Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 12 20091 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 55 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council May 12, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. MINUTES CONSENT Absent: None Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried 7 -0. 1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APRIL 14, 2009 2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 21, 2009 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 28, 2009 OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Larry Helm, 260 E 41St Terrace, stated Councilmembers Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, Weimer, and Kelly voted last November to raise property taxes to fund water improvement projects. The projects were not adequately described, and there was no adequate cost analysis of each project. No list of projects or information on when they would be funded and how much money would be spent on each project has ever been made public. He also has a problem with the large percentage of money being allocated to the protection of the non - native Drayton Harbor shellfish operation. Lack of project analysis and good cost data is bad government, which should result in votes against the councilmembers who have supported this project list. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 1 1 The Planning Department staff is sending letters to farmers in the Drayton Harbor 2 drainage area for perceived bad farming practices. The letter says they will be fined $1,000 3 per day unless they contact the County. These threatening letters are counter - productive. 4 Some of these farmers have raised stock for over 20 years and don't know they're doing 5 anything wrong. Now, they've administratively created a critical area, and tell the farmers 6 what they've been doing for decades is bad. The County would get a lot more cooperation if 7 the first letter sent didn't include the threat. One or two animals on five acres is almost 8 never an environmental threat. He asked on what science is the theory based that the 9 cumulative number of stock in the watershed cause an environmental threat. There haven't 10 been any inventories of the stock currently in the drainage. The cost of the government 11 oversight of their farm operation forces many of them to get rid of their stock. That doesn't 12 support agriculture. He asked for an economic analysis of these farming decisions. 13 14 The City of Blaine is a big polluter with its storm drainage in the Drayton Harbor 15 watershed. He asked if the City is also receiving threatening letters. 16 17 Kris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, stated that according to the first quarter budget 18 report, Whatcom County faces a $5 million budget shortfall. They cannot afford to ignore 19 the business cycle and risk of periodic recessions when developing government budgets. 20 The declining general fund reserve is troubling. A few years ago, when the general fund 21 reserve was $23 million, citizens drew attention to the accumulated balances, which 22 exceeded the County guideline of 15 percent surplus. During this time, the question was 23 asked about the purpose of the surplus. The administration took actions to reduce the size 24 of the surplus, and resulted in an orgy of spending for one -time expenditures, consultant 25 fees, and pet projects. A lot of money was spent adding staff. Added staff represents 26 continuing costs. The administration and Council failed to manage the public's money 27 properly. The surplus was treated as a piggy bank to be raided for pet projects on their 28 wish lists. At one point, the Council and administration haggled over whether interest 29 earned from all the funds should go into the general fund cash reserve. It would have been 30 nice if the original surplus funds were set aside for a rainy day. 31 32 Bruce Deile, Bellingham resident, stated he is homeless in Bellingham. His case 33 against the Quality Inn Motel was brought before the small claims court in April. The 34 Quality Inn Motel required a credit card to rent a motel, and he sued the motel. He sued 35 the motel for one dollar. The Judge ruled against him because it's not illegal to require a 36 credit card to rent a motel room, and it was not an unethical business practice. The Judge 37 told him he could take the matter to the State legislature. It's impractical for him to show 38 up at the State legislature and be heard because he's homeless. Local jurisdictions in 39 Chicago passed a law requiring motels to require a credit card to rent a room. The Portland 40 Youth Hostel can't be rented without a credit card. In Bremerton, a motel clerk is suspected 41 of using a guest's credit card to purchase a pizza. Stealing goes both ways. 42 43 Brenner stated Chicago is in a different state. She was told that in the State of 44 Washington, it's governed by the State legislature, not at the local level. She doesn't know 45 if the Judge was aware that there's a list of places where people can stay without credit 46 cards. She has that list for Mr. Deile, who said he didn't want the list, but he wanted the 47 law changed. 48 49 Deile stated he would look at the list, but it should be distributed to the Chamber of 50 Commerce and motels. He asked what the Council found out from the Attorney General 51 about currency. 52 53 Brenner stated she can't make that request of the Attorney General. The request 54 has to come from the full Council. The full Council didn't want to deal with it. She can't 55 make that request as a single person. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 2 1 2 Johnnie Grames, citizen, stated today he had a little extra time. It was sunshine 3 outside. Inside the County offices, and their personnel were very helpful and cooperative, 4 including executives. He was looking into all this homeland security money that is coming 5 through the County. People in the peace movement, when they picketed against the war in 6 front of the Bellingham Herald, subsequently that war has bankrupted the country. A squad 7 of police came out there with an armored vehicle and tried to provoke them into some kind 8 of confrontation. These vehicles, through these grants, there are more vehicles being 9 bought with these grants through the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office, it takes more 10 than three minutes to explain all this stuff. One of the reason he doesn't come here is 11 because he's been hatcheted and discredited through the minutes. He doesn't know what 12 to do about it. There's a $70,000 appropriation here for a jail, which he believes is a $20 13 million jail, but it's all done behind the scenes of the Sheriff's Office. What he found out 14 today is that there's a buffer zone grant that the Council approved on March 17, 2009. The 15 Sheriff has until 2011, two years, in order to buy this other vehicle. There is another one 16 coming. He guesses that's Cheney's war on terrorists. He hopes it's not political enemies. 17 18 Leonard Lindstrom, citizen, stated he was blessed by a spiritual mother and 19 grandmother. He was not so lucky on the father side. He can tell them about (inaudible). 20 He was in grade school in the 1940's. She was up at the house talking to the folks. She 21 was talking about one of his cousins, which was a fishing boat, and lived in a small white 22 house in north Forest City. She was all over him like SOS. She didn't have a house like he 23 had (inaudible). He asked why he should have one now. He asked if they are going to sit 24 down and cry for the rest of their lives because they aren't going to have something that 25 their children or grandchildren have. He asked if there is a more useless reason to cry. 26 Peggy Lee is (inaudible). One of her favorite songs is "Is This All There Is ?" (Inaudible) 27 poverty, church or club, this is all there is. 28 29 John Lesow, Point Roberts, stated he heard about the proposal for a day care in the 30 agricultural zone 24 hours ago. That's too bad. The Planning Commission considered 31 amendments to the Code regarding day care centers and bed and breakfast services at its 32 March 26 meeting. That was primarily a housekeeping measure. There was a public 33 hearing, but no public testimony. There are agricultural community members on the 34 Planning Commission. As a parent, he chose to send his kids to Christian day cares over 35 secular day cares. If he had the opportunity to send his kids to a daycare facility on a farm, 36 he would have jumped at the opportunity. That's a great opportunity. He's seen arguments 37 against it because of dangers to the kids from pathogens and fertilizers, but kids are 38 resilient. Kids are exposed to those things if they go for a walk in any city park. A daycare 39 in an agricultural setting would be a great opportunity. Allowing children to interact with 40 Hispanic kids would allow them to learn Spanish. Pursue that kind of interaction. 41 42 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he would speak on population projections and 43 allocations. The Planning Department doesn't do anything nice and easy. Start by asking 44 what people want for the future of Whatcom County. Population projection issues are the 45 preeminent issues in the county, especially with the budget crisis. Population projections 46 determine how much they pay in taxes, what they will leave for their children and 47 grandchildren, the quality of life, and the future of the community. Public input is of no 48 interest. The lack of interest in public will is perfect fodder for lawsuits that both sides will 49 file. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix C, A -4, says citizen comments and 50 viewpoints shall be incorporated into the decision - making process and consideration of 51 citizen comments shall be evident in the decision - making process. The Growth Management 52 Act requires that public input be early and continuous. Instead of first raising awareness by 53 initiating countywide visioning discussion, the County Planning staff is hiding in secret 54 meetings and talking with well- meaning but unelected small town planners to determine 55 how the non -town areas of the county should grow. County planning meetings are not Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 3 1 publicly announced, do not allow public input, and take no minutes. County Planning claims 2 small town planners are staff, so no open meeting requirements apply. He asked if this 3 group of small town planners are County staff. He asked why the small towns are 4 stipulating how the non -town areas grow. He asked why these meetings are secret and 5 why this planning didn't start by asking the tax - paying citizens how they want the county to 6 grow and how much more money they want to spend on subsidizing growth. Plans have 7 changed constantly, so the County had to ask for an extension. Asking the citizens first 8 would have set parameters for one plan. They can plan nice, easy, and cheap, or planning 9 can be expensive and difficult. The taxpayers paid $300,000 on a consultant whose first 10 recommendation was to start by surveying the County residents. The Growth Management 11 Coordinating Council voted against that. A difficult process is one that includes clandestine 12 planning meetings, adding in nonessential planning objectives to purposely overload the 13 system, reminding everyone of all the nonessential work that needs to be done in a short 14 time so someone comes up with an option for which there is no time, no public review of 15 issues, a scripted dog- and -pony show, and dictating what it's going to be. The meetings 16 that occur now make people feel like their opposition doesn't matter. Instead, ask the 17 taxpayers to set goals for planning to achieve and set the perimeters. The technical 18 advisory group meetings are secret. 19 20 Mike Gleason, 4761 Mosquito Lake Road, stated he received responses regarding E- 21 verify. The answer wasn't correct. E- verify is not being used in Whatcom County at this 22 time. It should be. He read a story about someone named John who came into the country 23 illegally. They must use E- verify. 24 25 Brenner stated she left a message for Mr. Desler about the City of Lakewood. She's 26 learning about E- verify. No one is trying to give bad answers. 27 28 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated Whatcom County and all employers 29 have to follow the I -9 form process for immigration. A new process in place is called E- 30 verify. It's being phased in over the next couple of months. It starts to ,apply officially on 31 July 1, 2009. The County intends to install E- verify as an easier method to follow 32 immigration rules for employment and contracting. They will begin to include an E- verify 33 requirement in all County contracts. 34 35 Nelson asked if the County knows at this time whether its contractors have their 36 employee work records. Desler stated the County is not charged with complying with that. 37 However, employers have their own responsibility to comply with the federal government's 38 I -9 form provisions. The County doesn't take on the responsibility of assuring that its 39 contractors comply. They will add language to new contracts as they're implemented. 40 41 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated it's the employer's 42 responsibility, not the County's responsibility, to make sure employers don't hire illegal 43 aliens. People who want to live in rural areas absorb a lot of tax dollars. It drives taxes up 44 for everyone. Whatcom County must plan for efficient growth. 45 46 Simeon Paxman, 6109 Shelby Court, Ferndale, stated he is a student at Western 47 Washington University (WWU). The resolution amending CRP #904019 and 48 authorizing additional funds for the award of a contract to low bidder, Tiger 49 Construction Ltd., for Mosquito Lake Road Middle Fork Bridge No. 140 50 Rehabilitation in the amount of $2,232,062.20 (AB2009 -239) and the request 51 approval for the County Executive to enter into a purchase option and purchase 52 and sale agreement between Whatcom County and the Nature Conservancy to 53 acquire approximately 146 acres at Lily Point, Point Roberts in the amount of 54 $2,530,000 (AB2009 -237) are agenda items tonight. Two million dollars seems like a lot 55 of money to spend on a bridge out in the middle of nowhere. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 4 1 2 3 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 55 Crawford stated both of those projects are funded from State and federal dollars, not County dollars. Brenner stated those grant funds can't be used for anything else. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated clustering in the Rural Forestry zone makes environmental sense. There is less land disturbance, fewer impervious surfaces, and larger remainder tracts that can be efficiently used. Another strategy to use to preserve forestry is one similar to the purchase of development rights program for agriculture. Ed Henken, 6960 Northwest Drive, Ferndale, stated that he was the County Engineer and Director of Public Works for 27 years. When he started, the County population, including Bellingham, was about 50,000. They went through massive growth in those 27 years. Long driveways for individual houses in the Rural Forestry zone areas was an ongoing problem. The problem was getting them constructed to a standard to accommodate emergency vehicles. Lot clustering made a lot of sense. There was no increase in density, and it put the homes together in an area where they could be more properly served. It would be a real mistake to eliminate lot clustering. The Squalicum Mountain development problems are a valid concern. The competent County staff can write an appropriate ordinance to deal with that without eliminating all lot clustering. Bob Van Weerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, stated daycare on agricultural land is a good use. It needs guidelines, but he sees no big problem with it. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN — A COMPONENT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2009- 088A) Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated the plan is essentially fairly good. There should be a chance in the future to adjust it if necessary. Wynne Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted and read from a handout (on file). She is in favor of the Subarea Plan. It has major problems, but they need to get this going. There are inconsistencies between the plan and the Code. Also, they should have spent the ferry transportation study money on the subarea plan. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Rod Johnston, 2714 South Park Drive, Bellingham, submitted a map (on file). He also owns property on Legoe Bay on Lummi Island. He has never seen it flood at Legoe Bay onto the property as indicated on the map he submitted. He described the property. The map is inaccurate and shouldn't be in the plan, especially if the map is used by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It will affect their insurance and resale value. David Dickinson 4100 Legoe Bay, Lummi Island, stated the map on page 50, which shows a flooding area at Legoe Bay, wasn't in the plan as adopted by the Lummi Islanders. Now it is. It doesn't belong there. Their examples of the overflow of Tuttle Lane includes three culverts. They are small culverts. They occasionally plug up during heavy rains, which causes the water to get about 12 inches deep on Tuttle Lane. He disagrees with the FEMA designation that is essentially Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 5 1 2 3 4 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 55 due to a culvert that is too small. There is some empirical evidence of flooding behind Mr. Johnston's house and along other parcels. There are ancient, 800 -year old fir trees. Salt water flooding will kill the roots of fir trees, so those areas weren't flooded. The sea wall constructed at Village Point caused and exacerbated flooding. Tear down that wall. Darlyn Delboca, Ferndale, stated she submitted testimony with others last week. The subject of her testimony is protection of resources for agriculture, including soils and water resources on the island. Water for agriculture hasn't been budgeted for in the plan, as it has for residential development. Protect both those resources on the island. She assumes the Councilmembers have read her testimony submitted earlier. At this point, they need to start over. A lot has changed since they started this in 2003. There is more population on the island than the island can carry. Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, submitted and read from a handout (on file). The seawall at Village Point exacerbated its erosion. Remove the seawall. Part of the Subarea Plan includes a downzone from one unit per three acres to one unit per five acres. There is enough water to support one house per acre. The downzone isn't necessary. If they do approve the downzone, then vest the three -acre properties. Mary Dickinson, 2933 Sunset Drive, stated her family lives at Legoe Bay Drive. She agrees with the previous speakers regarding Village Point. There has been no record of sea flooding or freshwater flooding at that location or at the end of Tuttle Lane, except when the culverts are plugged, in history. Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing. Caskey - Schreiber moved to forward to concurrency for adoption later this evening. This plan isn't perfect, but they had four or five different work .sessions on it and took many comments. This could go on forever. She asked when is the next opportunity to update this plan. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the rotation for subarea plans is about ten years, but anything can be put on the annual docket, especially housekeeping issues. Caskey- Schreiber referenced the testimony from Ms. Delboca and others, there isn't a lot of detail on how to implement agricultural protection. The Council tried to put comments in the plan about valuing agriculture. If the direction is in a subarea plan, then staff can create measures for implementation. Brenner asked the process to figure out and change the flooding map. Stalheim stated the flooding areas regulated by FEMA are maps adopted by FEMA. Those maps aren't inventory maps. He's not sure where this map came from. This map is not the basis for determining regulatory jurisdiction. FEMA adopts those maps. Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated they added language to the subarea plan, suggested by Whatcom County River and Flood Division Manager Paula Cooper, regarding this map. It is a general map that does not identify the entire area. The area is a frequently - flooded area as designated by FEMA, but it has to do with the coastline. It doesn't go inland 800 feet. The FEMA maps have been mapped out for years. This is not a change. The map is not intended as an increase in regulations. Crawford stated the Dickinson's can pursue a process, which is costly, for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) with FEMA. He described the process. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 6 1 Brenner asked staff to find out and provide her more information about the sea wall. 2 It's not the first time she's heard this complaint. 3 4 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated he can provide a copy of a 5 consultant study. 6 7 Motion carried 7 -0. 8 9 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.08.170 TO CLARIFY 10 PROCEDURES FOR THE "MINI- INITIATIVE ", AND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 11 1.08.090, -PETITION - REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES", TO AMEND 12 THE LANGUAGE SO THAT EACH CONFORMS TO LANGUAGE USED IN THE 13 WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER (AB2009 -185) (REVISED ORDINANCE 14 INTRODUCED 4/28) 15 16 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. 17 18 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. He appreciates County staff for working 19 on this language to serve the intended purpose. 20 21 Motion carried 7 -0. 22 23 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 21, LAND 24 DIVISION REGULATIONS, REGARDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, EXEMPT 25 LAND DIVISIONS AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS, SHORT 26 SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISIONS, FINAL LONG 27 SUBDIVISIONS, SURVEYS AND DEDICATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS (AB2009- 28 177) (REVISED ORDINANCE INTRODUCED 4/28) 29 30 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. 31 32 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. He appreciates the patience of this 33 Council, the Planning Department, and all the people who worked to make this happen. 34 35 Motion carried 7 -0. 36 37 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.83.110 TO INCLUDE 38 LANGUAGE REGARDING `REDUCTION OF AREA" IN THE NON - CONFORMING 39 USE CHAPTER (AB2009 -179) (REVISED ORDINANCE INTRODUCED 4/28) 40 41 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. 42 43 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. 44 45 Brenner stated there were problems with the part about boundary line adjustments. 46 She needs more convincing, because she doesn't understand yet. If someone wants to do a 47 boundary line adjustment, if both parcels are nonconforming and developed, she doesn't 48 understand the requirement for the regulation to equally convey land for land. Building 49 sites and developed sites are different. She's not comfortable with that, especially in a rural 50 area. If two people want to change their boundary line, they should be able to. She asked 51 why the councilmembers are okay with this. 52 53 Crawford stated he's okay with it. They will have to develop a guideline for the 54 smallest possible lot size if they don't have this language. He doesn't know how to do that, 55 short of going zone by zone to develop that guideline. This gives the Planning staff a guide Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, 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 55 to follow in terms of how the boundary line adjustment impacts the nonconforming sizes of both nonconforming lots. He asked what they would do. Brenner stated all they have to do is say the lot has to meet setbacks. If the adjustment doesn't allow the lot to meet setbacks, then they have to do some trading. The County has more nonconforming lots than conforming lots. With this regulation, the County is creating a mess for someone who just wants to do a lot line adjustment specifically for pasturing. She doesn't care how big someone's yard is. care. Crawford stated it's about finding a fundamental, practical means for subdivision. Brenner stated it's already nonconforming. Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. If the owner doesn't care, she won't RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF F34 AND LAUREL GRAVEL PITS AS SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (AB2009 -231) Fleetwood opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: James Essig, Granite Construction, submitted and read from a handout (on file). Appraisal values are overstated and do not reflect the current market conditions. Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing. Frank Abart, Public Works Director gave a staff report. There is no compelling reason to either sell or keep this property. They were approached by the adjacent property owner about selling it. They spent around $10,000 on an appraisal to determine its value. It never really gained much traction, so they didn't get too far with the Property Management Committee until they were approached again in the last few months by the adjacent property owners. There is some value in the aggregate. There isn't anything too terribly wrong with the appraisal. The price of property today is different than it was a year ago, but the County doesn't have an overriding need to sell the property. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County is always buying gravel for road projects. She asked why the County doesn't use this. Abart stated the County uses an adjacent pit. The County could use this some day. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is fine with the appraisal and holding out for that sale amount. If it doesn't sell, the County can keep it. Brenner asked why the Council wasn't asked if it wanted to sell the property, before the administration spent $10,000 on an appraisal. According to Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, an adjacent 20 -acre pit appraised at $1.3 million. Another pit that was larger was appraised at a lower price. If they are going to spend $10,000 on an appraisal, it should be for something they want to sell. The price sounded high to Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje. They don't need a high appraisal to hold on to a property. Abart stated a commercial appraisal is generally good for a year or longer. He's not sure if that's the case. Brenner stated the representative from Granite Northwest told her that County staff advised him to call her. Jim Perkins, Public Works Department, submitted a handout (on file) and gave a history of the appraisal on this property. The County geologist appraised the aggregate. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 8 1 The representative from Granite Northwest had issues with the appraisal. Because they 2 could not sell the property at less than the appraised amount without Council approval, he 3 told the representative to call Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Brenner. The County 4 doesn't have to sell this asset. The Property Management Committee said the County can 5 sell the property. It needs to have a minimum price and put out through a sealed bid. 6 7 Fleetwood asked about the Property Management Committee criteria for determining 8 if a property should be sold. Perkins stated the County may have an old mining permit it 9 could renew. If the County decides to mine this aggregate, it would have to buy equipment 10 and hire people. The cost would probably be more than it's worth. One advantage of 11 selling to a neighboring aggregate company is that they already have the equipment and 12 staff. In the past, he asked the company if they would be interested in leasing the mine, 13 but they weren't interested at that time. According to the appraiser, selling just the mining 14 rights should be worth $1 per cubic yard of aggregate at minimum. According to the report, 15 there should be 730,000 cubic yards of aggregate. After, when the land is reclaimed, the 16 land may be worth $50,000 per acre, or another $550,000. They could maximize the return 17 by leasing out the mining rights. The problem is they would be responsible for reclamation. 18 19 Crawford asked if there would probably be only one bidder if there was an auction, 20 and if the appraisal price they set will probably be the price they bid. He asked about the 21 process. Perkins stated the company asked to buy the property as surplus. That was an 22 impetus for having this appraisal done. They are basing the asking price on the appraisal. 23 The market value is established. They are banking on that appraiser doing a good job. The 24 appraiser was recommended by most other appraisers in the state. He did a thorough job. 25 The County doesn't have to sell the property. If it does, establish the appraised value as 26 the asking price. If the County doesn't get that in a sealed bid, it doesn't have to sell the 27 property. 28 29 Brenner asked if the County always keeps current appraisals on its property. Perkins 30 stated it doesn't. The original appraisal was done as a residential property and was very 31 outdated. It was clearly not a residential property. They felt they needed a good, updated 32 appraisal. 33 34 Brenner stated that on something like this, the County Council Public Works 35 Committee is the appropriate place to vet such a decision. Perkins stated aggregate isn't 36 getting any cheaper, and there will be a shortage. The County hasn't been mining it in the 37 past, and likely won't go into the mining business. The question is whether this is an asset 38 that would help the County financially and whether the County needs or wants to sell it. 39 40 Brenner stated she would rather the County not do appraisals unless they know they 41 want to sell properties. Perkins stated they had determined that. They decided they would. 42 They reconsidered when they found out how much aggregate was there, but ended up 43 voting to surplus it. 44 45 Crawford stated the aggregate value is $730,000. The land value is $550,000. He 46 asked if the reclamation costs are about $200,000. Perkins stated they don't know the 47 reclamation costs. They could offset some of the reclamation cost by charging people to 48 dump dirt there. The $1.1 million represents the price for the land with the aggregate. Eric 49 Schlehuber has been working on a reclamation plan with the State. 50 51 Crawford moved to approve the resolution. 52 53 Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Kelly opposed. 54 55 Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 9 1 CONSENT AGENDA 2 3 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 4 moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through five. 5 6 Caskey- Schreiber withdrew item five. 7 8 Brenner withdrew item four. 9 10 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three carried 7 -0. 11 12 Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Fleetwood out of the room. 13 14 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 15 16 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 17 LEASE EXTENSION BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PEEPLES 18 ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR TWO MONTHS FOR THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 215 19 N. COMMERCIAL ST, BELLINGHAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,700 (AB2009- 20 238) 21 22 2. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP #904019 AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL 23 FUNDS FOR THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO LOW BIDDER, TIGER 24 CONSTRUCTION LTD., FOR MOSQUITO LAKE ROAD MIDDLE FORK BRIDGE 25 NO. 140 REHABILITATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,232,062.20 (AB2009 -239) 26 27 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #09 -36 28 TO LOW BIDDER ASSOCIATED ASPHALT, INC FOR ANNUAL ASPHALT PRE - 29 LEVEL PROJECTS AT VARIOUS COUNTY LOCATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 30 $491,860 (AB2009 -240) 31 32 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO 33 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HDR 34 ENGINEERING, INC. FOR SITE SELECTION SERVICES FOR THE WHATCOM 35 COUNTY ADULT CORRECTIONS FACILITY AND SHERIFF'S HEADQUARTERS 36 PROJECT TO INCLUDE WETLANDS DELINEATION FOR BOTH FINAL 37 CANDIDATE SITES IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,305 (AB2009 -241) 38 39 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 40 moved to approve the request. 41 42 Brenner stated this is the same consulting firm that initially told the County that one 43 site was definitely better than the other. The County paid a lot of money to this firm. Now 44 the firm is saying the sites are virtually the same. That's not what she was told. The firm's 45 original thing included numbers that were not correct. She doesn't want to give this firm 46 another $70,000. It's not right. They have changed their language completely from what 47 they told the County originally. 48 49 Crawford stated they discussed whether or not this is an appropriate amount for the 50 area being surveyed and delineated. He discussed the plan with County Natural Resources 51 Manager Oliver Grah, who felt this was an appropriate amount. He will support the request. 52 53 Nelson stated he didn't have a problem with either site. The significance was not the 54 wetland delineation. He asked the definition of "equally viable." 55 Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 10 1 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that is the firm's term. The consulting 2 team came up with two final sites. Another team reviewed them. Based on the review of 3 the criteria, they felt site five was slightly better than site four. As part of the original 4 contract with HDR, the schedule, and their scope, the administration decided to take this 5 before the Council. If the Council wanted to move forward, they budgeted for a full 6 environmental impact statement (EIS), wetlands delineation, and other analysis on one site, 7 which is the site chosen by the staff team. After discussion with the County Council and 8 hearing testimony, people said they wanted that information from both sites. That's why 9 this matter is coming back to the Council. They propose to gather the information on both 10 sites and bring the information to the Council for its review. At that point, they can go 11 through the public process and final decision - making process. Both sites are equally viable. 12 13 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can save money by using the delineation map done 14 by the Black Brothers. Desler stated it doesn't match with the requirements of the. wetlands 15 analysis. 16 17 Brenner stated she remembers clearly that the sites were not portrayed as equally 18 viable. One site was portrayed as being better than the other site. One reason was 19 because the other site would have to have all this stuff underground. She met with the 20 airport manager and looked at the maps, and that was not correct. Whoever does this 21 should use maps that already exist and verify them, not reinvent the wheel. She's not 22 comfortable with this contractor anymore. 23 24 Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is something the County will eventually have to have 25 and that the staff can't do. She hopes this isn't a tool to get them to their preferred option. 26 If they would rather go with the preferred option, don't waste $64,000. Instead, just have 27 a discussion on which is better. Desler stated he has no preferred option. There are 28 advantages to both locations. The information needs to come out. The process required by 29 the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) needs to be followed. In -house staff can't do 30 this. 31 32 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 33 34 5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 35 CONTRACT WITH BELLINGHAM WHATCOM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 36 COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR 37 WHATCOM COUNTY'S EDI PROGRAM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 38 PROGRAMMING FOR ALL OF WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 39 (AB2009 -242) 40 41 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 42 moved to approve the request. 43 44 Caskey- Schreiber stated approve the contract for one year instead of two years. 45 She distributed a list of Economic Development Investment (EDI) projects that have come 46 forward. In 2008, there was one project. Ms. Jordan said there were other projects they 47 considered that didn't meet the criteria. She would have liked to see what those projects 48 were. She would like more accountability for the County's money. There's no harm in 49 funding them annually. She suggested a friendly amendment to approve the contract for 50 one year instead of two years. 51 52 Crawford stated this request is not to spend the money. This is the contract for the 53 services for the money they've approved. This contact expires December 31, 2009. He 54 accepted the friendly amendment. They will go visit this contract again next year. 55 Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 11 1 Caskey- Schreiber asked why the amount jumped from $20,000 to $45,000 per year. 2 She asked if they are going to get $90,000 to do the EDI program, which the County used 3 to do in- house. 4 5 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the previous program. was supported 6 with $25,000 in general funds and $20,000 in EDI funds. This year, the Executive 7 requested and the Council adopted a budget for 2009 and 2010 that was $45,000 in total 8 coming out of the EDI funds. No funds are designated out of the general fund. 9 10 Caskey- Schreiber stated she disagrees. She looked through the budget thoroughly. 11 She didn't see any proposal to the Economic Development Council (EDC). The Council 12 packet material say that they approved funding through the 2009 and 2010 budget process. 13 The amount budgeted for 2010 is $45,000. This contract is for 2009. 14 15 Caskey- Schreiber asked how much the administration would advocate them to get in 16 2010. Desler stated the amount originally requested for 2010 is $45,000. 17 18 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's not okay with that. That is a huge leap of money. 19 She doesn't see evidence to justify that kind of increase. 20 21 Motion carried 6 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 22 23 24 OTHER ITEMS 25 26 1. ORDINANCE REMOVING THE LOT CLUSTERING PROVISION FROM WHATCOM 27 COUNTY CODE 20.42, RURAL FORESTRY DISTRICT (AB2009 -210A) 28 29 Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to adopt the 30 ordinance. 31 32 Brenner stated that since clustering has been allowed, there have been more 33 complaints and people are more organized because they're closer together. She tells people 34 about the right -to -farm ordinance, but they don't have a right -to- forest ordinance. There 35 are fewer complaints from people when they're further apart. There are more impacts from 36 roads when people are farther apart, but there is more area for the stormwater to get taken 37 care of. The potential harm to the resource is much greater when cluster developments are 38 near the resource. 39 40 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's undecided on the issue. Mr. Henken said clustering 41 has an advantage due to fewer roads. That is a big issue. These roads used for forestry 42 practices have the potential to become drainage ditches. Allowing people to develop 43 property in the middle of a forestry zone puts them at risk. A cluster may be a safer option. 44 Residential dwellings don't belong in forestry areas. Clustering may have a benefit. She 45 wants to figure out environmentally, for logging, and for citizen safety. 46 47 Nelson stated he disagrees with Mr. Henken's analysis of the roads. Forestry is 48 typically not in areas where there are developments. The rural forestry zone was created to 49 allow rural people to use their property and to buffer commercial forestry from residential 50 areas. Once the rural forest zone is in place, people want to change the zone to rural, one 51 unit per five or ten acres (R5A or R10A) and get more density. There's always been that 52 pressure. However, protect that rural forestry as intended, with one unit per 20 acres. 53 First, commercial and rural forestry zones are in areas that are difficult to build in and 54 develop. Forestry use is the best use of that land. They are generally in mountainous 55 areas. They are now becoming desirable as view lots. Those clustered view lots will ruin Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 12 1 forestry practices, because their owners will not want the trees removed. Cluster could be 2 used in other areas if done effectively. Clustering will incrementally destroy forestry. Also, 3 when there is one house on 20 acres, runoff is generally contained on the property. 4 5 Weimer stated he will vote for this now because it's clear that the clustering 6 provision in the forestry zone isn't working, but he wants to revisit the code. There are 7 some ways in which it can be advantageous, but it's not a high priority now. There aren't 8 many lots that would be affected. There are ways to limit the number of houses in a 9 cluster. Change the requirement so the land set -aside is for a forestry use permanently. 10 For now, this provision is broken, and they don't have the time or staff to fix it. 11 12 Fleetwood stated he struggled with this issue. The cluster provision in forested areas 13 is rarely used. It's not a great issue. There isn't much evidence one way or another. 14 15 Caskey- Schreiber stated there should be some predictability in the rural zone. It 16 seems unfair that someone would develop a higher- density neighborhood next to someone 17 on a 20 -acre parcel. That's not fair to property owners. However, she is concerned about 18 public safety. The developments on the side of a mountain get hammered by logging. 19 20 Nelson stated people get hammered by agriculture. They are cleaning up Portage 21 Bay and Drayton Harbor. 22 23 Caskey- Schreiber stated living below a logging activity can be hazardous to one's 24 home, which she saw on a field trip she took in Acme. 25 26 Brenner stated that anything done improperly can be bad. There are so many 27 requirements on logging now. She fears that they will end up with no resource if people 28 develop in clusters. 29 30 Kelly stated the provision isn't perfect. The provision depends on what they're trying 31 to address. Not many folks in Whatcom County want to see houses on the hillside. He 32 agrees with Councilmember Nelson's concerns. Sustainable forestry in certain areas is on 33 the way out. He spent eight years on the State Forest Practices Board. His first two and a 34 half years as a tribal representative was spent trying to fight the timber industry in an effort 35 to somehow regulate the industry and recover salmon. He quickly realized they are not 36 going to recover salmon on the backs of the timber industry. If they did things the way 37 they intended to regulate the industry, they would have put the industry out of business. 38 Very quickly, they would see those hillsides fill up with houses. That view has been adopted 39 more and more by the environmental groups. There is a new environmental group that 40 embraces and protects sustainable forestry. They must embrace and sustain forestry and 41 agricultural practices or they will lose rural character. If they allow conversions to take 42 place, they can't regulate the houses in a way to meet water quality and salmon recovery 43 needs. He prefers to side with the timber industry, embrace those practices, and make sure 44 they're sustainable in the long run. Prohibit conversions wherever possible in farm and 45 forestry lands. He agrees with Councilmember Weimer that they could tweak the goals. 46 47 Motion carried 6 -I with Crawford opposed. 48 49 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -57 50 TO VENDOR PAPS MACHINERY FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT 51 TRUCK MOUNTED DITCHING MACHINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,168.75 52 (VENDOR IS WILLING TO HONOR 2008 PRICING) (AB2009 -218) 53 54 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 55 moved to approve the request. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, 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 55 Kelly stated he prefers to wait until after the State of the County address in a month or so and hear where they're at with their financial struggles. Brenner stated put this out to bid for a company to be the sole provider for a number of years. The provider will then be able to afford the equipment. The County can be the backup with the existing equipment. This is a very expensive piece of equipment, which is why people haven't bid on being the County's backup service. Let the contractor be the main service provider. Fleetwood asked if they must purchase this equipment now. Frank Abart, Public Works Department, stated this equipment is 20 years old, and was scheduled for replacement at 15 years. They can continue to service the equipment and keep it running. It is past it's designed lifecycle. There is money in the equipment rental and revolve (ER &R) fund for this purchase. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the purchase. During the flood, the ditches on every .road she traveled overflowed. Those ditches are a mess and need a lot of work this summer. Brenner stated she talked to two contractors who said they would be interested in investing in that equipment if they were the sole provider. The prices today are the same as in 2008, and will continue to stay flat. Nelson asked how Brenner's proposal would affect the union contract issue. Abart stated it is a concern. The work has traditionally been done in -house with organized labor. Therefore, he needs to take steps to enter into discussions with that organized labor. He doesn't know how long that will take. Nelson stated establish criteria for the administration to use to move forward in a negotiation with the union, if contracting is the Council's direction. Brenner stated there is plenty for their organized labor to do. She moved to hold in Council. Motion to hold in Council failed 3 -4 with Kelly, Brenner, and Nelson in favor. Motion to approve carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Kelly opposed. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC VITALITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER) FOR THE SUPPORT OF LOCAL BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION THROUGHOUT WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,800 (AB2009 -234) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. Caskey- Schreiber stated this item provides actual, quantifiable evidence of business support. The other contract didn't. Crawford stated he disagrees. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 14 1 Motion carried 7 -0. 2 3 4. REQUEST APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 4 BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND 5 THE WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CPAL PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,000 7 (AB2009 -213) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD 8 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) 9 10 (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District 11 Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion 12 of the meeting.) 13 14 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 15 moved to approve the request. 16 17 Motion carried 7 -0. 18 19 S. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF ANTIVIRAL MEDICATION IN 20 RESPONSE TO THE H1N1 (SWINE FLU) VIRUS (AB2009 -235) 21 22 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 23 moved to approve the request. 24 25 Nelson stated the Center for Disease Control (CDC) lowered the pandemic rating as 26 the flu season is ending. He asked if it could pick up again in the fall. 27 28 Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the CDC won't change the 29 pandemic alert level. It will remain at level five, based on the definition and sustained 30 transmission. 31 32 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) 33 34 Delahunt continued to state the pandemic level isn't going to change at this point, 35 depending on the seasonal ebb and flow. 36 37 Nelson asked if the Health Department feels the county is at risk, even in the 38 summer months. Delahunt stated people predict that the northern hemisphere may see a 39 bit of a dip in the activity. They would like to have the antiviral medications purchased and 40 in the community by fall. It can take up to four months to get the medication with the 41 extended shelf life. They could get it quicker than four months, but it would have a shorter 42 shelf life. 43 44 Nelson stated he's not sure that the H1N1 virus will come back in a form that is 45 effectively treated with Tamiflu. However, it's better to be cautious. They will have to go 46 over criteria more. Delahunt stated they will discuss the distribution criteria with the Board 47 of Health. 48 49 Fleetwood asked how many units of medication they have now. Delahunt stated 50 they have 6,000 courses that they received from the strategic national stockpile last week. 51 They will add 19,000 courses with this purchase. The Centers for Disease Control 52 recommends that communities have enough to treat 25 percent of the population. They 53 only received 15 percent from the strategic national stockpile, at no cost. This additional 54 ten percent can be purchased at a subsidized price. The standard price through a pharmacy Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 15 1 is approximately $80 to $90 per course. They can purchase this medication for less than 2 $15 per course. 3 4 Brenner stated this medication will have an effect on other types of influenza. 5 6 Delahunt stated the strategic national stockpile allotment received at no cost will 7 treat 15 percent of the county population. The CDC recommends that they have enough on 8 hand to treat 25 percent of the population. They need to purchase enough for another 10 9 percent at the subsidized price. 10 11 Caskey- Schreiber stated she hopes that they come up with a much better 12 distribution plan. Delahunt stated they are also working on an alternative system of care in 13 case medical providers get overloaded. 14 15 Brenner stated they could have a level six pandemic, but it doesn't mean anyone will 16 get very sick beyond the seasonal flu. That means it spread far. 17 18 Motion carried 7 -0. 19 20 6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CARLETTI ARCHITECTS FOR 22 DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HOVANDER MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN THE 23 AMOUNT OF $28,500 (AB2009 -236) 24 25 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 26 moved to approve the request. 27 28 Motion carried 7 -0. 29 30 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 31 PURCHASE OPTION AND PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 32 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY TO ACQUIRE 33 APPROXIMATELY 146 ACRES AT LILY POINT, POINT ROBERTS IN THE 34 AMOUNT OF $2,530,000 (AB2009 -237) 35 36 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 37 moved to approve the request. 38 39 Brenner stated this is all grant money. It's not County tax money. Part of the grant 40 money is private grant money. 41 42 Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated this is a 43 combination of federal and State grants. 44 45 Weimer stated he supports the project. He's confused by the process. They haven't 46 given the budget authority to spend this money yet. The purchase agreement doesn't have 47 to be executed until the grant money comes in, according to what he was told. However, 48 he can't find that language anywhere in the purchase agreement. Also, there are missing 49 exhibits. He asked if they don't have to pay this money until all the grant money is in. 50 McFarlane stated there is a purchase option for $10 that keeps this open for two years. the 51 reason the purchase agreement is included is because it describes that the price of the 52 property will be sold to Whatcom County, minus grant funds from the Nature Conservancy 53 and State grants. Really, this is execution of the purchase option. He will come back to the 54 Council with a supplement budget request after they get confirmation from the State on the 55 grant monies. He explained the grant and administrative processes. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 16 1 2 Weimer stated this request grants the Executive the authority to sign the actual 3 purchase agreement, which goes beyond the option. That means the County is on the hook 4 to pay this money, whether or not the grant shows up. He suggested a friendly 5 amendment to only approve the Executive signing the purchase option, and not the 6 agreement. Delahunt stated that would be adequate. 7 8 Brenner stated this is one of the highest priority areas they want to preserve. They 9 don't have to spend local money on it. They're lucky to get grant money for it in this 10 economic climate. 11 12 Crawford accepted the friendly amendment. 13 14 Motion carried 7 -0. 15 16 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, FOR THE 17 PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS OF BED AND BREAKFAST 18 OPERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE CODE 19 (AB2009 -229) 20 21 Caskey- Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and 22 moved to adopt the ordinance. 23 24 Motion carried 7 -0. 25 26 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, FOR THE 27 PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE DEFINITIONS OF DAY CARE OPERATIONS 28 AND ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE CODE (AB2009 -230) 29 30 Caskey- Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and 31 moved to adopt the ordinance. 32 33 Brenner stated she would like assurance from Council to put a high priority on the 34 proposal brought to the Council in writing and at today's committee meeting. She 35 understood that if they make something a high priority, they can work it through the 36 system faster. Mr. Stalheim did say that the Planning Commission was tied up until this fall. 37 However, she talked to Mr. Lesow this evening. If the Planning Commission wants to take 38 something out of order or bring something up, it may. She asked if the Planning 39 Commission is busy until November and if the Planning Commission can bring this item 40 forward itself. 41 42 (Clerk's Note: Upon request of Councilmember Brenner, the following comments 43 from Director Stalheim are transcribed verbatim.) 44 DAVID The, uh, the agenda for the Planning Commission is fully booked STALHEIM, all the way, probably through October, addressing the rural and PLANNING AND the urban growth area issue. So, unless they want to meet DEVELOPMENT more often than twice per month, which is not at all planned at SERVICES this point in time, um, it's fully allocated at this point. DIRECTOR BRENNER So they can't personally or if a, if a majority of them want to, add an agenda item. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 17 STALHEIM No, actually even under the County ordinance, the work that they do is there to assist both our department in fulfilling the duties as set forth by the Council with the legislative agenda. So, I was looking at the rules for this. First off is that any amendment has to be by resolution. So, the Council would have to take this issue up to amend the zoning code by resolution, so you'd have to put that on your agenda at some point in time. And then that could be on the docket. The docket procedures are that that happens by December 31 -for consideration of the following year. And so if you want that to go faster, um, we'll have to take that into consideration with our administrative workload as part of that. I also want to point out, I just did a, some really quick research on this issue. There has been several Growth Management Hearings Board cases that I've found, um, issues like accessory dwelling units that stand freely in agricultural land to be in violation of the Growth Management Act, home -based industries to be in violation of the Growth Management Act, when on resource lands. I don't think this is an easy issue, and I don't want the Council to think that resolution of this will be easy on our part or the community's part in taking this conversation on. So I do not think that this is warranted at all for discussion with our workload in 2009. 1 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 2 3 10. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON 4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD2005 -0007) AND PRELIMINARY LONG 5 SUBDIVISION, (LSS2005 -0012) FOR - LINCOLN ROAD PLAT", FILED BY MIKE 6 OWENS (AB2009 -248) 7 8 Caskey- Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and 9 moved to approve. 10 11 Motion carried 7 -0. 12 13 14 APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 15 16 1. ORDINANCE TO DELETE POLICY 2BB -7 FROM THE CHERRY POINT URBAN 17 GROWTH AREA OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 18 (AB2008 -402) (FORWARDED DECEMBER 9, 2008) 19 20 Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance. 21 22 Motion carried 74 23 24 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY 25 PLAN, A COMPONENT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 26 RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (AB2008 -448) (FORWARDED 27 JANUARY 13, 2009) 28 29 Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance. 30 31 Motion carried 7 -0. 32 Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 18 1 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 CHAPTER FOUR - CAPITAL FACILITIES, CHAPTER SIX - TRANSPORTATION, 3 AND APPENDIX G - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES BACKGROUND 4 INFORMATION (AB2009 -065) (FORWARDED JANUARY 27, 2009) 5 6 Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. 7 8 Motion carried 7 -0. 9 10 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 11 CHAPTER FOUR, CAPITAL FACILITIES (AB2009 -064) (FORWARDED 12 JANUARY 27, 2009) 13 14 Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance. 15 16 Motion carried 7 -0. 17 18 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO 19 ADD THE NECESSARY REFERENCES TO RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 20 LAKE WHATCOM AS A DRINKING WATER SOURCE, THE STATE LISTING OF 21 LAKE WHATCOM AS AN IMPAIRED WATERBODY, AND THE ROLE OF 22 FORESTRY IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2009 -204) 23 (FORWARDED APRIL 28, 2009) 24 25 Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. 26 27 Motion carried 7 -0. 28 29 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 30 REMOVING THE "PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA" DESIGNATION 31 FROM SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2009 -205) (FORWARDED APRIL 28, 2009) ' 32 33 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. 34 35 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 36 37 7. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREA PLAN - A 38 COMPONENT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2009- 39 088A) (SCHEDULED TO BE FORWARDED THIS EVENING) 40 41 Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. 42 43 Motion carried 7 -0. 44 45 S. MOTION AND VOTE TO APPROVE ALL THE ABOVE - ADOPTED 46 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CONCURRENTLY (AB2009 -120) 47 48 Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve all the Comprehensive Plan amendments 49 concurrently. 50 51 Crawford stated he wants it on the record that he doesn't want to vote in favor of the 52 first Comprehensive Plan item, but he won't go through the process of reconsidering the 53 vote. Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 19 1 2 Motion carried 7 -0. 3 4 5 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 6 7 Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items. 8 9 Motion carried 7 -0. 10 11 1. ORDINANCE DECREASING ENGINEERING'S PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND 12 TO A TOTAL OF $100 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 13 SERVICES (AB2009 -244) 14 15 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.20, WHATCOM 16 COUNTY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICTS, FOR THE FORMATION OF THE 17 BIRCH BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT (AB2009 -245) (HEARING TO 18 BE SCHEDULED) 19 20 3. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON BIRCH BAY 21 DRIVE AND HARBORVIEW ROAD (AB2009 -201A) (HEARING TO BE 22 SCHEDULED) 23 24 4. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON PORTIONS 25 OF BIRCH POINT ROAD, SHINTAFFER ROAD, ANDERSON ROAD, ALDERSON 26 ROAD AND JACKSON ROAD, IN THE BIRCH BAY AREA (AB2009 -201B) 27 (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED) 28 29 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.78 — 30 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT (AB2009 -066A) 31 32 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTH 33 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $283,308 (AB2009- 246) 34 35 36 OTHER BUSINESS 37 38 There was no other business. 39 40 41 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 42 43 Crawford stated' staff is working on removing portions of the shooting ordinances 44 regarding shooting in parks to be in compliance with State law. He will soon introduce an 45 ordinance for a no shooting zone in the Columbia Valley. He's been working with the Public 46 Works Department on a legal description for that area. He explained the process. He 47 appreciates the County surveyor, with whom he's worked on the legal description. 48 49 50 51 52 53 Whatcom County Council, 5 /12/2009, Page 20 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Trans ription The Council approved these minutes on May 26 , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL �•.��IJC0 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 13�na•8r - i�S. Cunc,# Clerk Xeth FleejtWood, Council Chair S ice'''' .�• HI ••••• • d ```` Whatcom County Council, 5/12/2009, Page 21 :. �.�+ .., ,. �„ _ .:� ..F f •� j _. ..��1 l_ /'� a f i i � �' � E j a .. �.d�r "F �a s ��'