HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 25 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
March 25, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:03 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
MINUTES CONSENT
Absent:
None
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2007
2. SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL /COUNTY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOR
NOVEMBER 20, 2007
3. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2007
4. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR JANUARY 22, 2008
S. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR FEBRUARY 28, 2008
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Pete Kremen, County Executive, announced that the County Courthouse achieved its
LEED (Leaders in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. The Whatcom County
Courthouse is third courthouse in the United States and the sixth existing building in the
State of Washington to achieve LEED certification. It couldn't have been done without
Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber and her effort to purchase 100 percent green power.
That was a major factor in the County's ability to achieve LEED- certification. Recognize
Whatcom County Conservation and Resource Analyst Christina Reeves for her work toward
this goal.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 1
1
2 Nancy Ging, 2386 Tuttle, Lummi Island, stated the Council expressed three major
3 worries about not getting the proposed new ferry. One worry is the loss of $8 million from
4 the State of Washington. The second worry is the risk regarding lane width. The third
5 worry was about the steel electric thing in the engineer's report.
6
7 The most credible concern is the lane width problem. The Council should vote down
8 the current ferry proposal. It's too extravagant. Refurbish the Whatcom Chief deck house.
9 Narrow the deck house in order to allow more car space, yet lose as little passenger space
10 as possible. Do that work before the next Coast Guard inspection. Scale the ferry plan
11 back to 24 vehicles, which is the same as the Guemes Island ferry. It would still increase
12 capacity and minimize dock required changes. They would save that amount of money sent
13 back to the State.
14
15 Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated the Council should
16 consider other options. Reduce the number of building permits so the ferry won't be so
17 crowded with enormous trucks that take up half the ferry. Also consider electric buses to
18 get people to the ferry. Reduce the vehicle space used will make the ferry last. They can
19 apply for the $8 million again.
20
21 Joseph Fugate, 13204 -37th Avenue NE, Seattle, stated the economy is dead. Don't
22 try to stimulate or revive the economy. Instead, they need a new economic system. There
23 are three steps to survival. The Council should approve a resolution that supports the first
24 of the three steps, which is approval of the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. The
25 resolution will pressure Congress to pass the Act. The second step is that they need lower
26 interest rates, at one to two percent, for more productive industries. They need to rebuild.
27 The third step is to create a new, just world economic system. The United States, Russia,
28 China, and India will initially sponsor the new system. They will come together as equal
29 partners and have fixed exchange rates.
30
31 Lorraine Dukes, 2517 Island View Lane, Lummi Island, stated that in this current
32 time of economic uncertainty and instability, it is inappropriate to approve a huge tax
33 commitment for a ferry. It's premature to initiate planning for dock improvements and
34 changes before they are certain about the future location of the docks. The current
35 agreement with the Lummi Nation expires in a few years. Wait for improvement in the
36 country's financial condition. Take time to thoroughly investigate all the ramifications. Vote
37 against the current ferry proposal. Thoroughly explore all the alternatives.
38
39 Jacob Johnson, 14041 -30th Avenue NE, Seattle, stated he is with the LaRouche
40 political action committee (PAC). He read the three main points from the Homeowners and
41 Bank Protection Act. First, Congress would establish a federal agency to freeze mortgages
42 as they are now. That will take a few years. They will have to freeze foreclosures during
43 the transition period. (Inaudible). After a few years, create new mortgages at real values.
44 The third point is that the State governors would take on most of the associated
45 administrative tasks. Protect the banks, also. This legislation has passed in over 80 cities.
46
47 Johnnie Grames, Maplewood Avenue, Bellingham, stated the economy and budget
48 are on everyone's minds. A big new jail is proposed by the government. The interim jail is
49 too small. Include the public in the debate about a new jail. They can build a reasonable
50 jail in relation to everything else that is going on. The Council controls the budget.
51
52 Anthony Guerrero, LaRouche Political Action Committee Representative, stated the
53 Council should support the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Whatcom County Council, 3125/2008, Page 2
1 suspended foreclosures for an unspecified period of time during World War II. The
2 suspension was to allow people to keep their homes as a bankruptcy reorganization was
3 conducted. Part of the reorganization was to redefine the purpose of the banking system,
4 which is a servant of the development of the physical economy for the betterment of future
5 generations. The federal government then generated credit to facilitate the re- capitalization
6 of the banking system. It also authorized a national regional program to invest capital into
7 basic infrastructure projects. Do that today to recover the current economy.
8
91 Michelle Luke, 3342 Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island, stated transportation planning
10 should be proactive, should solve problems, and helps to invest transportation resources
11 wisely according to the Comprehensive Plan. It's important to link one community to the
12 rest. They must take advantage of outside financial assistance. They have worked on this
13 plan for ten years. Many things have been discussed. The Public Works Department
14 surveyed all the voters and property owners on the island about the next capital
15 investment. The result was vehicle capacity.
16
17 The people here tonight convinced the County Council in 2000 to not apply for $14
18 million in federal funding that was available at the time. Now, they have an opportunity for
19 the $8 million grant. There isn't an unlimited supply of grant money for their transportation
20 system. The new ferry is necessary and timely.
21
22 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, asked how much public money is being
23 spent on the Whatcom Legacy Plan. He tried to attend this meeting last Friday, but the
24 door was locked when he got there. The meeting was scheduled in the museum Rotunda
25 Room. Public money is being spent on projects that have little or no public involvement.
26 They are subsidizing special interests.
27
28 Weimer stated that meeting is tomorrow. Wiesen stated these meetings include a
29 select few.
30
31 Brenner stated Mr. Wiesen should be on the committee. Wiesen stated someone is
32 hand - picking who is on that committee.
33
34 Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted a petition from ferry
35 crew members who are in favor of a new ferry (on file). The Whatcom Chief ferry violates
36 the lane width requirements about 40 percent of the time. The 2005 design was specifically
37 for increased vehicle capacity, compliance with Coast Guard safety standards, compliance
38 with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, to meet future Environmental
39 Protection Act (EPA) requirements, and to avoid dredging and the associated environmental
40 impacts. It would be a shame to lose the grant. The boat is corroding. The boat isn't safe
41 for very long. The reasons the Council originally authorized the new ferry design are
42 compelling reasons to proceed with a new ferry. The plan has been in the making for more
43 than ten years.
44
45 Crawford asked how long has the proposed propulsion system been run and how
46 many ferries use it. Kinney stated it was invented in 1927 and first applied to a ferry in
47 1937. Worldwide, more than 380 ferries use this system.
48
49 Ian O'Callaghan, 2284 N. Nugent, Lummi Island, stated the Council needs to look at
50 how the County spends its money. A bigger ferry boat will increase, not reduce costs. A
51 bigger ferry boat moves more cars, but doesn't necessarily move more people. Be fiscally
52 responsible. Not everyone on Lummi Island can afford higher ticket costs. Raising rates
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 3
will reduce ridership. They will be stuck with a new ferry for a very long time. Choose
wisely.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated there are unique communities in the
county. Decide how much local communities contribute and allow access to areas. He
asked if they can sustain Lake Whatcom as their drinking water reservoir without using very
expensive secondary treatment. The data is consistent. They have a good chance. A
recent change to about one - quarter of the watershed to preserve the watershed is vital.
The watershed community should contribute. They have a chance to sustain basin three.
The water at the deepest part of basin three is clean. The park district approach is one way
to include the local community.
Colleen Berg, 2109 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she is opposed to the purchase
of a new ferry. A new larger ferry is not environmentally friendly. It will require more fuel.
Transportation planning is very important. State monies are available for inter -modal
transportation. Get people out of their cars. That would help the ferry system and their
carbon footprint. Focus efforts on inter -modal transportation, not vehicles.
Bob Van Weerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road,. stated the County's criminal system has
changed a lot during his lifetime. They are considering another jail. Make it a priority and
get it going soon.
OTHER ITEMS
2. 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 moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated she was initially opposed to this. She is not comfortable with the
ordinance. She would like a presentation from a disinterested third party expert. The
person who presented to the Council was the expert who has done ferry- related work for
the County and said the Whatcom Chief is coming to the end of its service life. She is
concerned about the safety, liability, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance
issues.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that the County didn't explore enough choices. She is not
thrilled with this option, but it seems this is the way it is going to be. Because she is
concerned with those three issues, she can't support keeping the Whatcom Chief.
Therefore, she will vote reluctantly in favor of the ordinance.
Crawford stated the very first issue he learned about when he was elected to the
Council was the aging ferry. Now, more than eight years later, he finally gets to vote on it.
There is not much of a financial difference to the County between the cost of a new ferry
and retrofitting the Whatcom Chief, when they add the State's $8 million grant for the new
ferry. He is in favor of the ordinance. The Council should support this ordinance. This is an
investment that will last another 40 years.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 4
Fleetwood stated the Council had many questions two weeks ago about the question
of whether not they should buy a new ferry. The Council decided it would not make a
decision until it got answers to those questions. He wants to make sure that all the answers
to the questions are available. There were questions today about whether the new proposal
is extravagant. He would like more detail from the administrations or the expert about
whether the new ferry is extravagant. There is debate about whether this will ultimately
increase the cost of future tickets. He would like to know if that's true. He can wait until
April 8 to get answers.
Brenner stated everyone says the Council shouldn't decide to buy a new ferry just
because State money is available. She disagrees with the person who said other money will
come along. Federal and State money is drying up. The County receives more and more
unfunded mandates. There will be less money available in the future.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the County Road
Administration Board (CRAB) needs a decision by April 15 or 16, and the Council next
meeting is April S. The Council would have to decide by its meeting on April 8.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the new ferry would increase operating costs by about 10
percent. It will need more fuel. She is still undecided. She wished they had a secure lease
agreement for long -term use of the current dock site on Gooseberry Point. This new ferry
was designed specifically for this route. If they change the route, they may have a boat
that doesn't suit County needs.
She is also concerned about increased fuel costs, increased staff needs, and other
unidentified costs associated with a bigger boat. She's worried that people won't be able to
afford to live on the island. She's not sure how to fix that concern.
This is probably the best opportunity to get a new boat now, if a new boat is
necessary. She's leery about keeping the Whatcom Chief as a backup boat if it has no
service life left. The new ferry will cost the County about $7.5 million. That is a $5,000
subsidy per each of the 1,500 island residents. It's great that those households pay taxes
and will try to pay more of the operating expenses. However, it's still a huge cost to the
County. She's trying to figure out the best solution.
Abart stated the County has a 25 -year renewal for the ferry dock lease. They are
trying to work with the Lummi Nation to meet their needs as well as the County's.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Abart is comfortable going forward with this boat and
this design, without having that lease secure. Abart stated he is. About $4 million of the
$7.5 million from the road fund are for dock repairs done as capital improvements that are
necessary anyway. The docks are at the level of deterioration that they need to be
replaced. The new ferry will burn more fuel because it's much larger. It's built to increase
capacity, which is what this is about. It is designed to improve that capacity. They will also
have increased costs with the current ferry. Fuel costs will escalate as the Whatcom Chief
ages.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Abart would want to keep the Whatcom Chief if they
purchase the new ferry. Abart stated those are different discussions. If the Council
approves a new ferry, it has a year or two to decide whether or not to keep the Whatcom
Chief. If he had to decide today, he would not keep the Whatcom Chief. They can barely
afford to keep one ferry running, let alone two ferries. He would rather sell the Whatcom
Chief to reduce their debt service. That's not been decided. That's not for him to decide.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 5
Nelson stated he agrees this is a very big decision. The Coast Guard has identified
holes in the Whatcom Chief. ' The hull has deteriorated 25 percent, which can result in more
damage and future repairs. He worries about safety during storm events or a collision. The
concern should be about addressing how to provide capacity and public safety. If they don't
purchase the new ferry, it will limit the number of people who go to Lummi Island.
However, they may end up with no one getting off the island.
Move forward. Use the money the County has been offered to take care of the
problem. The money isn't always available. The cost of building a ferry will continue to
rise. If the Council decides to wait and purchase a new ferry in a few years, it will take
several years after that to get the new ferry. They will have to go through this process all
over again. He reluctantly supports the ordinance because of the capacity and public safety
issues.
Brenner stated she was told a month ago that the new ferry design would work
elsewhere. She asked if that is correct.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the new boat as designed could dock in Fairhaven, for
example. Abart stated it could. The ferry is large enough that it can do that.
Weimer stated he is not totally comfortable with the information he's received. He
still hasn't seen a specific report that talks about the condition of the Whatcom Chief. A civil
engineer talked to the Council about that today. It was the same information he'd seen
previously. He talked to the people who did the inspection. They said there isn't a problem.
Nelson stated it is a Coast Guard report.
Weimer stated the Coast Guard said the County had to fix it, and the County fixed it.
That's typical with steel boats. If there is a problem, they fix it. He wanted to see a report
from a marine survey person who typically looks at the hull and the other parts of the boat
to find out the life left in the boat.
Also, he hasn't seen any estimate of what the cost of operating a new boat will do to
the fares. They are raising the fares soon by over 50 percent in some cases. The increase
depends on whether they keep the Whatcom Chief as a backup, staffing, and off -site ticket
sales. To some degree, they will make it impossible for some people to live on Lummi
Island anymore.
He asked if the County currently has the ability for the 25 -year lease extension, or if
that option is in negotiation.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the current lease allows the County to
extend the lease for another 25 years. They will have to negotiate the terms of the lease.
If they can't come to an agreement, it goes to arbitration. The Tribe and County have
agreed in advance on the arbitration. They've given up any claim for sovereign immunity to
address this issue. It's a clear, solid lease.
Fleetwood asked if the Council supports holding in committee for two weeks.
Kelly stated he would be willing to hold this in committee for two weeks. He hasn't
heard anyone tell the Council that this was a public safety issue or that the ferry lifespan is
limited.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 6
1
2 Crawford stated the Council was told that in committee today.
3
4 Kelly stated the other issue is that the ferry will be 20 to 25 percent of the road fund.
5 Without it, the Council can add new road projects to the road fund. It may not be fair to the
6 other taxpayers in the county to live with that burden, given that this will benefit
7 approximately 1,100 people who live on the island. He hears overwhelming support to not
8 purchase a new ferry from the folks who use the ferry every day. The majority of the folks
9 he hears from on Lummi Island say they don't want a new ferry. For those reasons, he is
10 not inclined to vote for the ordinance. He will support holding it in committee to get more
11 answers.
12
13 Weimer stated he is concerned about fuel costs in the future. In 40 years, they may
14 not use the same types of fuel. They may not be doing good planning if the solution is
15 buying a bigger boat that uses more fuel. They should consider other creative options.
16
17 Brenner stated the Council committee was told today that there are safety concerns
18 and that the ferry was nearing the end of its useful service life.
19
20 Weimer stated the councilmembers were told that by a civil engineer who is being
21 paid to be a part of this process.
22
23 Brenner stated she's happy to listen to any expert who is willing to tell them
24 otherwise. She has no problem with holding this item for two weeks. They keep talking
25 about being environmentally responsible. They are developing environmentally - friendly,
26 alternative diesel. It's a good thing this ferry has a diesel engine if that happens. She
27 would like someone completely objective to tell them definitively about the remaining life of
28 the ferry. The councilmembers aren't getting that information.
29
30 Abart stated the new boat will have the tier three diesel engine, so they will be as
31 clean at burning diesel as possible. The propulsion system is the most environmentally
32 sound available. They spent quite a bit of time during design to figure out if they can use a
33 hybrid system. Due to the cost and other design issues, it wouldn't work for this ferry.
34 They are looking for green alternatives.
35
36 Weimer stated his point was that the capacity issue that exists now, with big sport
37 utility vehicles (SUV) taking up a lot of room, may not be an issue in the future if fuel costs
38 continue to rise.
39
40 Nelson read from the Council packet about the safety of the Whatcom Chief,
41 according to the Coast Guard. The County assured the Coast Guard that it would address
42 these safety issues and. also protect the citizens from future problems with this ferry. Abart
43 stated that is correct.
44
45 Nelson stated that safety issues have been presented. The Council is responsible for
46 taking this seriously. Regarding encouraging people to walk on the ferry, they've tried for
47 years to encourage walk -on passengers, but they can't change things overnight. There are
48 still issues of safety and capacity. Regarding fuel efficiency, the new engines will be more
49 environmentally sound than the old engines, which don't have to follow current
50 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requirements. He asked if the new engines would meet
51 the EPA requirements and what it would cost to upgrade the Whatcom Chief engines to
52 meet the EPA requirements. Abart stated those regulations are being discussed. It could
53 be several years before those regulations would be required, if at all. The industry is
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 7
1 discussing fuel fumes and other issues right now. He has no idea how much it would cost to
2 replace the engines. It would probably be less expensive to replace the engine rather than
3 convert an old engine.
4
5 Caskey- Schreiber stated they've forecast a ten percent increase in operating cost,
6 which would require a ten percent increase in ferry rates. She asked if the ten percent is all
7 the rate increase would be. Abart stated it depends on whether there are increases in
8 operating and fuel costs.
9
10 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would rather pay more up front for a hybrid engine.
11 Abart stated it would require significant re- design of the ferry. For a ferry this size, that use
12 would be experimental. This is their only ferry. They're not ready to do that yet. He asked
13 that the councilmembers email him their specific questions.
14
15 Fleetwood moved to hold to a special Council meeting on April 15.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber asked what the anticipated operating increases expected as a
18 result of the new ferry are and when the new ferry would begin service. Abart stated the
19 new ferry would begin service early in 2010. They will have to add an additional staff
20 person on the boat. They will have to go to a four - person crew.
21
22 Motion carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Nelson, and Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
23
24
25 PUBLIC HEARINGS
26
27 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 11.32, BOATING AND
28 SWIMMING, SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS (AB2008 -078)
29
30 Brenner stated this is for Lake Terrell. There is a problem with wakes on Lake
31 Terrell. It's disruptive to people who are fishing and to wildlife. The Washington State
32 Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) asked the County to adopt an ordinance to reduce
33 speed so wakes are eliminated.
34
35 Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
36
37 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 2. ORDINANCE LIMITING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, THE SIZE OF LARGE
42 COMMERCIAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
43 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY
44 (AB2008 -112)
45
46 Weimer opened the public hearing and the following person spoke:
47
48 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated no other jurisdictions besides
49 Bellingham and Ferndale are opposed to this. It's like the whole County is against big box
50 stores. These rules don't work. The stores will go somewhere, and local citizens will go to
51 those stores, even if they have to drive to Burlington, Lynden, or Seattle. If this is just
52 about Wal -Mart, it's unfair to people with lower incomes. The Council has regulated away
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 8
affordable housing to this group already. Now, the Council wants to regulate away
affordable shopping.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. The County can't afford to provide urban
infrastructure in rural Whatcom County. The Growth Management Act says economic
development of an urban nature belongs in cities and their urban growth areas, not in the
unincorporated parts of the county. They've seen examples of skyrocketing costs when
major stores are located in inappropriate areas that don't have services. This is nothing
new. This is not about Wal -Mart. It's about the size of retail. establishments in
unincorporated areas. The County is the purveyor of rural services, not urban services.
Nelson stated they are trying to accomplish what Mr. Wiesen would like, which is to
force the cities to put that development where it belongs, not in rural areas. They belong in
urban areas, where services are available.
Caskey- Schreiber stated people in the United States are giving up mom - and -pop
stores by going to the big box store model. It's sad to see. They lose a lot when the
economy is based on super- corporate entities like Wal -Mart. .
Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS
SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AB2008 -114)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, Bellingham, stated he is opposed to continuing
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District #10's building moratorium.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Jones continued to state that he's been to many meetings with councilmembers and
County staff. That isn't allowed in other jurisdictions. Preserve land in the Lake Whatcom
watershed by purchasing it, enticing people to not develop, and having restrictive
covenants. Stormwater is the most important thing. Keep up with outreach and education.
That lake is the model for the Northwest. Whatcom County is very good and keeping things
open and listening to the public.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated planning by moratorium is not too
successful. Bainbridge Island got in trouble for continuing moratoria and not solving the
problems. The Council is afraid to do what needs to be done. The Department of Ecology
has not come up with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study so the Council knows
what it's talking about and where the problems really are. Moratoria are bad ideas.
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to go into executive session with legal counsel for about five
minutes to discuss a legal issue regarding potential litigation.
Whatcom County Council, 3/2512008, Page 9
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council went into executive session.)
Brenner asked if the City of Bellingham has produced any Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) receiving areas.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it has not. The
County has receiving areas in the urban growth areas, but that requires the City to extend
services, which it will not do.
Crawford stated annexations that the City is processing currently include TDR
receiving areas.
Brenner stated this is most important to the people in Bellingham, who are half the
county. The City of Bellingham should not rely on the County to give it land as receiving
areas if it doesn't want development in the watershed. It's a concern. Other communities
have allowed receiving areas. There isn't a workable TDR program. People don't have any
incentive to transfer rights. Instead, the County just keeps saying to people that they can't
develop their properties. That wasn't supposed to happen. Other areas shouldn't be the
receiving area to Bellingham's benefit. Transfers need to happen within Bellingham and its
urban growth areas. Don't allow low densities in the center of Bellingham with a ring of
higher densities around it.
Unidentified Councilmember moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford stated he is against the ordinance for the same reasons he's expressed
over the past eight years. When Mr. Ilyan came to the Council a month ago or so, this was
the issue he was talking about. This is the reason he cannot subdivide.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County doesn't have a staff person working on the TDR
program. They can't make a program happen. It's not all the City of Bellingham's fault.
She supports the ordinance. She's heard that the TMDL study is done and will be released
soon. A TDR program will be important. The goal is to do what's best for the watershed.
Fleetwood stated he will support the ordinance, but the moratorium can't be forever.
In the past, the Council has created moratorium response plans during its surface water
work sessions. This ordinance as drafted is not just responsive to the TMDL study. It is
also to evaluate impacts of future development in relation to reducing phosphorus loads.
There are many things the County might do. Adopt this ordinance, and schedule a time to
discuss an appropriate moratorium response plan for this ordinance.
Brenner stated that's a good suggestion. She's been hearing for two years that the
TMDL study is about to be released. Ecology is basically stopping development without
giving the County anything. Also, the County promised a workable TDR program and /or
purchase of development rights (PDR) program. Nothing has happened with it. She will
support the ordinance this time. If those issues aren't resolved the next time this ordinance
comes up, she'll never support the ordinance again.
Nelson stated he is against the ordinance. The County has been waiting for the
TMDL study for three years. The ordinance is an impediment to people who have been
waiting for a solution. The County has done a lot of the work already. Monitoring and
funding will be significant issues.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 10
Crawford stated he does not support the ordinance. The Department of Ecology
developed a model and showed it to the County Council in 2005. They found Lake Whatcom
was much more complicated than anticipated. It will be one of the most complicated TMDL
studies done.
The idea originally was that if they have a working model that makes sense and
really puts pollutant loading into the lake, defined on a per house or per development basis,
it doesn't make sense to allow any more subdivisions to occur until they know scientifically
the specific impact of a development on the lake. They are attempting to make that
connection. That's all this is about. TDR's and other things are side issues, but the original
intent really had to do with whether or not the TMDL study would identify issues by
development. One possible outcome will prevent any future houses, not just housing
developments, and all construction will be stopped.
The TDR program hasn't worked in the past because the TDR's only went into urban
growth areas. Once these proposed annexations occur, the City will have those areas within
the city limits for the first time. The City will also be able to provide water and sewer. In
the long -term, there may be a real and substantial market for TDR's.
Weimer stated he is in favor of the ordinance. There is clear evidence that
development around the lake is the problem. Do not allow more subdivisions until they
receive the TIWDL, which will shed light on what they really need to do to reduce phosphorus
loading.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.05, ON -SITE SEWAGE
SYSTEM REGULATIONS (AB2008 -071) (REVISED) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
BOARD OF HEALTH)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Van Weerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, stated this is supposed to clean up the
water. If there is a problem, check the water downstream for a fecal count. If there is a
problem, fix it. He asked why Whatcom County can't do what Grays Harbor County does
with dye in the system. Start at the waterways and work up. Check fecal counts and work
up.
John Wolpers, Health Department, gave a staff report. The document before the
Council reflects changes from the last meeting. He explained the changes. Staff has been
researching options to provide classes to homeowners. They've talked with all the other 12
Puget Sound counties and internally about low- interest loans and grants.
Brenner asked if the cubic feet per second flow was changed. Wolpers stated it was
not.
Crawford asked how language in the proposed ordinance, section 24.05.160(A)(4),
about the effective date of this chapter reconciles with the County's plan to start at sensitive
areas. It sounds like that effective date applies to everyone. Wolpers stated that was a
suggestion by the Prosecuting Attorney to assure that the regulation would go into effect.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 11
1 Crawford stated the language implies that all systems have an evaluation within one
2 year. He asked if there is a phase -in area, starting with shoreline areas. Wolpers stated
3 the State regulation came into effect on July 1. The Prosecuting Attorney felt language was
4 necessary to show a start-date for when people must be aware of this regulation, when it
5 goes into effect, and when the local management plan should be approved.
6
7 Crawford asked if someone not in a shoreline management area must have an
8 inspection within one year. Wolpers stated that the County regulations went into effect
9 April 2, 2007. With that, homeowners are required to follow those regulations. They would
10 need to begin operations and maintenance.
11
12 Weimer stated that legally, everyone was supposed to have a professional inspection
13 within one year of that date. According to the plan, the County staff isn't even going to
14 start telling people that they need inspections, except in shoreline areas, for awhile. There
15 is a difference between what's legally required and what the plan says. Wolpers stated
16 that's correct.
17
18 Van Weerdhuizen asked the cost of an inspection.
19
20 Weimer stated it would be somewhere between $100 and $300.
21
22 Brenner stated they have no idea what the charge will be.
23
24 Van Weerdhuizen stated that's assuming he is guilty, not innocent before being
25 proven he's guilty. They are charging him a fee, and they can't do anything about that. He
26 has a problem with people coming onto his property to charge him money to tell him his
27 septic system is working all right.
28
29 Ralph Ripple, 8141 Birch Terrace Lane, Custer, asked why he has to pay for an
30 inspection every year or so on his own property, at a cost to the homeowner. It's not right.
31 It's ridiculous. He asked why they have to do this.
32
33 Weimer stated it is a State requirement.
34
35 Ripple stated they will apply more regulations in the future. Soon, only rich people
36 will be able to live in the county. Someone else should pay for the inspections. There could
37 be no end to how much this will cost in the future. They have enough regulations.
38
39 Jordan Vander Veen, 1428 E. Pole Road, Everson stated this regulation has the same
40 requirements for everyone regardless of where the property is. Target the inspections
41 toward problem areas.
42
43 Rachel Boswell, 6184 Bellwood Drive, Maple Falls, stated the cost of living is going
44 up exponentially. However, living wages are not going up fast enough to meet the cost of
45 living. Require inspections during a property sale or when a tank reaches a certain age.
46 Set up a sliding fee scale based on how many people live at the household and how large
47 the tank is. The people are being treated like children. It is not fair to people who are
48 taking care of their tanks on their own. Many people can't afford this cost.
49
50 Mel Marcoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, Ferndale, stated this plan is the most restrictive
51 in the Puget Sound area. If people cannot afford $25,000 for a mound system in Whatcom
52 County, they cannot live in their homes. Six thousand homeowners this year can expect to
53 pay for professional septic inspectors. Whatcom has not set a maximum limit on how much
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 12
1 the homeowners would have to pay, as other counties have. Other counties provide
2 inspection training for free, Whatcom County requires homeowners to pay for the class.
3 Whatcom County seniors pay the full amount. Other counties provide grants. Whatcom
4 County residents were forced to pay an 18 percent credit card rate to install a mound
5 system. Other counties provide 1.3 percent loans. The Health Department said they cannot
6 trust homeowners to repay low- interest loans. Skagit County has not had any defaults on
7 their loan program. The Whatcom County Health Department opposes a loan program
8 because it did not receive a grant from the State.
9
10 Crawford stated the County already passed this regulation. Tonight, the Council is
11 loosening the regulations by allowing homeowner inspections. He asked if the proposal to
12 allow Whatcom County homeowner inspections still makes Whatcom County inspections,
13 aside from the financial assistance grants and programs. Marcoux stated it is. Homeowners
14 in the other counties are not forced to pay a professional inspector at all if they take the
15 . class. As long as they are certified, they can do all their inspections all the time.
16
17 Jamie Foti, 2773 Jensen Road, Bellingham, stated she just found out about this
18 meeting. They need better public notice. She understands this is a State mandate. She
19 asked if the County must do what Olympia tells it to. She asked what they are going to do
20 for senior citizens.
21
22 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
23
24 Foti continued to state that it can cost $20,000 or more to redo a failing septic
25 system. If a system fails, the homeowner must bring it into compliance within 30 days.
26 Not many people can replace a system costing more than $20,000 in that time. Whatcom
27 County needs to tell the State to re -think this regulation.
28
29 Al Melton, 1420 Mt. Baker Highway, stated he is a senior citizen on a low fixed
30 income. This will not solve the problem in Puget Sound. Septic outfits will push people into
31 purchasing more costly systems.
32
33 Fred Rinard, 3854 Cabrant Road, Everson, stated the Health Department asked for
34 the total value and assessed value in a handout in October. He asked what that has to do
35 with the septic tank. He is concerned that this is a money -maker for the Health
36 Department. Only one other county requires a licensed inspector, at a cost of $204, to do
37 one inspection. The rest of the counties allow people to do their own inspections.
38
39 Ed Henken, 6960 Northwest Drive, stated they can't pass a requirement that says
40 residents have to do all this in a year, and then not enforce it. The Council should modify
41 that language. It's not possible to inspect all 30,000 systems in a year. If the fees cost
42 $200, that's $6 million the County will take from the rural residents of the county. Make
43 that language more realistic. Consider having staff perform the inspections instead of
44 private providers. County staff can inspect for less. Come up with a less restrictive
45 program. Petition the State representatives to have the State Department of Health come
46 up with more meaningful Washington Administrative Codes (WAC's). This is an unfunded
47 mandate from the State, which isn't allowed.
48
49 Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, read a letter from the Mayor. The City is not
50 categorically opposed to onsite septic system (OSS) owner self - evaluations. His remarks
51 pertain only to OSS in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The City submitted the letter earlier
52 today (on file). He agrees with Mr. Henken. They cannot inspect all the systems in the
53 county in a year.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 13
1
2 John Connell, 3307 North Shore Road, Bellingham stated this requirement is unduly
3 burdensome. They arbitrarily require all septic systems to be inspected on the time
4 schedule, despite major differences among the individual properties. Regulations compel
5 him to have inspections with excessive frequency. He has two septic systems for his two -
6 story home. The use on each system is halved, but the inspection burden is doubled. The
7 systems are connected to an automatic pump to transfer sewage from one to the other in
8 the unlikely event that one would approach the point of being over - burdened by heavy use.
9
10 His two systems have been inspected recently. Both systems passed with flying
11 colors. His inspector said that it would be amply sufficient to re- inspect and pump the
12 systems at five -year intervals. The inspection schedule is overly stringent and excessively
13 burdensome. Allow homeowners to follow an inspection schedule recommended for their
14 properties by a duly licensed, expert, professional septic system contractor. Each owner
15 can then file a certificate of inspection frequency. If he follows the advice of an expert, it
16 should suffice to protect the lake and save him an unnecessary expense.
17
18 Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he pays about $100 per month for his
19 sewer system. He monitors creeks in the county. There is a problem. Septic tanks are one
20 of the worst problems. However, give people a chance to monitor themselves honestly.
21 Don't punish people for telling the truth. Keep working on the grants. This ordinance is an
22 improvement and lessens restrictions.
23
24 Judy Westoff, 4172 Squalicum Lake Road, stated this is one more government
25 regulation.
26
27 Bernie Schuyleman, 371 Lynden Birch, Bay Road, stated he has his original permit
28 that cost $2 in 1952. They recommended a 750 - gallon tank. He installed a 950 - gallon
29 tank. It is a three -unit tank that has worked well for the last 55 years. He feeds his tank to
30 make it work better.
31
32 John Urban, 357 Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated that if the County wants to inspect
33 something on his property, the County must pay for it. Don't force regulations on him and
34 make him pay for it. The State doesn't require licensed inspectors to do the inspections.
35 The County requires it.
36
37 Patrick Grover, 3965 Loomis Trail Road, Blaine, stated the State regulations don't
38 require professional inspections. That is a County regulation. The amendments are a good
39 start to correct a regulation that is full of problems. This county doesn't have enough
40 inspectors to inspect all of the systems at this frequency schedule. People are treated
41 unequally. They have exempted the proprietary systems entirely. This legislation is not
42 good. If there is a supposed failure, the Health Department should confirm whether or not
43 a system is, in fact, failing.
44
45 Steve Hatch, 4231 Squalicum Lake Road, stated this is a violation of his personal
46 property rights. It's tough for people to come up with $30,000 to replace a failing system in
47 30 days, so they get evicted. People don't have a problem with inspections. They have a
48 problem with paying for the inspections. Someone else had better pay for the inspections.
49 Find out where the contamination is coming from, and cure the problem.
50
51 Ron Marshall, 1430 Mt. Baker Highway, stated Thurston County allows people to
52 become certified to do their own inspections during a free, one -day workshop. They also
53 provide discounts and rebates for septic system supplies.
Whatcom County Council!, 3/25/2008, Page 14
Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
Brenner stated it's important for people to have information. They can email her.
She hopes they have free homeowner classes. That hasn't been decided yet. Proprietary
systems have to be inspected every year according to State law. They are not exempt from
inspection. They are prevented from using the more flexible schedule. The regulations will
be more difficult for people with proprietary systems. She asked about language that legal
counsel inserted. She asked the effective date of this chapter.
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated Prosecuting Attorney Randy Watts
recommended certain language. The effective date is April 2, 2007. House Bill 1458
referenced the year 2012 and talked about when they needed to know the condition of all
known and unknown septic systems, and whether or not they've been repaired, in marine
recovery areas.
Brenner asked why Mr. Watts recommended the language. It's impossible.
Weimer stated he will recommend a solution. The language as it is means that
everyone in the county will be out of compliance as of April 2, 2008. He recommends a
language change, "Within one year of the date of notification to the property owners of the
requirements of this chapter."
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the burden of proof on the County sending letters or the
applicants to prove they received the letters.
Weimer stated the County will send one notification. If it doesn't hear from
homeowners, the County will send more notices.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Weimer moved to amend Council packet page 245, 24.05.160(A)(4), "Within one
year of the date of notification to the. property, owners of the
requirements of this chapter."
Wolpers stated the staff's intent with the local management plan was to start in the
marine recovery area, Drayton Harbor. They wanted to start in the shoreline areas and
work their way out.. The program will send out notification to all individuals. That
notification will give homeowners an entire year to comply. The Health Department
wouldn't be able to accomplish what it must by 2012 for the marine recovery areas.
Brenner stated the amendment won't hinder the Health Department. The Health
Department will determine when it sends out notification, according to how much the staff
can do in a year.
Weimer stated this has already been in effect, and the staff wants to hit Drayton
Harbor sooner rather than later. The amendment makes the staff wait one year before they
can start working on Drayton Harbor.
Crawford stated he is against the motion to amend. It confuses the issue. He
moved to amend Councilmember Weimer's motion to amend Council packet page 245,
24.05.160(A)(4)„ "Within ene year ef the effective date ef thus ehapter, aAssure a complete
initial evaluation...." It will be up to the Health Department to notify folks how they will
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 15
enforce the regulation. It takes away confusion. It's not that critical to state an effective
date. In reality, this law becomes effective immediately. In reality, this law was already
effective. Putting timeframes in this portion of the code creates confusion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that without a timeframe, everyone would be . non-
compliant. Give people an opportunity to get right before making them non - compliant.
Now, people are supposed to have it done by April 2.
Crawford stated he doesn't agree. The Council already passed this law. The issue
they are dealing with is the enforcement schedule, which they already decided. They are
going to go after shoreline management areas first, and move away from those as time
goes on to eventually cover the entire county on a graduated timeframe. They are
confusing the issue to put timeframes on this portion of the code.
Brenner stated subsection 24.05.160(C) covers it. The classes can't be done until
the Health Department figures out how to do them. Nothing will start until staff sets up
classes.
Wolpers stated the language can be removed, and the Health Department can
accomplish the same thing. Remember that the regulation is already in place. The time
clock is already there. This is the local management plan to drive how they are going to
implement the regulation. The timeframe is based on how long it takes to work through the
sensitive areas.
Weimer accepted the Councilmember Crawford's motion as a friendly
amendment.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to allow homeowners to perform operations and maintenance
(O &M) inspections without licensed O &M specialists:
24.05.160(A)(4) add language, "...and submitted to the WCHD. Alternatively,
a ,homeowner who has completed the training specified in 24'.05.160(C) below
may perform this initial evaluation."
24.05.160(C) delete language, "...Upon completion of training, OSS owners
may perform their own evaluations
Spee . If OSS owners are discovered to be repeatedly
noncompliant...."
Brenner stated she supports the motion to amend. Mr. Wolpers said that Health
Department staff would do surprise inspections at the County's cost. Those are plenty of
incentives to get at the problem. The County already enacted the provision to require
professional inspection at time of property transfer. Those requirements will ensure that
they will catch all the systems with problems. It won't be worth it to have the extra
charges.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands that the purpose of the amendment is to
ease the burden on the homeowners.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 16
Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that there are impairments to sensitive water
bodies. The County has put a lot of money toward fixing those areas. If they are to follow
the intent of the State measure, it's a good idea to have a professional assessment initially.
Brenner asked if they could require a professional inspection initially, and then allow
homeowners to do their own inspections from then on. Wolpers explained the history of the
legislation. Homeowners are allowed to do their own evaluations. The Onsite Sewage
Subcommittee didn't feel that homeowners in sensitive areas shouldn't do their own
evaluations.
Crawford asked if a water body in Whatcom County has been documented to be
polluted by a residential septic system. Wolpers stated the State did a shoreline survey of
Drayton Harbor and found a fecal coliform hit, and found failed systems.
Crawford stated that was never documented. That occurred simultaneous with the
repairs to the Blaine sewer system. They can say there is a possible connection. Wolpers
stated the outfall wasn't anywhere close to the Blaine sewer treatment plant. It was on the
other side of the harbor.
Crawford stated it was near the creek where the fecal coliform was. Wolpers stated
his example happened just within a couple of years.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated they periodically find failed
septic systems that have lines into the creek. Periodically, monitoring is done in streams.
The Health Department is notified of high fecal counts, will look at systems upstream, and
will find systems draining into the creek.
Crawford asked how frequently that occurs. Delahunt stated the failure rate is
between five and ten percent countywide.
Crawford asked how they know if a failing septic system is hurting anyone, especially
if it's not near a creek. Delahunt stated that if it is on the surface of the ground, people and
animals can come in contact with it. No one would say that coming in contact with raw
sewage is a good idea.
Crawford stated he is trying to make the connection between this enforcement effort
and where they know specifically for a fact that harm is being done to rivers and creeks. He
asked how many cases they've found of a pipe going into a creek. Delahunt stated that is
not an uncommon occurrence. It used to be more common years back. They do find hot
lines into a ditch or creek. Some people know it's happening. Other people may not realize
it. Councilmember Crawford's amendment is reasonable. It is similar to what the staff first
proposed for the regulation. The only difference is the sensitive areas. Not that many
people will inspect the septic systems themselves. The people here tonight will make the
effort to do that. Out of the 30,000 systems in the county, only a small percentage of
people will take the classes and do their own inspections. The motion to amend is
reasonable.
Crawford amended his motion to allow homeowners to perform operations and
maintenance (O &M) inspections without licensed O &M specialists:
• 24.05.160(A)(4) add language, "...and submitted.to the WCHD. Alternatively,
a homeowner who has completed the training specified in 24.05.160(C) below
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 17
may perform this initial-evaluation, except in the sensitive areas as defined. in I the WCC 24.05040'De1!nitions for "Shore4ine Management Areas "."
24.05.160(C) delete language, "...Upon completion of training, OSS owners
may perform their own evaluations
. If OSS owners are discovered to be repeatedly
noncompliant...."
Brenner stated the people here tonight represent those who will take the class
because they want to take care of their own systems. Not everyone will want to take the
class. People will understand why they should take care of their system. If a system fails,
it will cost a fortune, no matter what.
Weimer stated he is against the amendment. It's important that the County get a
sense of the status of the septic systems through a first -time, initial evaluation of all the
systems, so they know whether or not the systems are failing.
Brenner stated she supports the amendment. People in sensitive areas who take
care of their systems ought to be treated the same.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in favor.
Crawford stated they are still going to far. He is opposed to the ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend section 24.05.160(C), "24.05.160(C) delete language,
"...Upon completion of training, OSS owners may perform their own evaluations €er six
If OSS owners are discovered to be repeatedly
noncompliant...."
Crawford stated he supports the amendment. It addresses Councilmember Weimer's
concern. He asked how the Health Department conducts surprise inspections. Wolpers
stated they currently evaluate reports of system status from the licensed O &M specialists.
The staff will go to a site and verify the report.
Weimer stated he is against the motion because it opposes what the City of
Bellingham discussed.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in favor.
Brenner stated these changes are better than it was. It's not as good as she would
like, but it's better.
Nelson stated he is opposed to the ordinance. It puts the onus on the homeowner.
All they're doing now is making this difficult for compliance. Someone can take a class and
not do anything but fill out a piece of paper for six years. Most people have someone check
the tank every six years, anyway. That doesn't count.
Brenner stated voting against this means the restrictions that are more stringent will
remain.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County should offer classes at no cost.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 18
Crawford stated he hopes the Council votes to reduce the regulations, but out of
protest against these regulations, he will vote against the ordinance.
Notion to adopt as amended carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
S. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WHATCOM COUNTY ON -SITE SEWAGE LOCAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2008 -072) (REVISED) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
BOARD OF HEALTH)
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
John Urban, 357 Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated that if the County wants to inspect
something on his property the County should pay for it. Taxpayers can be educated and do
their own inspections.
Mike Skehan, 2040 Granger Way, Lummi Island, stated he supports the resolution.
It assures public health. It is a reasonable proposal. The cost is about $200 every seven to
nine years. People on sewer systems pay a considerable amount to make sure their sewage
is properly treated and maintained. The burden for septic system owners should not be
entirely negated. He thanked the Health Department and Council for being receptive to
changes. Councilmember Brenner has been very supportive.
Fred Rinard, 3854 Cabrant Road, stated the State of Washington handed out $4.1
million dollars to the counties. He asked how much Whatcom County received and how it
used the money.
Ed Henken, 6960 Northwest Drive, stated he appreciates these modifications. They
are almost right. A problem in North Bellingham was with high nitrates, caused by a huge
chicken farm. The farm contaminated the ground with chicken manure, to the extent that it
had very high nitrates, which caused methemoglobinemia in infants. That problem wasn't
caused by septic tank failures. Continue to petition the State legislators to have the State
Department of Health come up with more realistic requirements.
He was Bellingham City Engineer for eight years. He was there when they built the
water treatment plant in Lake Whatcom. Bellingham's short- sightedness and mistakes went
back long before that. Bellingham should not have dumped bacteriological clean water from
the Middle Fork through farms and into Lake Whatcom. Rather than trying to remove
people from the watershed after the fact, which is what the Council is essentially doing,
Bellingham ought to take the water it needs, run it around the lake with a pipeline, put a
scrubbing plant in somewhere, and then treat it. People are concerned about medications
getting into the water. That will happen in a lake. There are impacts from seagulls, ducks,
and other birds. That will happen as long as Bellingham keeps using the lake as an open
reservoir. He's pleased with what the Council has done. The Council should do more.
Unidentified Speaker stated the councilmembers should remember that people voted
for them.
Al Melton, 1420 Mt. Baker Highway, stated $20 million was allotted to clean up Puget
Sound. Whatcom County's share was probably the $4.1 million that Mr. Rinard talked
about. Counties to the south received money from the State and set up programs that work
well. Thurston County and Skagit County received money. According to his information,
Whatcom County never applied for any money. Drayton Harbor has been plagued with
problems for a number of years. There have been instances of dairy manure and sewer
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 19
1 lines having problems. Victoria, British Columbia dumps their raw sewage into the Puget
2 Sound. There are more problems with stormwater from roads and roofs.
3
4 Mel Marcoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, stated there is evidence that counties have
5 received $4.1 million. He forwarded that information to Councilmember Brenner. Skagit
6 County got $2 million. Hood Canal and other areas got a few hundred thousand dollars
7 each. That money finances the pumping and inspection fees for seniors and low- interest
8 loans for everyone else.
9
10 Science can tell whether fecal bacteria comes from an animal or human. Whatcom
11 County should investigate that information. If people are definitely the cause, then he will
12 cooperate 100 percent, but not if they're not sure.
13
14 Gordon W. Scott, 5241 Turkington Road, Acme, stated a tank has to be pumped
15 every time it's inspected. He asked if that's correct.
16
17 Weimer stated it isn't. Some people will allow a discount if a homeowner does
18 pumping and inspection at the same time.
19
20 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
21
22 Brenner stated other counties got grant money from the State for several things,
23 including setting up programs.
24
25 Weimer stated he would like to know what grant program that came from.
26
27 Brenner stated it wasn't a grant program. It was money made available. The Health
28 Department knows about it. Mr. Wolpers said the County stopped providing low- interest
29 loans because it wasn't working.
30
31 Nelson moved to approve the resolution.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 -76. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.93, BIRCH BAY
36 WATERSHED AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
37 (AB2008 -129) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
38 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
39
40 Weimer opened the public hearing and the following person spoke:
41
42 Kathy Berg, 7585 Sterling Avenue, Birch Bay, stated the Council should approve the
43 resolution.
44
45 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
46
47 Caskey - Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
48
49 Crawford referenced section 2.93.020 in Exhibit A. He asked if there will be an
50 application process.
51
52 Weimer stated there will be.
53
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 20
1 Crawford stated there is a considerable amount of area out there that is heavy
2 industrial. They should have representation.
3
4 Weimer stated the language doesn't specify certain representatives because they
5 were worried they wouldn't get applicants. The Public Works Department suggested an
6 amendment to Exhibit A. Now, the language allows the advisory committee to ask the
7 Public Works Department to staff that committee as much as the committee wants.
8
9 Brenner stated all requests should come through the Board of Supervisors.
10
11 Weimer moved to amend section 2.93.050, " Whatcom County Public Works shall
12 provide staffing for the advisory committee to provide agendas, minutes, and other support
13 as requested. The . committee . is authorized to request from the Executive's Office
14 information from administrative departments as necessary." Most advisory committees are
15 authorized to request information from the Executive.
16
17 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
18
19 Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried unanimously.
20
21
22 CONSENT AGENDA
23
24 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
25 to approve Consent Agenda items one through 16. Items two, five, and seven are
26 substitute.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 1. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
31 AUCTION, REQ. #TR2008 -03 (AB2008 -135)
32
33 2. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
34 AUCTION, REQ. #TR2008 -04 (AB2008 -136)
35
36 3. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
37 AUCTION, REQ. #TR2008 -05 (AB2008 -137)
38
39 4. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
40 AUCTION, REQ. #TR2008 -06 (AB2008 -138)
41
42 S. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
43 AUCTION, REQ. #TR2008 -07 (AB2008 -139)
44
45 6. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY
46 NEGOTIATION, REQ. #TR2008 -08 (AB2008 -140)
47
48 7. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY
49 NEGOTIATION, REQ. #TR2008 -09 (AB2008 -141)
50
51 8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -21
52 TO SOLE BIDDER, CONCRETE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, FOR PRE-
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 21
STRESSED VOIDED SLAB BRIDGE GIRDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $166,816.51
(AB2008 -142)
9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE USE
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE AUTO PARTS FOR
MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FROM LOCAL
FRANCHISE DEALERS OF CARQUEST AND NAPA PARTS IN AN AMOUNT TO
EXCEED $35,000 (AB2008 -143)
10. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WESTERN WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER FOR FUNDING FOR
PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,980 (AS2008 -144)
11. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF NOOKSACK TO
PROVIDE FCZD FUNDING TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING THE MATCH TO GRANT
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2008 -145) (COUNCIL ACTING AS
THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
12. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -15
TO MILLER'S PAINTING FOR ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS PAINTING OF
WHATCOM COUNTY BUILDINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2008 -146)
13. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH )IM SNYDAR AND WHATCOM COUNTY FOR LEASE OF 80
ACRES OF LAND FOR FARMLAND USE AT HOVANDER HOMESTEAD PARK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 (AB2008 -147)
14. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM TO PROMOTE, EDUCATE AND ADVOCATE FOR TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY -BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN
WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000 (AB2008 -148)
15. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -09
TO LOW BIDDER TOPSIDE ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION FOR REPLACEMENT
OF THE ROEDER HOME ROOF IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,362.72 (AB2008 -149)
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE WHATCOM LAND TRUST FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF
THE TRANSFER AND SALES AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT OF THE DEED OF
RIGHT, AND A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES
OF UPLAND AND 40 ACRES OF TIDELANDS AT LILY POINT, POINT ROBERTS
WASHINGTON, IN THE AMOUNT OF $600,000 (AB2008 -153)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2008 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #5, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $248,274 $848,274 (AB2008 -127)
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 22
1 Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
2 the correct amount is $848,274, not $248,274. He moved to adopt the ordinance.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Crawford stated this is a pretty remarkable thing. It merits words of recognition.
7
8 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council can have an update on Lily Point at another
9 meeting.
10
11 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
12 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
13 BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT
14 WITHIN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM UGA FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF
15 SAN JUAN BOULEVARD AND YEW STREET ROAD (AB2008 -150)
16
17 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
18 approve the request.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 4. COUNTY EXECUTIVE REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT OF
23 BERT RUBASH TO THE MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE (AB2008 -151)
24
25 Weimer moved to confirm the request.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 5. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
30 AS A SITE FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
31 PUBLIC AUCTIONS (AB2008 -133)
32
33 Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE WHATCOM
38 COUNTY COUNCIL, THE BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, AND THE LAKE
39 WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (AB2008 -134)
40
41 Weimer moved to approve the resolution.
42
43 Crawford stated they've always had this committee. He asked what is different from
44 the Joint Lake Management Committee.
45
46 Weimer stated this is a subgroup -of the three agencies, which will make
47 recommendations to the Joint Lake Management Committee. The subcommittee consists of
48 two members of the County Council's Natural Resources Committee, two members of the
49 City of Bellingham Lake Whatcom Committee, and one person from the Lake Whatcom
50 Water and Sewer District.
51
52 Crawford asked if a councilmember who wants to participate in this subcommittee
53 has to be a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 23
1
2
Brenner stated councilmembers can go to the meetings.
3
4
Caskey- Schreiber stated they're public meetings.
5
6
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
7
8
Motion carried unanimously.
9
10
11
CORRESPONDENCE APPROVAL
12
13
1.
LETTERS SENT TO SENATOR PATTY MURRAY, SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL,
14
AND CONGRESSMAN RICK LARSON REGARDING SWIFT CREEK FUNDING
15
REQUEST (APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION ON MARCH 11, 2008,
AND
16
MAILED OUT ON MARCH 12, 2008) (AB2008 -027)
17
18
Weimer stated this item is only an announcement.
19
20
21
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
22
23
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
24
25
Motion carried unanimously.
26
27
1.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQ.
28
#TR2008 -03 (AB2008 -135A)
29
30
2.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQ.
31
#TR2008 -04 (AB2008 -136A)
32
33
3.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQ.
34
#TR2008 -05 (AB2008 -137A)
35
36
4.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQ.
37
#TR2008 -06 (AB2008 -138A)
38
39
S.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQ.
40
#TR2008 -07 (AB2008 -139A)
41
42
6.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
REQ.
43
#TR2008 -08 (AB2008 -140A)
44
45
7.
RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
REQ.
46
#TR2008- 09(AB2008 -141A)
47
48
8.
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY
49
RATES, AND CORRESPONDING FEES IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
2008
50
UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2008 -085A) (AKA -THE CRAWFORD VERSION")
51
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 24
1 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY
2 RATES, AND CORRESPONDING FEES IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2008
3 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2008 -085B) (AKA "THE WEIMER VERSION ")
4
5
6 OTHER BUSINESS
7
8 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the Executive's Office is getting the word out
9 to Lake Whatcom watershed residents about proper lawn landscaping and fertilizing, now
10 that it's Spring. They will urge all to reduce phosphorus in their landscape activities.
11 Phosphorus loading has the most adverse affect to the lake. They must get more
12 aggressive about preventing phosphorus loading via landscape activities.
13
14
15 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
16
17 Crawford stated a developer told the press he no longer wanted to pay for the road
18 that comes out of what used to be Birch Bay Drive. Public Works Director Frank Abart said
19 there are productive negotiations that won't put the County in a financial predicament. He
20 will be prepared to address the Council with an update in about two weeks.
21
22
23 ADJOURN
24
25 The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
26
27 I
28
29 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transdription
30
31 The Council approved these minutes on May 6 , 2008.
32
34 �N
T Y C
35 .�. ••.W ...•• 0,�
36
H '
37? •
38=
39 D•aga ,Wn- avisr CoE
. y _E OF
•••.�y /NGS0 •
W.0
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
I Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 3/25/2008, Page 25