HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 11 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
March 11, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:08 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
MINUTES CONSENT
Absent:
None
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously,
1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2008
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2008
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2008
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Mel Marcoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, stated seniors with incomes of less than
$40,000 per year can receive $5,000 in grants for septic tank system repair or replacement
and $500 in grants for riser installation, pump replacement, septic pumping, and inspections
through the Henderson Watershed Protection Program. State regulations require that only
gravity systems be inspected every three years. All other systems must be inspected
annually. State regulations do not mandate that homeowners must pay hundreds of dollars
in inspection fees. Certified homeowners can do all their own inspections. The Health
Department chose not to use State grants to help homeowners and instead penalize
homeowners.
Johnnie Grames, 1506 E. Maplewood Avenue, stated a growing police state is
operating through the Whatcom County Law and Justice Council. He asked Dewey Desler
about an executive session with the Council about federal money for Homeland Security. A
lot of money and power is _going to the 2010 Olympics event. Open the meeting to create a
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 1
record of what goes on. None of the councilmembers attended a meeting about a $100
million jail that houses 1,000 people. Prosecutor Dave McEachran said they need to get
miscreants off the street because they don't want to work.
Tris Shirley, Whatcom Legacy Project Secretary, submitted information (on file).
Accept a clarification of contract language in a contract between the County and the
Whatcom Legacy Project. It's a minor change. He described the purpose of the Whatcom
Legacy Project. They have drafted a work plan for the visioning process. When the process
is final, they will outreach to the community. They cannot foresee the distant future and
know many things change. When those changes happen, the public vision should change.
The vision should respond to significant changes in the community, but not shift to political
whims. He described the history of the project. The Conservation Northwest group does
not influence this project. They will demonstrate that they're acting in broad public interest.
Chris Morgan, Grizzly Bear Outreach Project Co- Director, stated he is in favor of the
grizzly bear resolution. He described his background. The project provide information
about and promotes an understanding of grizzly bears in rural Cascade communities. It is a
public information service for people. There were once 100,000 grizzly bears in the lower
48 states. There are now about 1,000 grizzly bears. There are now about ten remaining
grizzly bears in the North Cascades. Only five states are wild enough to harbor grizzly
bears, including Washington State. Most people support grizzly bear recovery because they
are an essential component of the North Cascades and are important for future generations.
Support for his project is very high throughout the state.
Joe Scott, 2216 Ellis Street, stated he supports the grizzly bear resolution. This is a
community issue. They must maintain these iconic species. They want to impress upon the
federal government how seriously the community considers the local extinction of the
species. The bears are very important for the evolution and restoration of the ecosystem.
The resolution is a statement that wildlife is important, extinction is not an option, and that
this community will be stewards to these wildlife.
Kelly asked for a list of government supporters.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that information is coming forward.
Crawford asked the number of bears in the North Cascades. Scott stated the State
Fish and Wildlife Services estimates five to 20 bears in the North Cascades. They know
there are bears in the system. There is evidence of the bears' continued existence.
Crawford asked if they plan to bring grizzly bears into the North Cascades from other
areas. Scott stated biologists say it is probably necessary to augment the population with
bears from a healthier ecosystem. However, options like that will be explored and vetted
through the public. This recovery planning has to go through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). There will be an exhaustive public process on options for recovery.
Crawford asked the timeframe. Scott stated an environmental impact statement
(EIS) would take about three years. He works for Conservation Northwest. The Plan is to
get Congressional support to fund the NEPA process. Other government jurisdictions have
committed funding to the process.
Crawford asked if the introduction of other grizzly bears could happen in five to ten
years. Scott stated it is possible.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 2
Alexis Illyn, 1513 Wilson Avenue, Bellingham, stated she supports the grizzly bear
resolution. In addition to the ecological reasons to support the restoration, there are moral
and biblical reasons. A growing number of Christians believe that humans must be
stewards of God's creation. They must protect what God created, but they are failing the
grizzly bears. Reverse this trend toward extinction, or they will have to answer to God.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of the grizzly
bear resolution. People are proud that Whatcom County has grizzly bears and an in -tact
ecosystem. This area is a world -class draw for people around the world.
Roger Van Dyken, 145 E. Cedar Drive, Lynden, stated he thanks the Council for its
initial support of the Legacy Project contract. This change is an administrative oversight. It
is essential that the project be objective and not biased. The Steering Committee must also
not be biased. Their purpose is to invite the citizens to create a long -range legacy for future
generations. It must be enduring and also flexible. He read the list of Steering Committee
members. It is a very diverse group. They hope to frame a context for future Council
decisions on land use.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated the Legacy Project is public money
going into a private special interest group to manage a planning process that appoints its
own members. He asked how that can serve the public. The group isn't balanced.
Regarding the ferry, most equipment has a finite economic life. You can keep fixing
and fixing, but at some point it becomes economically unviable.. The maintenance bills on
the ferry keep going up. They need additional capacity on the ferry.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY
RATES, AND CORRESPONDING WHATCOM COUNTY 2008 UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB2008 -085A)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Bowman, Lummi Island, stated he understands the need to raise the rates for
transportation because they need a new ferry. The current ferry is dangerous. The
children's life vests are stowed about seven or eight feet high. He asked how the children
would reach them. He supports the ferry rate increase and a new ferry.
Percy Maneval, Lummi Island, stated he understands the need to raise the rates.
Island property will be one of the most prized in the county in the future. Some people
have lived there many years. Don't raise the rates too much to begin with. Don't design a
ferry that is radical with new ideas that have not been proved. If they extend the Whatcom
Chief by 40 or 50 feet, they won't need to extend the docks. The Whatcom Chief has
proven itself many times.
Al Marshall, Lummi Island, stated he hasn't seen the accounting details that justify a
fare increase. He would like to see more details, particularly about the high administrative
costs. Increasing fares will cause ridership to decrease. Retain the multi -ride discounts
currently in place. All other State and local ferries include multi -ride discounts. He
supports Councilmember Weimer's fare increase proposal, assuming such a fare increase is
needed.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 3
1 Polly Hanson, Lummi Island, stated the information the Council is trying to work with
2 is very incomplete. If the fares go high enough, there will come a point where the island
3 will become an exclusive community for the wealthy, and no one else will be able to afford
4 to live there.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
7
8 Hanson continued to state that the retired, low- income, and students will have to
9 move off the island if the fares become too expensive. The cost of fuel is going up. They
10 are going to run out of fuel. Find out if it is possible to have a ferry that runs on some other
11 fuel. Look ahead and see what's coming in the future. Use the ferry crew's knowledge to
12 understand ferry use. That hasn't happened. Talk to the ferry crew members to find out
13 what they know. Think about maintenance. The present ferry is not falling apart.
14
15 Mark Sexton, 3093 Mt. Vista Drive, Lummi Island, stated the recent internet survey
16 regarding ferry service was misconstrued. It should not be used for real information. There
17 is no way to tell who is responding.
18
19 The working class are being edged off the island. He and his wife must ride the ferry
20 every day to get to work. Without appropriate service, they have to wait in line for a long
21 time and they can't maintain employment. Get more reliable service. The service now is
22 not reliable.
23
24 Nancy Ging, 2386 Tuttle Road, Lummi Island, stated she completely supports the
25 proposal. Be careful about creating a hybrid ordinance out of both proposed plans, which
26 may require another public hearing. Councilmember Weimer has spent a lot of time on
27 these issues. His plan takes a lot of things into account, such as truck multi -ride discounts
28 to benefit local businesses on the island. Adopt this plan as proposed.
29
30 John Robinson, 3679 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, stated the County has tried to
31 collect fares in many different ways. The problem is that they don't know whether they've
32 actually captured 55 percent of the operating costs, as required. They haven't seen how
33 last year's rate increase will affect the percentage. If they collect more than 55 percent, let
34 the residents know and roll that money over into the following year. In the past, surpluses
35 were put in the general fund.
36
37 Jon Fincke, 2647 Island View, Lummi Island, stated he thanks Councilmember
38 Weimer's proposal. It's fair and what they need. He thanked Councilmember Brenner for
39 her past interest in Lummi Island residents. He would like more information. The record
40 should remain open for more information.
41
42 Randy Smith, 2620 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated he supports
43 Councilmember Weimer's proposal. Move slowly on the new ferry.
44
45 Robin Richardson, 3837 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated she questions the 80
46 percent fare increase for pedestrian passengers. The car and driver increase is 33 percent.
47 The purpose of the ferry is to carry people. The program should be based on people, not
48 cars. The more pedestrian passengers they have, the more people they can transport per
49 ferry run. Don't discourage pedestrian passengers. There are many benefits to
50 encouraging pedestrian passengers and carpooling.
51
52 Dave Ernst, 2884 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated leave the pedestrian
53 passenger ferry rate as it is and increase the rest of it. The County's newly -built parking lot
54 is never full.
Whatcom County Council
1
2 Darlyn DelBoca, Lummi Island, stated she supports favoring pedestrian use of the
3 ferry. A new ferry should be a pedestrian passenger ferry only. Keep the community
4 diverse. She does not support the fare increases if they are to support a new ferry. There's
5 no justification for a new ferry.
6
7 Ben Smith, 1247 Island Drive, Lummi Island, stated transportation costs are going
8 up every day. Keep the fares affordable, because employee wages aren't going up. Find a
9 way to keep fares affordable.
10
11 Dave Barker, 3816 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated many cement trucks
12 come and go off the island. They should not get a discount. If the rate keeps going up, he
13 will start walking.
14
15 Robin Aspman - O'Callaghan, 2284 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated this
16 ferry is great service. The ferry service is the same as a road. They are constantly
17 discriminated against. Councilmember Weimer works with the residents. Public Works
18 Director Abart may be willing to work with the residents. Raising the rate is not fiscally
19 responsible. A new ferry is ludicrous.
20
21 Kirstan Satter, 3864 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated the community's
22 diversity is threatened by large fare increases. Families may be forced off the island. They
23 will take with them a vibrant part of the community, the children.
24
25 Ian O'Callaghan, 2284 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated be fiscally
26 conservative. Look at long -term costs before raising rates. They haven't got a lease yet
27 with the Lummi Nation about where a new dock will be. Each location will require a
28 radically different design. The Whatcom Chief has broken down only twice in the last 15
29 years. That's reliable. The only time he has to wait for the ferry for more than 45 minutes
30 is during holidays.
31
32 Don Wines, 2219 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated the ferry rates have
33 been discussed, but not a cost analysis on the increased cost. He questioned the cost of the
34 ferry administrator. If the need for an administrator is because of a capital project, that
35 isn't an operating cost. There's been no discussion of whether the cost of the docks should
36 or shouldn't be included in the operating costs. He asked what is the driving force for a new
37 ferry. The cost of a new ferry isn't worth it for ten cars per hour. He would like more
38 information.
39
40 Ben Rogers, 2877 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated he supports the
41 ordinance. Don't look into a craft that will carry more cars. Look into other options to carry
42 people, not cars, efficiently. He asked whether more cars is really a desirable option. Don't
43 let the cars rule the decision.
44
45 David Krilanovich, 2392 North Nugent Road, stated that every time the ferry rates go
46 up, fewer less people use the ferry. There are only lines for the ferry in the summer time.
47 They need to increase rates for recreational users.
48
49 Colleen Berg, 2109 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she prefers no fare increase.
50 The committee discussed earlier eliminating the Slater Road project. The dock lease with
51 the Lummi Nation will be up soon. It seems counterproductive to cancel a project that will
52 benefit the Lummi Nation right before asking them to renew the dock lease. Increase public
53 transit that meets with the ferry. The Lummi Nation is willing to help with that. Whatcom
54 Transportation Authority (WTA) could be mandated or encouraged to be more cooperative.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 5
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she prefers that Councilmembers Weimer and Crawford
negotiate a revised version of the ordinance to be introduced in two weeks and scheduled in
committee.
Brenner stated she is ready to vote down Councilmember Crawford's version. It's
not productive to leave it sitting for two weeks.
Nelson asked if the financial impact of the proposal has been evaluated.
Weimer stated it has. It is in the introduction items.
Crawford stated the administration has not done a financial impact analysis.
Weimer stated the administration has looked at his proposal. The administration
knows where all the numbers come from. He hasn't received anything from Public Works
Director Frank Abart, who has looked at it.
Nelson asked if this proposal is the same that Councilmember Weimer brought
forward before.
Weimer stated it is not. The rate structure is the same, with a 15 percent increase
across the board. That alleviates the operating cost deficit quicker than Councilmember
Crawford's proposal. He changed the way the deficit is figured.
Crawford stated he disagrees.
Nelson stated evaluate both proposals.
Crawford stated Councilmember Weimer's proposal does not project six years out,
like his does. Until they evaluate projected increased costs, Councilmember Weimer has
simply given a proposal for 2008. They have not addressed the issue of escalating the fare
structure every two years.
The community seems to be more receptive of Councilmember Weimer's proposal. If
the administration believes that the 2007 numbers are accurate, and if they repeat the
purchase patter of 2007, Councilmember Weimer's proposal for 2008 pulls more money out
of people using the ferry than his proposal. If they implement that structure, then
implement it for one year to see if innovative ideas, such as a summer rate increase, really
works.
He would not support certain components of Councilmember Weimer's proposal,
such as moving the State revenue figure in the fare box recovery formula. If
Councilmember Weimer were willing to amend his proposal to take out those shifts and look
just at the rate structure for one year. However, the administration should evaluate the
proposal in the next two weeks, and project escalating costs for the next six years. His
proposal is for the next six years that takes into account significant increased costs. They
also need to recover the deficit. He doesn't believe the administration evaluated
Councilmember Weimer's proposal for sustainability. They need to go either one direction
or the other with the rate structure. He's interested only in Councilmember Weimer's
proposed rate structure. He's not interested in shifting the calculation for fare box recovery.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 6
Weimer stated the administration has had his proposal for awhile. It hasn't
mentioned anything. His proposal projects six years. Councilmember Crawford's proposal
doesn't provide information on the numbers he uses for revenue, expenditures, or ridership.
There is no way the Council can evaluate what Councilmember Crawford proposes without
those numbers. He asked for those numbers from the administration, and hasn't seen
those yet.
Crawford stated his proposal is to move forward with option one of Frank Abart's
presentation of November 2007.
Brenner stated she will propose removing the docks from the ferry fare calculation.
A fare increase will drive people out of their homes. Numbers can be manipulated to reflect
any argument.
(Clerk's Note; End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner continued to state that the ferry is a public road, no matter how many
people live on the road. Councilmember Weimer's proposal makes more sense. She
moved to adopt Councilmember Crawford's ordinance, but she will not vote for the motion.
Fleetwood moved to table for two weeks to get answers to questions and to allow
Councilmembers Weimer and Crawford to work together on a combined proposal.
Crawford stated he asks the administration whether Councilmember Weimer's
proposal is sustainable and about components of the fare box recovery calculations.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the administration has
evaluated Councilmember Weimer's proposal.. They spend a lot of administrative time
answering questions. The Public Works Department proposed Councilmember Crawford's
proposal last Fall. He would like to evaluate Councilmember Weimer's proposal further. He
asked councilmembers to send specific questions via email to the Public Works Department.
He thought he had submitted all the data for his option A last Fall. One big difference
between the two proposals is that option A from last Fall does not require an additional
impact to the road fund.
Crawford asked the fiscal impact of Councilmember Weimer's proposal. Abart stated
the impact to the road fund now appears to be a little over $100,000 per year. Operating a
ferry costs money. Someone has to pay for it. It's up to the Council to determine who pays
and how much.
Kelly asked if Councilmembers Weimer and Crawford are close enough to negotiate
one proposal. If they aren't, they are right back where they started in two weeks. The
costs are adding up every day.
Weimer stated he prefers to try to negotiate a compromise. Instead of bringing it
back to a full Council meeting, discuss the differences during a committee meeting and get
a committee recommendation.
Crawford stated he would like more information from the administration in a
spreadsheet or in writing. He would like minimal analysis in writing of any issues related to
Councilmember Weimer's proposal and how it will affect the road fund. That is his concern.
Stay flexible about how they do the rate schedule structure.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 7
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administration, stated the administration can provide
information.
Nelson stated the issue should be scheduled in the Public Works Committee. The
Finance Committee has time constraints.
Fleetwood amended his motion and moved to hold in the Public Works
Committee.
Motion to refer to the Public Works Committee carried unanimously.
Brenner asked why the videographer left early.
Joe Bates, Administrative Services Department, stated there are conflicts with the
new sound system. They will work it out first thing tomorrow. He has been trying to
schedule a meeting with the Council about upgrading the video broadcast of Council
meetings, but the Council hasn't had time.
Brenner stated they can schedule a special meeting next week.
1. ORDINANCE REGARDING THE TEMPORARY INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS
ON BAKER .LAKE ROAD AT BOTH ENDS OF THE SULPHUR CREEK BRIDGE
#422; CRP #908013 (AB2008 -095)
Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) REGARDING THE UR AND URM ZONING DISTRICTS
IN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREA RELATING TO DENSITY, LOT
CLUSTERING, AND RESERVE TRACTS (AB2008 -108)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following person spoke:
Wendy Harris, 3928 E. Connecticut Street, Bellingham, stated she is a Silver Beach
resident. She is opposed to creating urban growth areas (UGA's) in the watershed. The
UGA's in the watershed violate the Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management
Act (SMA), the Clean Water Act, and the County Comprehensive Plan. She is opposed to
the interim ordinance as it relates to the watershed UGA's for the same reasons. They need
more restrictive land use regulations set out in the Silver Beach Ordinance and the County
Stormwater Management Plan. Some of the most egregious problems are in Hillsdale.
There is no justification for failing to immediately hold the Hillsdale UGA to the same
standards imposed upon Silver Beach. They must remedy the net loss of function right
now, not later. The proposed interim ordinance ignores the special level of protection that
should be afforded to Lake Whatcom and the urgency of the situation. The County
Comprehensive Plan provides for special treatment of the Lake Whatcom watershed as a
source of potable water, including reduction in watershed density and adoption of best
management practices to preserve the resource. Zoning regulations and development
standards should protect waters resources and potable water supplies when there are
conflicts with designations provided by the Growth Management Act. When conflicts exist,
protecting the reservoir takes priority over creating UGA's.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 8
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated this ordinance does not reduce any standards. The standards are the
same or more restrict than they were.
Cathy Craver, Planning. and Development Services Department, stated that is
correct. This is to address clustering and reserve tracts for certain zones until the UGA
update is complete. It doesn't affect any watershed regulations.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE .TITLE 20, CHAPTERS
20.71, 20.80.635, AND 20.80.735, 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 -094)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
Governmental Affairs Director, stated builders and BIA members will have a discussion in
April about watershed enforcement before the building season starts.
There is no published map or geographical coordinates of where the watershed
actually is. The County staff has a map. A map should be published with the Council
packet.
Dan McShane, Grant Street, Bellingham, submitted and read from information (on
file). Lake degradation is going to happen, just like it happened with Lake Whatcom. The
draft stormwater plan for this area is now out of date. The City of Bellingham is also
concerned about stormwater in this watershed. This ordinance is important to protect the
fiscal well -being of the County. If they don't have these regulations, the County will face
the same costs it faces with Lake Whatcom, even though it's not a drinking water source.
Also (inaudible).
Kelly asked if Lake Whatcom is on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. McShane
stated it is. Lake Padden is on the list for consideration. It's in consideration for PCB's and
dissolved oxygen, driven by phosphorus loading, which is related to land clearing and
development.
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Blaine, stated he agrees with Mr. McShane. The
Councilmembers disagree well.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Nelson stated he's found alpine lakes on the 303(d) list. The purpose is to find water
bodies that face impairment. He asked the County's legal responsibilities when it may not
have control over some of these areas.
Kelly stated that because this lake is being considered for the list, they know there
are problems and they should do whatever they can to not exacerbate those problems and
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 9
to head them off before it gets to the list. The lake will get on the list. They know about
the problems. It's a good reason to take action.
Weimer stated that once a water body is on the list, the State Department of Ecology
schedules a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study, which can take awhile.
.Brenner stated she supports the ordinance, but not indefinitely. Get started on low -
impact development. They need to allow people to develop their properties unless the
County wants to buy them. Moratoria are to be temporary while they put things in place. It
shouldn't be used for preventative measures. Don't be held hostage to a TMDL study.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that this ordinance imposes some low- impact development
(LID) standards. There are restrictions on impervious surfaces and footprint. If the City
doesn't want to annex certain urban growth areas (UGA's) because of cost, the County
should possibly not allow the density for that area. The County will have to service the
area. She's not sure if this ordinance will lead to that discussion.
Weimer stated they should also take a look at Yew Street Road if the City won't
annex that area.
Brenner stated the City won't annex areas because the County makes
improvements, and the City doesn't want to reimburse the County for those improvements.
Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through five.
Brenner stated that item two should specify that the contract will go to the lowest
responsive bidder.
Crawford stated the paperwork in the Council packet is correct, but the title wording
only is not correct. The committee simply clarified the title.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through five carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NEW WORLD SYSTEMS
CORPORATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE AEGIS PUBLIC SAFETY
INTERFACE SOFTWARE AS /400 STATE /NCIC INTERFACE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $27,000(AB2008 -115)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -15
TO THE BIDDER WITH THE BEST VALUE BASED ON PRICE AND COST TO
TRANSPORT ASPHALTIC MIXES TO THE JOB SITE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$85,000 (AB2008 -116)
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 10
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -16
TO LOW BIDDER MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY
OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS (ROAD OIL) IN THE AMOUNT OF $950,000
(AB2008 -117)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
PURCHASE OF THREE SMALL PICKUP TRUCKS FROM JERRY CHAMBERS
CHEVROLET, USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $57,929.41 (AB2008 -118)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR INSTALLATION
ON NEW SHERIFF'S VEHICLES FROM MCLOUGHLIN EARDLEY COMPANY,
USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$108,332.69 (AB2008 -119)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE FOR PROJECT -BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 2008 -02 FOR
COUNTY ROAD PROJECT 905014, REPLACEMENT OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF
(AB2008 -109)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
this item is held in committee for two weeks.
2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTRACT LANGUAGE AND VOTE ON THE REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CONSERVATION NORTHWEST FOR THE
LEGACY PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 (AB2008 -104)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated this
item is held in committee for two weeks.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the request. This is simply to correct an
error. The Council's intent to support this was already demonstrated by its last vote on this
issue.
Nelson stated the error was the issue. The contractor has authority to charge the
County for up to $30,000 for software that for which it isn't paying that much.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's confident that they responded to the request for
qualifications (RFQ). The intent is there.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford stated there is written detail that the contractor is going to receive that
same service for $4,600, but the contractor says it will cost over $50,000 and the County is
to pay $35,000 of that amount. The administration says it will take that detailed quote and
compare it to the deliverable to see if it's the same product.
Weimer stated it seems that the overlays in the biodiversity map from Conservation
Northwest were not mentioned by Nature Serve. It looked like Nature Serve was going to
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 11
look at the Conservation Northwest map and say whether or not it was any good. It wasn't
to produce the same type of map. It was an assessment of their map.
Brenner stated it has a lot to do with their charges to train people. They couldn't
guarantee things because it wasn't them doing it. They also talked about the cost to train
County staff to do the same thing. There is a huge difference in price. Planning staff told
her the cost of the software is $2,500. Get clarification about adding the software. She
asked why they aren't training staff to provide this service.
The person who did the maps is an intern. She's not sure that the County can
accept that without someone to give it a second look. These questions deserve to be
answered.
Nelson stated he's disappointed that this is being shoved through. They wanted an
inclusive process, but formed a process that is exclusive.
Brenner stated Dick Gilda wrote the Council a letter about having a cooling off
period instead of moving forward. It's not about whether this organization is going to be
objective. It's about the fact that people can't be objective when they are passionate about
something, no matter how good their intentions. They should divide the scope into two
contracts, the mapping and the survey. These things have to be done by disinterested third
parties. Two people on the steering committee say it's doing good things, but that there
isn't a good cross - section of people.
Fleetwood asked if the administration recommends approval of this contract.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated it does.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that anyone is welcome to participate with the contractor.
The focus of this effort is public participation. This group is diverse.
Nelson stated they are supporting and funding this organization. The question is
whether this is the direction they are going and whether they are planning for the future.
Another question is about the survey. He asked if the survey is going to be the start of the
Comprehensive Plan process. It isn't included in the Comprehensive Plan amendments. He
asked if an outside citizen group is designing their process or if the administration will bring
forward a process for Comprehensive Plan changes.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford opposed.
10. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH CASCADES
GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY PLAN (AB2008 -111)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
Crawford stated this is a tough issue for him because of the idea that they are
bringing in a predator species at some point. The plan has its merits. When they physically
import bears into the area, it will be extremely controversial. He's not sure he's ready to
support it at this time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she appreciates that Councilmember Crawford considered it.
Brenner stated introducing the wolves was controversial. There problems they
thought would occur didn't.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 12
Nelson stated the grizzly bear is a natural inhabitant of this area. The only reason
they're gone is from a lot of agricultural and forestry practices. It will take a lot of land use
to maintain them.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
3. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2008 (AB2008 -120)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve the substitute list of docket items, submitted by Mr. Stalheim (on file). The
substitute version of the list replaces the 2008 docket numbers with the original 2007
docket numbers for those items that the Council docketed in 2007 and deletes item 2008 -H.
Crawford stated he will support the motion. However, citizen applications with
accompanying fees should receive consideration. They are denying this person's
opportunity to have a public hearing with a staff recommendation. There may be very good
reasons why this is not an appropriate area for the agriculture zone. They won't know those
reasons until the staff has had an opportunity to look at the area and the applicant has an
opportunity to present the information. Citizens who come forward with legitimate land use
concerns should have their hearing day without getting shut down first.
Brenner stated it's not just about agriculture. It's also about whether they want
more density in that' area. She doesn't want to create more density in rural areas. They
are talking about downzoning even more. They certainly don't want to upzone an area.
She can't imagine why they'd want to put this request through the process.
Nelson stated that if an item is docketed, a citizen would pay. Now, they're
demonstrating to the citizen that the Council isn't interested in moving forward with this,
and the citizen shouldn't waste his or her money on this process. He would rather let the
citizen know ahead of time whether there is any chance for success. That's what this vote
is about.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has a no net loss policy for agriculture. Two acres of
farmland are lost every minute of every day in the country. Also, the Council has a right to
turn down the request initially. It saves the applicant money. The County has a big enough
problem with the 85,000 acres zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) in this county and
the 25,000 acres zoned rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). The last thing she wants to do
is add more to that problem. It's more expensive to service R5A and R10A zones than
agricultural zones.
Weimer moved to amend the resolution, "NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that
the Whatcom County Council hereby initiates for formal review the amendments shown on
attached exhibit A, identified with 2008 docketing numbers; and urges the completion of the
review process for those items included in _exhibit A .and identified, witl 2007Aocketin4
numbers." Given the language as it is without the amendment, it appears they're docketing
the 2007 items, which they've already docketed. Don't set a precedent that items will lapse
and not get done if they aren't re- docketed in future list. The language clarifies that they
aren't re- docketing the 2007 items, just asking that they be completed.
Fleetwood accepted the motion as a friendly amendment.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 13
Motion to approve substitute exhibit A and the resolution as amended
carried unanimously.
4. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF JUSTIN MOSIMAN TO THE VETERAN'S ADVISORY BOARD
(AB2008 -122)
Nelson moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF CHARLIE RINKER TO LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT #1
(AB2008 -123)
Fleetwood moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF DAVID MOODY TO THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY
BOARD (AB2008 -124)
Crawford moved to confirm the appointment. He is a very qualified individual.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF CANDACE JOHNSON TO FILL THE DISTRICT 1 POSITION
ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (AB2008 -125)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to confirm the appointment
Motion carried unanimously.
8. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF JAYNE JURADO TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY
BOARD (AB2008 -126)
Nelson moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. APPOINTMENT TO UTILITIES PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
DISTRICT 2, APPLICANT: SEAN WILSON (AB2008 -128)
Caskey - Schreiber moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Addendum:
11. APPROVAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF CONTINUED LOCAL SPONSORSHIP OF
WORK ON THE SANDE- WILLIAMS LEVEE (AB2008 -132)
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 14
1
2 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to
3 approve the request to withdrawal local sponsorship.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7
8 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
9
10 Crawford moved to accept Introduction Items one through six and eight, including
11 the substitute for Introduction Item four.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 11.32, BOATING AND
16 SWIMMING, SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS (AB2008 -078)
17
18 2. ORDINANCE LIMITING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, THE SIZE OF LARGE
19 COMMERCIAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
20 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY
21 (AB2008 -112)
22
23 3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE
24 OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS
25 SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
26 •(AB2008 -114)
27
28 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2008 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #5, IN THE
29 AMOUNT OF $248,274.00 (AB2008 -127)
30
31 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.05, ON -SITE SEWAGE
32 SYSTEM REGULATIONS (AB2008 -071) (REVISED)
33
34 6. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WHATCOM COUNTY ON -SITE SEWAGE LOCAL
35 MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2008 -072) (REVISED)
36
37 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY
38 RATES, AND CORRESPONDING WHATCOM COUNTY 2008 UNIFIED FEE
39 SCHEDULE (AB2008 -085B)
40
41 S. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.93, BIRCH BAY
42 WATERSHED AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
43 (AB2008 -129) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
44 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
45
46
47 OTHER BUSINESS
48
49 Brenner stated there is a proposal before the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
50 (EFSEC) for a facility at Cherry Point. The hearing is scheduled in Olympia, but it's
51 supposed to be in the local area where the project is located.
52
53 Weimer stated it is just a change of an existing permit. There isn't anything new
54 happening.
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 15
1
2 Unidentified speaker stated that hearings aren't required to be in the local
3 community.
4
5 Brenner stated the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) doesn't have a
6 biodiesel facility. It should have one. Also, the bus service through Cordata backs up traffic
7 during rush hour.
8
9 Crawford stated his trip to Washington D.C. was productive. Executive Kremen is
10 optimistic that the potential revenue stream may result in millions of dollars returning to the
11 county.
12
13 Weimer submitted draft letters regarding Swift Creek for Council approval (on file).
14
15 Nelson moved to send the letters.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19
20 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
21
22 There were no reports or other business from Councilmembers.
23
24
25 ADJOURN
26
27 The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
28
29
30
31 ]ill �ii3c'gn, 4 u Y?,,Transcription
32 .�` `ll l.. 4-.,
33 `���J�'Tipl#XclAY �0 oved these minutes on April 22 , 2008.
34 ?� .
35 7Y
r
37 TA OF.�:
38 -
39 -
40 ..
41 DaiiW4Fh1� ;,q#A►a, C� ouncil Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 3/11/2008, Page 16