 20 percent match. Some projects are using grant money that
don't require a match. Some projects change the method from a contract to County forces.
Another project is split in two.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Larson asked if they would be making these changes if the grant money hadn't
shown up. Rutan stated they would not. The Council can approve the entire packet or
amend the packet.
Larson asked why they are spending $497,000 to buy $333,000. Rutan stated they
will spend $497,000 more this year, and will attempt to spend that much also in grant
funds. It does position them for further funding.
Kershner asked the approximate balance of the road fund.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department, stated an estimated balance is $16 million,
with about $6 million uncommitted.
Kershner asked if this proposal would commit about half a million dollars from that
$6 million. Abart stated it would.
Kershner asked the source of road funds. Rutan stated they come from
unincorporated property taxes and gas taxes.
Weimer asked the cost of replacing the Jones Creek Road bridge. Rutan stated the
costs would be large due to the necessity of purchasing right -of -way.
Abart stated they annually collect $16 million in road taxes from the unincorporated
area.
Brenner asked how dangerous the existing Potter Road bridge is. Rutan stated that
if the bridge were dangerous, it would be closed, but it is the bridge they are most
concerned about. He fears they will have to close the bridge if there were a flood that
causes a bad scour underneath the abutments. At that point, they will struggle to maintain
access across the river. If they bring in an emergency bridge, they won't be able to use the
existing abutment. The question would be how to get to the other side to build an
abutment. They can do preliminary estimates for some of the options. Once the County
enters into an agreement with the federal government, the grant funds aret secure for the
County. Tonight's decision will give him guidance about entering into that agreement. The
County has already received $200,000 in design funds to get to this point. Looking at other
options would be a step backward, at the County's cost.
Knutzen stated the federal government thought this project was of enough value
that the County received the grant funds. The Council of Governments (COG) is trying to
get road improvement money into the county, which is difficult. He commends the staff for
getting these grants. He understands the concern about spending tax dollars, but those tax
dollars will be at work in Whatcom County.
Larson asked if the $16 million was in the fund when they created the budget, and
why this was not a priority when they developed the 2011 budget, if they already had the
money. Rutan stated this is new funding, since they developed the constructions programs
and the budget. Few projects on the annual construction program are fully funded. They're
on the program so the administration can go out for grants. Many grants require projects to
be on planning documents.
Abart stated they generally keep around $5 million in reserves to deal with
emergencies and higher fuel costs.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Mann asked about the Tyee Drive pavement reconstruction project. Rutan stated the
road is horrible because there is more crack seal than pavement. They can't save the
pavement or pave over it. He described the project.
Mann asked if it is a safety issue. Rutan stated it is a safety issue and a preservation
issue. They've invested a lot of money in the road. If they wait much longer, they will have
to repair the sub - grade.
Larson asked about discrepancies in the math. Rutan stated there are a couple of
scrivener's errors, including the $90,000 for the rural road safety funds. It was erroneously
put into the County funds column, line 35. He described the scrivener's errors.
Dewey Desler, County Administrator, stated this government uses substantial
amounts of grant funds. Granting agencies include timeframes and schedules the County
must meet. If they don't meet those schedules, it's because the County is not interested in
doing the project. In that case, the County will lose access to those funds. In a world of
shrinking resources, those timeframes are much shorter. The expectations for progress are
much higher. Don't think it's easy to use those resources.
Mann moved to amend to remove the Potter Road Bridge project. The residents
don't want a bridge of the size proposed. He does not have a contempt for shared
responsibility, but the cost is disproportionate for the amount of bridge as designed. It
would be irresponsible to spend this much money on this bridge at this time. The County
needs to better - design the bridge to make it more cost - effective.
Knutzen stated that when the bridge washes out later, it will cost more money than
it will now. The previous Council decided it didn't need a new ferry, and turned down grant
money. In hindsight, that wasn't such a good decision. The cost the State Department of
Transportation (DOT) invested in a new bridge on the Guide Meridian is far greater than
this. The cost of putting a bridge over the Mt. Baker Highway five years ago would also be
far greater than this. He understands the pain in investing in a bridge that affects 70
families. However, those families would be concerned about their children if something
happens to the bridge. Much of the cost is from grant money.
Weimer stated he is against the amendment. He understands the concern, but the
County has historically funded the bridge, and they have the responsibility to continue to
provide access to these citizens. The administration looked for the most cost - effective way
to fix the bridge. This is the most cost - effective plan that will meet federal standards.
Turning down the project will result in the County paying more to build a smaller bridge
without the federal grant.
Brenner stated this is a public road. The County made a commitment years ago.
She can't think of another way that the project will cost less. The County has an obligation
to the people who live there.
Mann asked at what enormous cost would they not fund such a project, as they
decided to not fund a new ferry.
Kershner asked why a unanimous vote is required.
Crawford stated a unanimous vote is State law.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Rutan stated the current annual construction program includes $200,000 for the
Potter Road Bridge. If the project does not go through, the County has plenty of work to do
on Potter Road Bridge.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated Councilmember Mann brings up a valid point.
However, they need to be pragmatic in terms of the people who reside and pay taxes here
in Whatcom County. That's what this is about. If the Council turns down this money, they
are exacerbating the disparity existing at the federal and State levels between tax dollars
received and tax dollars collected. Whatcom County is a donor county. It is one of the
highest donor counties in the United States because it sells an enormous amount of gasoline
for the size of the county. Canadians come here in droves to fill up their tanks. Whatcom
County doesn't get back its fair share of tax dollars generated at the pump. This is one
small way to minimize that disparity. They will have an opportunity to save infrastructure
for those residents. By using this grant funding now, they will also save the taxpayers
money in the future. Building a bridge later without the grant funds will cost the taxpayers
much more money. He asked Councilmember Mann to support funding the Potter Road
bridge.
Abart stated there used to be three bridges providing access to those residents. Two
of those bridges have gone away. They can't quit on this last access.
Knutzen stated many businesses also depend on the bridge.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann (1)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Weimer stated Councilmember Mann had asked at what enormous cost they would
not fund and made a comparison to the ferry decision. The difference is that the road fund
can absorb this cost. They have to prioritize projects each year, but this won't break the
bank. They could have afforded the match for ferry funds, but they were also going to incur
huge expenses in docks and other infrastructure. That was not sustainable. This is a
sustainable decision the road fund can absorb.
Knutzen moved to postpone consideration until March 29, 2011.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Larson, Crawford and Kershner (3)
CONSENT AGENDA (9:23:23 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through five.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (out of the room)(1)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID 11 -16 TO
THE LOW BIDDERS, MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES AND PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $840,000 (AB2011 -109)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL 2011 SUPPLY OF WATERBORNE TRAFFIC LINE
PAINT BY PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS USING AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE COUNTY THROUGH VENDOR ENNIS
PAINT, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $450,000 (AB2011 -110)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BACKCOUNTRY
HORSEMEN OF WASHINGTON, INC., WHATCOM COUNTY CHAPTER FOR
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE Y ROAD LANDFILL PROPERTY TO BE USED AS A
TRAILHEAD AND OFF -ROAD PARKING FOR HORSE RELATED RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES (AB2011 -111)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MT. BAKER FOOTHILLS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER SYSTEM, SEPTIC
SYSTEM AND RELATED ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE MT. BAKER SCENIC BYPASS WELCOME CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$53,300 (AB2011 -112)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF BLAINE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR STAFFING AND
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT TO THE BLAINE SENIOR CENTER IN 2011 AND
2012 (AB2011 -113)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
AUCTION — REQ. #TR2011 -01 (AB2011 -108) (9:23:59 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 and Mann (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kershner (out of the room)(1)
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS (AB2011 -104) (9:24:30 PM)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve the resolution with 2011 items 00003 through 00010, 00012, and 00014 through
00015, 2010 - 00026, 2009 - 00013, and 2007 - 00014.
Weimer asked about the mineral resource land (MRL) on Lummi Island, item 2011-
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Brenner stated there is one potential violation that is being appealed. There isn't
agreement about whether or not there is a violation. They are working on it. There were
no other violations. They have an area that is permitted and a boundary that is permitted.
Apparently, they're not the same. If this item goes forward, those issues will be addressed.
Kershner referenced item 2011- 00008, the application she submitted. The
committee voted to change her application, which isn't allowed. She moved to reinstate
the application as she submitted it, to remove Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.80.212.
Move it forward as written and allow the Planning Department and Planning Commission to
review it. They will make recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Brenner
wanted to amend the language, but not remove it. She asked if the Council can amend an
application before it goes through the process.
Brenner stated the Fire Marshal doesn't want the Code section removed. They want
to work on amendments to the language, not to remove the language. The Fire Marshal
said it wouldn't be appropriate to remove the language.
Crawford stated that the Council can move forward the docket item to delete WCC
20.80.212, and the Fire Marshal can recommend not removing the language and instead
amending the language through the Comprehensive Plan process.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to remove the language. She wants the language
fixed. If the Council sends this forward to remove the language, that's what the Planning
staff and Planning Commission will look at, which isn't what she wants.
Roxanne Michaels, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the
language needs to be amended either way. The request is to docket this section, however
it's amended.
Crawford stated that when someone applies for an amendment, it's important to
respect and state their intent. If someone has a different intent, that person should have
applied to make a different change.
Crawford restated the motion to amend the description of PLN2011 -00008 on
Exhibit A, 'Suggested amendment to mend remove section 20.80.212 of the Whatcom
County Zoning Code,...."
The motion to amend item 2011 -00008 carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstains: Brenner (1)
The motion to approve the resolution as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT IN THE REGION'S
ECONOMIC VITALITY (AB2011 -115)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (9:38 :06 PM)
Knutzen moved to accept the introduction items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
1. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
REGARDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF A LAND DISTURBANCE
PERMIT AND AN APPEAL OF THE SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION, FILED
BY THE SQUALICUM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (AB2011 -091)
2. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
REGARDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF A LAND DISTURBANCE
PERMIT AND AN APPEAL OF THE SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION, FILED
BY THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM (AB2011 -092)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, THE
OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2010 -072B)
4. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION — REQ.
#TR2011 -01 (AB2011 -108A)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, THIRD
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $722,246 (AB2011 -114)
OTHER BUSINESS (9:39:11 PM)
Brenner stated she met with two members of the Right -Sized Jail group and Sheriff
Elfo last Friday. She moved to form a jail planning committee as an advisory committee to
the Council and a subcommittee of the Law and Justice Council.
Weimer stated he supports the idea. Usually they set up committees via a resolution
or ordinance describing the details of the committee. He asked if Councilmember Brenner
will create such a resolution or ordinance.
Brenner stated she will work with the Clerk of the Council to draft a resolution to
establish the committee.
Weimer stated he supports the idea, but wants to know the particulars. He also
wants feedback from the administration about what's going on with the jail. He senses they
need to ask for a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to address the
concerns. The administration is running away from its own EIS at this point. The question
is how they're moving forward.
Brenner stated a committee is a group that will focus this effort. Executive Kremen
said it would be better for the Council to create the committee.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, 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
Weimer stated he offers to help write a resolution. They should ask the
administration at the next meeting how they're proceeding in the jail process.
Kershner stated she agrees with Councilmember Weimer's comments.
Larson stated he spoke with the Sheriff, who indicated there is already a structure in
the Law and Justice Committee. The Council seems to be looking for a task force. He
recommends that they ought to define the specific task and timelines, as they did with the
Lummi Island Ferry Task Force. The Council will have to work with the administration to
figure things out. This is a good idea to get things back on track.
Weimer moved to have Councilmember Brenner draft a resolution forming a jail
planning committee for consideration in two weeks.
Brenner accepted the motion as a friendly amendment to her motion.
Larson stated they ought to put out a notice to the citizens, letting them know the
Council will solicit members of the community to participate.
Crawford stated the Sheriff can put the word out to the community.
Mann asked the role the Law and Justice Council has played thus far in forming plans
for the new jail. If the Law and Justice Council has played a significant role, he would not
want to rely on them to make up the new task force. A fresh perspective may be more
effective.
vote:
Motion to draft a resolution for consideration in two weeks carried by the following
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (9:49:52 PM)
Larson stated that last Thursday, the Northwest Business Monthly magazine
sponsored the Whatcom County business Person of the Year event and recognized
businesses and others for their work in the community. He named the honorees. The event
was exciting and well- attended.
Mann stated he is excited for upcoming planned field trips.
Knutzen stated he is a member of the Washington State University (WSU) Extension
Task Force and reported on the task force efforts to discuss budget issues. He encouraged
everyone to provide suggestions regarding WSU Extension programs. He's encouraged that
a promise to this community is more focus on commercial agriculture.
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
i
1
1
1
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 3/15/2011, Page 12