HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil August 5 20081
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
August 5, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Bob Kelly
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
Weimer made announcements from the Committee of the Whole meeting:
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ISSUES (AB2008 -018)
See Other Business for the announcement of this item.
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING VIDEO RECORDING EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
OPTIONS (AB2008 -017)
This item was not announced.
S. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF THREE MEMBERS TO SERVE
ON A "PRO" COMMITTEE AND THREE MEMBERS TO SERVE ON A "CON"
COMMITTEE TO PREPARE STATEMENTS FOR THE VOTERS PAMPHLET ON A
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT (AB2008 -017)
Weimer stated Councilmembers Nelson and Brenner will be on the "pro" committee.
Councilmember Crawford and citizen Bob Wiesen will be on the "con" committee. Each of
those two committees will appoint a third member.
6. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES
REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2008 -018)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to allow the County Executive to enter into a settlement
agreement with Mayor Pike regarding the Landscape Plan and authorize the Executive to
sign that settlement.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
2. DISCUSSION WITH CHIEF DEPUTY PROSECUTOR RANDALL WATTS
REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2008 -018)
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 1
I Crawford moved that the County provide legal representation for the Sheriff's
2 Office in a matter of litigation.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
7 ON FILE NO. APL08 -0003, FILED BY LARRY STONER FOR MIKE AND LAURIE
8 RICHARDSON, REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A BOUNDARY LINE
9 ADJUSTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONE (AB2008 -228)
10
11 Crawford moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber stated these folks have an option to lease their land to promote
16 agriculture. It is.a nice solution that the Planning Department came up with.
17
18
19 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
20
21 1. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN TO READ A PROCLAMATION FOR PURPLE
22 HEART DAY PROCLAMATION (AB2008 -017)
23
24 Pete Kremen, County Executive, read the proclamation into the record.
25
26
27 MINUTES CONSENT
28
29 1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 8, 2008
30
31 Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the minutes.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35
36 OPEN SESSION
37
38 The following people spoke:
39
40 (Clerk's Note: Upon request, the following comments from Johnnie Grames and
41 Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber are transcribed verbatim.)
42
43 GRAMES: Johnnie Grames, uh, 1506 E. Maplewood Avenue, and uh, I've
44 been using purple heart stamps. Now they're $.42. Um, last time
45 I couldn't speak about the jails, uh, because it was a public
46 hearing, and it was jammed up, and I guess there was no
47 opposition and no dissent. Um, and I asked to speak this
48 afternoon, I asked the Chair of the Finance Committee. Everyone
49 was here except for Caskey- Schreiber. And, um, but, uh, because
50 uh, Richard, um, Maneval got to speak on the preliminary plan,
51 and uh, he were calling the Law and Justice Council a committee.
52 They're a council like you guys are. And, uh, you asked, uh, Mr.,
53 Mr. Desler a question about the preliminary plan, and he's on the
54 committee, and they've also hired, uh, uh, a architectural firm to
55 uh, uh, advise them on, um, what, how to plan for this $100
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 2
million jail. And uh, you know, I've tried to go to their meetings
and also, um, uh, find out exactly what's going on because it's, it's
all behind the scenes, and uh, all these people are lobbying each
other. And uh, so I might say at this point that when something
goes to the voters, that's democracy. And when something goes to
the Council like the budget, that's representative democracy.
When nothing goes to either one, there's a lot of names. I won't
put a label on that, but it's not a no- brainer. And, uh, I, you know,
I'm, I'm concerned about it. Because,. you see how nice sunshine
is. And, the, the Law and Justice Council, they don't keep minutes,
uh, they don't tell anyone, you know, what's going on. And uh, I
don't, and then also you, you people you didn't show, don't show
up there. And then I might, just in closing, uh, I brought up last
time that, uh, Schreiber has a conflict of interest. And if it was a
real election, in a democracy, she would have to disclose that her
husband, who she shares salary and perks and promotions with,
uh,
CASKEY - SCHREIBER: Mr. Grames, this Council appointed my husband to the Law and
Justice Council.
GRAMES: I don't think you should have voted.
CASKEY - SCHREIBER: I think I did recuse myself, for the record.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, displayed an electric outboard motor that can
replace a 1 -15 horsepower gas motor. Energy can be regenerated by wind or hydropower.
It's efficient.
Regarding the Lake Whatcom Management Plan, they can find consensus and
agreement. Sudden Valley represents about 40 percent of the watershed runoff, roads, and
money. He thanked Councilmember Nelson for helping the Sudden Valley community.
Sudden Valley is a unique community in many ways. It capped its population and
created an extensive runoff system, but the system has never been finished. The system
should be finished. He is looking for matching funds to complete the stormwater runoff
system in Sudden Valley from a bio -swale system to a cascading system, concurrent with
the Lake Whatcom Management Plan.
Mike Abendhoff, British Petroleum (BP), stated he asks the Council to delay its
decision regarding the amendments to Shoreline Master Program. Allow the public time to
review the amendments.
Jodie Read, Alcoa Intalco Works, stated she asks the Council to delay its decision
regarding the amendments to Shoreline Master Program for a couple of weeks. She is
concerned about amendments. Give the public time to consider the amendments.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Governmental
Affairs Director, stated she has the same request as the previous speakers. Defer approval
of the Shoreline Management Program until there is public notice and a public hearing.
They can't change an ordinance by resolution. According to the County Charter, changes
that have force of law must be adopted by ordinance.
Suzanne Dougan, Windermere Real Estate, stated she represents a builder with an
approved plat. There has been a lot consolidation signed off on February 12, 2008, which
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 3
1 was ongoing since March 2000. They were unaware that this has finally gone through. The
2 builder is appealing what is happening. A current house sits on a property he can't sell.
3 According to the County, two more lots have to be added to the house. It will not be
4 economically feasible for the builder to proceed. There is a current purchase and sale
5 agreement with someone who wants to buy the property. She's pleaded with County staff
6 about expediting this item. The owner may lose the sale. The owner was not ever told that
7 there would be lot consolidation from seven buildable lots to four buildable lots. Please
8 expedite this process for the builder. Public notice seems to be the issue quite a bit, in the
9 sense of people not knowing what is going on. They need better public notice.
10
11
12 PUBLIC HEARINGS
13
14 1. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
15 MANAGEMENT ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
16 ENSURING THAT ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE
17 OR PROVIDED CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB2008 -091A)
19
20 Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance.
23
24 Brenner stated she is against the ordinance. The narrative talked about it being
25 interim since 2007, however this has been in effect for longer than that. The Council was
26 told that it would receive the final draft in six months from the date the initial ordinance was
27 adopted. This interim ordinance says it will only be in effect for a short time, until the final
28 ordinance would be brought forward. However, the Council was told that four years ago.
29 It's deceitful. They haven't done something they said they would do. This is just an
30 ordinance that says they will develop an ordinance.
31
32 Caskey- Schreiber stated it has been a long time, but the interim ordinance protects
33 them if they need to collect fees for big developments that affect road projects. Without the
34 interim ordinance, they lose that tool. Planning Director Stalheim has made the permanent
35 ordinance a priority for next year's work plan. Former Planning Director Hart was very
36 convincing about how the County needs this to do anything related to a mitigation impact
37 fee.
38
39 Brenner stated Mr. Hart wasn't assertive, and used a lot of subjective words, but
40 there wasn't any mention of this protecting something in the interim. She can't support it
41 any more. It hasn't gotten them anywhere. She wants to see a final ordinance.
42
43 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the
44 Planning Commission is having a public hearing next week on the permanent concurrency
45 ordinance and transportation impact fee ordinance. As soon as the Planning Commission is
46 done with those ordinances, they will come to the Council. The concurrency requirement
47 from the interim ordinance is used on any major development project, regardless. The
48 Growth Management Act requires a concurrency ordinance.
49
50 Brenner stated concurrency was already required through the County Code. This
51 interim ordinance was to help the County figure out what it wants in the final concurrency
52 ordinance. This is not an ordinance to get transportation concurrency. It's a blueprint on
53 how to get a transportation concurrency ordinance. It should be called a strategy.
54 Stalheim stated the exhibit is very specific about how to do transportation concurrency. The
55 permanent ordinance is very similar to this, except this doesn't include the fee portion.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 4
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Crawford opposed.
2. ORDINANCE REVISING WCC 3.40, TAX ON BINGO, RAFFLES, PUNCHBOARDS
AND PULL TABS, TO LEVY A TAX OF TEN PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUE ON
PUBLIC CARDROOMS (AB2008 -281)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated this is a tax on gross, not net. That will put a card room out of
business. She asked if they are trying to put them out of business. If they don't want card
rooms, they should just say that. She isn't pleased with the ordinance, and won't support
it.
Nelson stated they had eliminated the taxes. He asked how this came forward,
again. He asked who this benefits, and the amount that would be collected.
Steve Oliver, Treasurer, stated the County currently taxes all other forms of
gambling in unincorporated areas. The County Council chose to authorize card rooms in
unincorporated Whatcom County, and there is no tax for card rooms. This tax would make
the County consistent with the City of Bellingham. If approved, the tax would affect one
business in Whatcom County, which is a card room in Point Roberts. There is one card
room that operates in unincorporated Whatcom County.
Nelson stated this tax is supposed to help law enforcement. It's not justified.
Fleetwood stated there isn't.a clear statement in the ordinance of the public purpose.
Oliver state the State law allows a local option tax. The tax collected must be used for law
enforcement purposes related to gambling enforcement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this makes the County equal to what the cities tax. The
County may not want an incentive for card rooms and similar things in unincorporated
areas.
Crawford stated they want to ensure a level playing field when it comes to taxes.
That makes sense. They currently tax other forms of gambling. It makes sense for the
regulatory structure to be consistent when it comes to gambling. It makes sense for the
proceeds to go to law enforcement.
Brenner stated the ten percent of gross is too much.
Nelson stated he appreciates being consistent, but law is for a reason. A tax is for a .
benefit. The benefit described is. for law enforcement. Card rooms have not blossomed
around the county because of the tribal casinos. He won't support the ordinance.
Brenner asked the tax collected on bingo. Oliver stated they collect two percent
from bingo and nonprofit pull tabs. They collect five percent from pull tabs.
Kelly stated he heard that another county taxes at 12 percent. Oliver stated the
State law allows a tax up to 20 percent of the gross. Some counties do levy a tax as high
as 20 percent.
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Brenner opposed.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 5
3. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT ZONE
ON YEW STREET (AS2008 -282)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2009 -2014
(AB2008 -262)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Carol Sandvig, 8212 Birch Bay Drive, stated she would like to know about the project
on Lincoln Road at Birch Bay. The County promised and funded the project in 2005. It was
to have started in 2008, including right -of -way acquisition. She asked where the money
has gone, if it was completely funded in 2005.
Doralee Booth, 8188 Birch Bay Drive, stated Birch Bay has done a lot of planning for
the future. The Council has made promises to reconstruct Lincoln Road since 1992. The
project has yet to begin. The County should honor its promise made to Birch Bay. Begin
implementing the Birch Bay transportation plan. She read goals from the plan. The County
promised $5 million in 2005. She would like to know where the money went. Birch Bay
was for many years the fastest growing community in the county.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Dennis Sandvig, 8212 Birch Bay Drive, stated it seems like they are at the bottom of
the list to get anything done. This may be a way to get them to incorporate. They've been
treated shabbily. Promises are not being kept. The only way anything will get done in Birch
Bay is if they incorporate. The Fire District is doing the same thing.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner asked why the money is not now available.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated that since the Council passed the 2008
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program in July 2008, more information came
forward on the Pole Road and Hannegan Road project. When they put together the annual
program, Lincoln Road was divided into two projects. They have worked diligently on the
project. The design is 90 percent complete. They are ready to move forward with right -of-
way acquisition.
The five projects moving forward are heavily grant- funded. The two big projects
they want to get done are Yew Street and Lincoln Road. The Lincoln Road project is number
two in priority. The only funding for it now is grant funding in the amount of $500,000 in
rural arterial preservation (RAP) funds.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated funding is a problem. In
2005, the project estimate was $5.5 million. The Lincoln Road project is now estimated at
$12.5 million. The Yew Street Road project went from $3 million to $12 million over the
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 6
same period. Construction costs have exploded in the last few years. There is a world
demand for construction materials.
Rutan stated right -of -way acquisition is also four to five times as expensive.
Caskey- Schreiber stated money just isn't available. The road fund is in dire straits.
Building permits have greatly declined. Lincoln Road will get done at some point. Given the
road fund decline, she's not sure when that will be.
Nelson asked if there other ways a community can put in a road, such as road
improvement districts, transportation impact fees, and other things. Rutan stated the
transportation impact fee ordinance will come before the Council soon. The Lincoln Road
project is key to that ordinance. They are still seeking other grant sources.
Abart stated they haven't given up on the project. It's still an important
improvement they are pursuing.
Brenner asked what has changed in the past year. Abart stated they indicated last
year that they were drawing down the fund balance, but they didn't emphasize it. Now the
fund is drawn down further, and there are no reserves. That makes him nervous. They
need to keep a balance for bills and payroll. A budget of $3 million to $5 million is minimal
for this type of public operation.
Rutan stated they had shown the fund being drawn down to about $1.8 million at the
end of 2008. When they did the annual plan, the fund balance became even more drastic,
which is why they divided the Lincoln Road project. Since then, gas and oil prices have
risen. Chip seal costs have quadrupled. It's a difficult time for the road fund.
Abart stated they project a fund balance of $3.133 million at the end of 2009.
Weimer asked the balance of the real estate excise tax (BEET) II fund.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the balance is $8 million projected to
the end of the year. The money they've spent on REET II have been on small parks
projects. The administration is working on the 2009 REET II budget for these projects.
They may also use Economic Development Investment (EDI) funds.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they started on this path of a reduced fund with the Park
Road, Frost Road, and Sudden Valley bridge projects, all if which Councilmember Brenner
voted for. Consider using REET II funds, but they will need that fund for stormwater fixes.
That money can be used for stormwater upgrades, retrofits, and new systems. REET II is a
way to maintain parks, which has no dedicated revenue stream.
Brenner stated those three projects mentioned had to do with safety issues. She will
always support projects that fix safety issues. Lincoln Road is becoming a safety issue.
Begin putting money toward it now. Rutan stated Councilmember Brenner is talking about
the clear zone recovery area. In the past two weeks, there have been three fatalities on
County roads, where people have hit fixed objects in the clear zone recovery area. This is
very important. That's why the revised Lincoln Road project allows clear zone recovery
areas. Paved shoulders, for example, create a safer scenario. They need to preserve the
pavement on Lincoln Road.
Brenner asked if there is a way to deal with the safety issues on Lincoln Road rather
than doing all the things that everyone wanted. Rutan stated the revised project is
essentially a structural overlay of the existing pavement and six- or eight -foot paved
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 7
shoulders. The revised project doesn't include the off -site trail or roundabouts. The first
phase would cost about $3 million.
Brenner stated there is money to get started on that revised project, rather than
postponing it for longer.
Abart stated that if the Council approves Attachment E as part of the plan, the staff
will proceed with the project if it finds the funding or gets grants.
Brenner asked how much they used from the EDI fund for the Pole Road and
Hannegan Road intersection. Rutan stated they used $1.5 million this year.
Abart stated they will use $1.5 million for next year, also.
Brenner stated that with the EDI funds and REET II funds, they should be able to
cover the safety issues of phase one.
Rutan stated the County may get an additional grant of $1.9 million from the State.
He will find out this fall.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they still have to solve the issue with Mr. Bovencamp's
section of the road. The first leg from Birch Bay Village is not complete. Pursue the State
grant for the County's share. She hopes Mr. Bovencamp will finish his part of the road. It's
not a simple issue.
Rutan stated other projects along this corridor affect the area.
Weimer asked the difference between approving Attachment E versus waiting for the
budget to develop to see how they want to use EDI and REET II funds. Rutan stated the
attachments are simply for information. Attachments A through D go with the memo, not
the resolution, which has two exhibits.
Brenner stated the most dangerous sections of the road are the County's
responsibility, not Mr. Bovencamp's responsibility. Begin working on it with whatever
money there is. She asked what right -of -way they need. Rutan stated the only right -of-
way they've bought is for wetland mitigation. They would have to buy strips of property for
one mile along the road. They would have to buy property for detention and treatment
facilities. They have spent about $300,000 on Lincoln Road so far, for design. They spent
$160,000 for the wetland mitigation.
Brenner asked what happened to the $5.5 million referenced in the letter from 2005.
Rutan stated it is not a budgetary document. It's a planning document. They use the six -
year plan to create the annual program. They use the annual program to create a budget.
The budget they've gotten every year has included design and a little bit of right -of -way.
They have not requested any money for construction.
Abart stated that if they request the money to build what was committed in 2005, it
would cost $12.5 million.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to include attachment E as part of the
six -year program. Add that amount of money to the plan over the next two years for
Lincoln Road. Split it the same way they did with the Pole Road and Hannegan Road
project.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 8
Caskey- Schreiber stated they didn't use REET II funds for the Pole Road and
Hannegan Road project. The Council would have to go through the EDI Board process to
use EDI funds. Bring it up during the budget process.
Abart stated Attachment E is already in the six -year program. It includes
clarifications on how and whether the County gets funding related to grants. The only
reason REET II is listed is because it was discussed. No one should get an impression that
REET II funds will be used in any way here. They can approve the resolution with or
without Attachment E. Approving Attachment E gives him better direction.
Weimer stated that either way, they only have $500,000 for Lincoln Road in the
plan. The motion to approve includes the resolution and all the attachments.
Motion to approve the resolution passed 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through eight.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three and six through
eight carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD THE BID AND ENTER
INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SOLE BIDDER,
PUGLIA ENGINEERING FOR ANNUAL DRYDOCK REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
FOR THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY IN THE AMOUNT OF $371,664 (AB2008-
291)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE NORTHWEST RESOURCE
ASSOCIATES FOR A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE WHATCOM HOMELESS
SERVICE CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,300 (AB2008 -292)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A WASHINGTON
STATE CONTRACT WITH DELL FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,413.75 (AB2008 -293)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO UPDATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 (AB2008 -294)
Nelson moved to approve the request.
Brenner stated she is against the request. Portions of it is duplicative. Don't spend
money on another consultant. This consultant is supposed to pull information from different
committees. That is the function of the County Planning Department. Those committees
are self - sufficient, and can bring their own committee reports directly to the County Council.
The County Council could work on it in committee. The Council Planning Committee could
then put forward. priorities.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 9
The Growth Management Act doesn't require many of the intricate ways they do
things. It only requires they get it done, but doesn't specify how intricate it has to be.
They've already set up committees to do these things.
Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN
DESIGN FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO ENSURING THAT
ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ANALYSIS IS PROVIDED TO
ADDRESS THE REQUIRED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2008 -295)
Nelson moved to approve the request.
Brenner stated she is against the request, for the same reasons as stated for the
previous item. Revisit the architectural expenses for the Northwest Annex.
Motion to approve carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ACCENT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE ASSESSOR /TREASURER
PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE VENDOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 24,394 (AB2008 -296)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO SUPPLEMENT
THE WCSO- DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET
IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,286 (AB2008 -297)
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR
THE FFY2006 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $18,437.00 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $193,045
(AB2008 -298)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION RESCINDING, IN PART, RESOLUTION 2008 -016, PROVIDING
FOR THE PUBLICATION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTIONS AND
ADOPTING OPERATING RULES FOR SUBZONE ADVISORY COMMITTEES
(AB2008 -284) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE RESCINDING PARTS OF ORDINANCE 98 -085 AND RESCINDING
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 2.93 IN ITS ENTIRETY (AB2008 -285)
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 10
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS ON THE BOUCHARD TJOELKER FARM PROPERTIES (AB2008-
289)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE FINAL
PLAT MYLAR FOR SCHOLTEN SHORES LONG PLAT (AB2008 -273A)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve this and the following two requests.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE FINAL
PLAT MYLAR FOR WISER REACH LONG PLAT (AB2008 -2738)
See Other Item Four for approval of this item.
6. REQUEST COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE FINAL
PLAT MYLAR FOR SHUKSAN HIGHLANDS PHASE I (AB2008 -273C)
See Other Item Four for approval of this item.
7. APPOINTMENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE SOMAS / EVERSON/ NOOKSACK
FLOOD CONTROL SUB -ZONE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (APPLICANT - ED
BOSSCHER) (AB2008 -301) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL
ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
Crawford moved to appoint Ed Bosscher.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Weimer reported for the Committee of the Whole and stated the committee held a
discussion regarding garbage and recycling issues (AB2008 -018). The Council
directed staff to work out a deal in Point Roberts to make garbage and recycling collection
go more smoothly up there.
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated there was
discussion of a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County Code Section
8.10.050, residential recycling collection (AB2008 -287). The committee moved to
look at all solid waste issues relating to Point Roberts.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 11
Nelson stated the committee requested that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
(SWAC) review the ordinance that Councilmember Crawford brought forward regarding solid
waste and recycling programs, including impacts with the regular waste materials picked up
in Point Roberts.
Brenner moved that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) look at all solid
waste issues and review the ordinance that Councilmember Crawford brought forward
regarding solid waste and recycling programs, including impacts with the regular waste
materials picked up in Point Roberts, and come back to the Council with a recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and the Planning and
Development Committee on the update and discussion regarding Whatcom County's
Shoreline Management Program approval (AB2008- 261A). There is a resolution
approving the State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) approval, with required and
recommended changes, of the Whatcom County Shoreline Master Program. He moved to
approve the resolution.
Brenner stated she is not convinced they can do it by resolution. There is no
problem with waiting until the public has looked at this information. The loss of the public
process is more important than the possible problems that may occur if they don't respond.
Many people haven't seen this or just found out about it today. It wasn't on the Council
agenda.
Barry Wenger, Washington State Department. of Ecology, stated he will suggest
additional changes he's found as necessary since their discussion this afternoon.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson stated the process is awkward. He described the process. Even though the
Council has concerns, they won't have anything if they don't accept this. The resolution has
no force of law. He asked if the resolution would connect the current ordinance with
Ecology's changes until September. Then the Council would have another hearing in
September. He asked the process to make changes to the plan if the Council decides after
the public hearing that it can't agree to Ecology's recommended and required changes.
Wenger stated that the plan becomes effective as a State law as soon as Ecology
receives a letter from anyone in the County government accepting the changes. If the
changes are different from what the Council already adopted, the County has to go back
and change its ordinance through the County process. However, it can be implemented
through the State as a State law as soon as Ecology approves the plan. It is implemented
jointly with the County.
Introduce the ordinance to schedule a public hearing on these changes. In the
meantime, the County won't have a critical area ordinance because of the recent Supreme
Court decision. He doesn't know how much of a problem it will be to not have the critical
areas ordinance during this time, but the risk is probably low. He agrees that the public
should look at the changes. The County has the option to not send a letter of approval to
Ecology. The County may also send a letter of approval with exceptions or changes the
County wants to make. There are a couple of changes that they need to make from the
current recommended and required changes. There are glitches. He will work with the staff
on those changes. If the County accepts Ecology's changes as they are, they will have to go
through an amendment process to fix those glitches. He doesn't want to do that.
Whatcom County Council., 8/5/2008, Page 12
Weimer asked if it would be easier for Mr. Wenger to fix the glitches than for the
County to fix them through a public hearing. Wenger stated the best thing is for him to
work with County staff.
Weimer asked if the changes will be substantial.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated he
doesn't know if the changes will be substantial. He encourages written input from the
community in the next two weeks, and staff will create a package of information for the
Council to go through at the public hearing. Most of it is refining the wording, and the
proposed changes won't be large.
Weimer stated they can review changes at the first meeting in September, and then
send a letter to the Department of Ecology in September.
Kelly asked about the gap in protection created by the Supreme Court ruling. That's
his biggest concern. Wenger stated that gap is there. It's a concern. It will exist for a
short period of time, until the Council adopts the changes. The existing Shoreline Master
Program has some language to prevent people from doing really bad things.
Stalheim stated the legislature determined in 2003 that the shoreline program and
growth management need to be integrated. The Shoreline Master Programs had to be as
protective as the critical areas ordinances. That's why the new Shoreline Master Program
dovetails with the critical areas ordinance. However, the Supreme Court threw out the
critical areas ordinance, so they don't have two sets of regulations on one resource. The
1998 Shoreline Master Program was built around the theory that the critical areas ordinance
was in place at the time. It was standard practice for jurisdictions to have shoreline rules
and critical areas rules written separately, but compatibly. The 1998 Shoreline Master
Program does not have the same level of protection as the critical areas ordinance, so there
is an issue.
During this period of time, an applicant would have to submit a complete application
and meet all the application requirements to be vested. They are weighing the need for
public input for those risk issues.
Weimer stated that the Supreme Court last week removed the critical areas
ordinance from the Shoreine Master Program. If the County doesn't have a new plan with
stronger protection, it will lose protections for the next 30 days, while the Council waits to
have a public hearing in September. The chance is that not a lot of things will come
forward, but there is a chance.
Brenner stated the County still has very good protections in place, with the 1998
plan, even without the critical areas ordinance.
Weimer withdrew his motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Wenger said he has
found glitches, and it's a much bigger process to fix them if they move forward with the
resolution.
Kelly moved to approve the resolution.
Nelson stated he thanked Mr. Wenger for working on this issue with the County for
years. He appreciates all that Mr. Wenger has done, and hopes that everything Mr. Wenger
has learned can be applied to other communities.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 13
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's torn. She's nervous about potential appeals and
2 applications that may come forward. She would rather risk having Ecology go through its
3 correction nightmare than risk the County having to go back to 1998 standards.
4
5 Crawford asked if Councilmember Kelly would withdraw his motion to approve the
6 resolution if he moved to approve an emergency moratorium on applications for substantial
7 shoreline development permits, shoreline conditional use, and shoreline variances effective
8 for 60 days or until the Council approves its shorelines ordinance, whichever comes first.
9
10 Kelly stated he would accept the friendly amendment if staff can assure him that
11 they cover the gap, and it's legal to do that. He doesn't want to risk the environment for
12 something that no one seems to understand and on which everyone says something
13 different. He trusts Mr. Wenger's judgment, but he has gone back and forth on this. What
14 they've gained in protection since 1998 is not worth risking for someone to get vested in
15 something large. He has no idea what this means for riparian zones of small forested
16 landowners and other important salmon recovery areas. He asked if that suggestion would
17 be legal and would meet his needs.
18
19 Crawford stated that when immediate action is necessary to protect the public or
20 forestall activities that could undermine future changes being developed for the
21 Comprehensive Plan, emergency moratoria can be useful. Additional coordination needs to
22 be done to be sure all procedural requirements are met. Because the action of
23 implementing a moratorium is immediate, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review
24 must comply with the emergency provisions provided in the categorical exemptions section
2.5 of SEPA. The SEPA official must determine that the proposed action is an emergency as
26 defined by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197 -11 -880. He read WAC 197 -11-
27 880. The Planning Director or designee can act as the SEPA official tonight and give the
28 Council an assurance that a determination. can be made, that this constitutes an emergency.
29 He asked if they can do an emergency ordinance without findings and an emergency
30 ordinance document.
31
32 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the Council needs a written emergency
33 ordinance to take action. The Council could take a break and write one for consideration
34 tonight.
35
36 Crawford stated that is a more desirable alternative to approving a letter saying the
37 County agrees with Ecology. Ecology has also overlooked things. He is not usually in favor
38 of moratoria. He speculates that the shoreline substantial development application process
39 is big enough that a person will not likely be impacted much by a month's delay. He would
40 rather do this than send a letter to Ecology that doesn't reflect what the Council or
41 community wants for its shorelines.
42
43 Brenner stated she doesn't believe that people won't likely be impacted much. There
44 won't be significant harm because they have a strong 1998 program. The votes aren't there
45 to approve the resolution. She will support it since it's there, if that's the wish of the
46 Council majority. Despite what Councilmember Kelly says, she knows the 1998 program is
47 good.
48
49 Crawford asked if the administration is willing to provide that SEPA assurance that
50 they would need for an emergency ordinance. Stalheim stated the reference to SEPA in the
51 categorical exemptions probably has to do with subjects not previously discussed. The
52 Shoreline Master Program went through environmental review. The SEPA call has already
53 gone through SEPA review. They don't have to do any additional SEPA review. Everything
54 read from the WAC has to do with categorical exemptions.
55
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 14
Fleetwood stated he would support an emergency moratorium. That process would
be cleaner. None of them have reviewed the proposed changes to the degree they would
like. An emergency moratorium would solve the problem.
Nelson asked if an emergency moratorium can be designed specifically to critical
areas. He asked if a project with no impact to critical areas would still be held up by a
moratorium. Stalheim stated it depends on how the ordinance is written.
Fleetwood stated it would be specific to an area, the shoreline management zones,
rather than the critical areas ordinance.
Nelson asked if all applications for shoreline permits require critical areas review. It
wouldn't make sense to hold up those types of applications.
Crawford asked how many applications they've received recently. Stalheim stated
they must be careful about classifying the types of permits. A fourth category would be all
development permits that are subject to shoreline rules, but are exempt from permit
requirements. The bulk of the activity in the program is exempt from some kind of
shoreline permit requirement, such as single family homes, docks, and other things.
Everything under the dollar threshold are all exempt from permit requirements. That's 75
percent of their regulated shoreline activities.
Crawford stated they are not affected by the critical areas ordinance if they are
exempt. Stalheim stated they are exempt from a shoreline permit, but they are subject to
critical areas ordinance regulations. They would no longer be subject to critical areas
ordinance regulations. They are exempt from a permit under the Shoreline Master Program.
They are not exempt from the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program.
Chad Young, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they have
received about five substantial development permits, a couple of variances, and a couple of
conditional use permits in the past four weeks. They've probably done 40 exemption
reviews.
Kelly asked if they would anticipate more, with this ruling. Young stated every single
family residence permit that comes in within the shoreline jurisdiction is an exemption
review. They see four or five per week. If they trigger certain thresholds, they are no
longer eligible for exemption review and become substantial development permits.
Crawford stated that if they hold up 20 or 30 residential permits in the next month,
he is more reluctant to do an emergency ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can amend the resolution to change some of the
recommendations from Ecology.
Brenner stated that ignores and makes a sham of the public process.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there isn't an intent to sham the public process. There is an
intent to uphold what they already worked on for years. That public process deserves
respect, as well. Many hours of meetings took place to craft the Shoreline Master Plan.
Don't abandon it at a whim.
Wenger stated that as nice as the moratorium may sound, it's problematic. There
are court decisions that have been struck down. There is no provision in the Shoreline Act
to have moratoria.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 15
1 Caskey- Schreiber suggested a friendly amendment to approve resolution with
2 an amended version of Exhibit B to delete the following revisions:
3 • Page 73 - Ch 23.90.06.B.2 - Vegetation Conservation - Regulations, and
4 . Page 74 - Ch 23.90.06.13.6 and 7 - Vegetation Conservation - Regulations
5
6 Weimer asked if this will protect the County for the next 30 days. Wenger stated it
7 will protect the County with the critical areas ordinance.
8
9 Nelson stated they are talking about approving this without having a chance to look
10 at this and without giving the public a chance to respond. He asked what happens if the
11 Council decides next month that it doesn't like some of these changes. Wenger stated they
12 would put together an amendment. That process would take a few months, once it reaches
13 Ecology.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
16
17 Kelly accepted the friendly amendment.
18
19 Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the committee
20 discussed other proposed changes to Exhibit B:
21 Page 187 - Ch. 100.17.A.5 - CPMA - Shoreline Ecological Functions and
22 Processes - To be consistent with... functions and processes should be
23 assessed weighted with the 6ffi r long -term statewide eeenemie "^n^"`s
24 interests.
25 Page 189 - Ch. 100.17.13.3 - CPMA - Critical Areas - In order to provide equal
26 or better critical areas protection this section needs to reference Ch
27 23.90.031, Ecological Protection and Critical Areas as follows, "In addition to
28 meeting the provisions of Ch 23.90.01;3' Ecological Protection and Critical
29 Areas, Development and alteration...."
30
31 Nelson asked why they are removing the language "economic benefits" and replacing
32 it with the term "interests." That affects a wide variety of interests that may more or less
33 than any economic interests. Economic interests may not even be weighed. The State
34 wanted to look at the economic impact of anything done out there. Cherry Point is a
35 significant economic resource to this community and to the State. Wenger stated there is
36 language that address those economic interests, but they also have to protect the
37 environment out there. According to the Attorney General's Office, it implies that they don't
38 have to pay as much attention to environmental impacts if they pay attention to long -term
39 economic benefit.
40
41 Nelson stated the language could be amended, "...functions and processes should be
42 assessed weighed with the other long -term statewide economic benefits and environmental
43 interests.
44
45 Crawford stated it's a political question. He won't vote in favor of this resolution. He
46 agrees with Councilmember Nelson. There is significant public concern about this just from
47 this morning. When he gets something like this, he relies on his constituents to review it.
48 The people in Whatcom County are far more expert than he is. He relies on the public to
49 review and present public input to him. He understands the issue given the Supreme Court
50 decision, but he can't agree with these changes. It's a poor way to legislate.
51
52 Kelly accepted the additional amendments from Mr. Wenger and Mr. Gill. Given
53 the court decision and this unique situation, a unique approach is required. The risk
54 associated with potential losses to the environment outweigh the time it takes to make
55 amendments.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 16
Weimer stated he would support the resolution with the amendments. They address
the two issues that came from staff and others today. They made Ecology happy. It's
tough to weigh the public process against doing what's right for the environment through
this process. In the Puget Sound, they always give the public process a higher priority than
the natural process. He will support trying to protect the shorelines for 30 days.
Brenner stated she will vote against the resolution, but is still voting to protect the
shorelines for 30 days with the good 1998 Shoreline Master Program.
Weimer stated the critical areas ordinance will not be in place if they fall back to the
1998 Shoreline Master Program.
Brenner stated there are plenty of protections in the 1998 Shoreline Master Program
without the critical areas ordinance.
Weimer stated they are not the same protections.
Nelson stated the process is regrettable. It is a mark against Ecology's original
attempt to build consensus -based shoreline management. The Council has degraded the
work that has gone on the past three years to bring forward a document that is almost
complete. He appreciates Mr. Wenger's comments in favor of waiting to make sure a
process is in place that other communities can emulate.
Motion to approve the resolution with Mr. Wenger's and Mr. Gill's
amendments carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously,
1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL FILED BY DOUGLAS SHEPHERD FOR LYLE AND SUE
RADER ON APL06 -0035, REGARDING ORDER TO CORRECT ISSUED BY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (AB2008 -268)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CHAPTERS
20.71 AND 20.80, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, TO ADD LAKE PADDEN AS A
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, STORMWATER
SPECIAL DISTRICT, AND WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
(AB2008 -094A)
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD
AMEND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LIGHT. IMPACT INDUSTRIAL AND
GENERAL MANUFACTURING ZONES (AB2008 -112A)
4. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) FOR THE UR AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE
BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREAS RELATING TO DENSITY, LOT
CLUSTERING AND RESERVE TRACTS (AB2008 -108A)
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 17
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2008 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, NINTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $694,325 (AB2008 -299)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 15.04, BUILDING CODES,
REGARDING FEE FOR APPEALS TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2008 -300)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 23, SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT, PROGRAM REMOVING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
FROM THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2008 -302)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 23- SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND ASSOCIATED
PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16- CRITICAL AREAS, AND WCC, TITLE
20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES (WAC 173 -26) AND
OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS (AB2008 -303)
OTHER BUSINESS
UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPROVAL (AS2008 -261A)
Wenger, stated he agrees with Councilmember Nelson that the process is regrettable.
It's not how he wanted to finish this. It would have been different if the Supreme Court
hadn't made its decision on the critical areas ordinance. Either way, the County will come
out fine. If there are any problems, he vows to get any necessary changes through Olympia
as soon as possible. He appreciates all the collaboration from everyone in the community.
They should have had more time to talk about these things for the next month.
There was an issue about shoreline resources not being defined. It's a broad term.
It's in reference to the Cherry Point area. In the Shoreline Act, it means navigation,
commerce, deep -sea water - dependent uses, public access, and environmental shoreline
resources.
The clauses in the Cherry Point section refer to the normal public access provision.
Those are still in place. The public access isn't required if there are safety problems, for
example. The facility out there will still be completely protected.
Crawford stated he reported to the Public Works Committee today about an issue in
Columbia Valley regarding junk vehicles and garbage. They are losing the battle up there.
It's getting worse. As a County, there's only so much they can do. However, the problems
seem to be growing. They've got to do something. He doesn't have a solution yet.
Conditions are shocking. The Council, Health Department, and Planning Department should
tour the area.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is also very concerned about that area. The County
must do more there. The people are typically low- income. The gas price crisis has hit them
the hardest, because they have to commute the farthest. If things get too far behind, other
problems will grow. Do another garbage amnesty day. Bring in another enforcement
position, if necessary. Don't ignore the problem. There are many kids out there.
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on September 9 2008.
The Council amended and re- approved these minutes on September 23 , 2008.
ATTEST:
TT
@'ana:Brow -h v , � i13:lerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 8/5/2008, Page 19