HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole September 25 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
September 25, 2007
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey - Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CONFIRMATION OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE
KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF DAVID STALHEIM TO THE POSITION OF
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
(AB2007 -018)
Crawford moved to go into executive session to discuss this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee came out of executive session at 6:35 p.m. End of
tape one and beginning of tape two. The Committee moved into the Council Chambers.)
2. UPDATE REGARDING RECONVEYANCE OF DNR LAND AROUND LAKE
WHATCOM (AB2007 -018)
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated that after having
a tentative meeting with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
Commissioner of Public Lands on Friday, they agreed to work together on an agreement
that would outline a proposal to benefit both the DNR and Whatcom County. This is a
significant opportunity to provide watershed protection, accomplish DNR activities, and
provide recreational opportunities well into the future. The County already owns 640 acres
in the watershed. They need to connect those lands by trails. The DNR is a major land
holder and has control of a number of prime access points there.
There are a number of issues he has discussed with the DNR in the last few years,
including development of new roads near the rifle range and access to park properties. This
has to be a win -win agreement for the County and DNR.
He submitted information (on file). This handout explains what needs to be done to
bring forward an agreement. He read through the draft framework. Now, both parties are
collecting data and inventorying the areas to specifically outline some of the things they
need, such as road locations and trail access. Those will be further defined as they move
forward.
Committee of the Whole, 9/25/2007, Page 1
1 There are a number of different tools to use to make this happen, such as
2 reconveyance or inter - grant. The County requires easements on State lands and the State
3 will require easements on County lands.
4
5 One secondary goal is to look at buildable DNR property in the watershed that has
6 been deemed surplus. He has a strong interest in those properties, and would like to see
7 them included as part of any package they come up with. These are high value properties.
8 There are 13 buildable lots. It also adjoins a natural resource conservation area and major
9 recreation area and provides a link between neighborhoods into some existing public
10 facilities.
11
12 He continued to read through the draft framework. The department is considering
13 low impact, passive recreation in the watershed. They must be types of recreation that are
14 compatible with existing goals and objectives, which may be primarily hiking. They are not
15 considering off -road all terrain vehicle (ATV) parks or building recreational facilities such as
16 athletic fields and playgrounds.
17
18 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Parks Department vision is that this would be operated
19 similar to the Stimson Reserve, where there are hiking trails and a low impact park.
20 McFarland stated a good example is the Chuckanut Mountain area. That's a joint operation
21 between the State, County, and the City of Bellingham.
22
23 Brenner asked the total number of acres. McFarland stated the actual size and
24 location of the property is yet to be negotiated.
25
26 Brenner stated the councilmembers haven't been privy to any updates on this issue.
27 When discussed last, there was a menu of options. There was never anything that was very
28 specific. The $300,000 was to consider purchasing land and development rights, in addition
29 to all kinds of things. This is sudden to her because she hasn't been given updates. The
30 Council should have received updates before moving in this direction. Other things were to
31 be discussed. Now it sounds like a done deal. Only one councilmember was privy to the
32 deal. McFarland stated that's where they are at. They had to get the State to the table to
33 discuss if it was interested in working with the County. There was a range of options.
34 There were conversations at the staff level about the options. The State realized that there
35 would be benefits to the State. The County has its own agenda, and has agreed to have
36 staff sit down and work out an agreement that would do exactly what the County is trying
37 to do, which is providing watershed protection and recreational opportunities and preventing
38 more development in the watershed. He can bring several proposals to the table now, but
39 that doesn't mean any of them are acceptable to the DNR. Collectively, the DNR and
40 County will put together an agreement and bring it forward. Nothing has been decided to
41 date.
42
43 Brenner stated she's read the press releases and information from the newspaper,
44 which could be misinformation. However, she doesn't like getting updates from press
45 releases.
46
47 Weimer stated they are at a very preliminary stage. The Council approved $300,000
48 to hire some people to move forward this process. They haven't done that contract with
49 anyone yet. He asked if they are about to start that process. McFarland stated the County
50 has consultants. He will work with the consultants. One of the consultants' primary
51 charges is to discuss with the DNR the benefits of entering into an agreement with the
52 County to address a number of these issues. They can do reconveyance strictly for park
53 purposes. Yet, they knew that probably wouldn't be best for management on the trust
Committee of the Whole, 9/25/2007, Page 2
1 lands. However, the State needs to do the inter - grant. Both parties need to come into this
2 willing to negotiate. There is no draft agreement yet.
3
4 Nelson stated he agreed with Councilmember Brenner. No one communicated to him
5 what was going on. He has concerns about forestry practices in the watershed. There was
6 community involvement in the landscape plan. Now, they are taking these lands out of
7 forest practices. He asked if they will receive an economic impact review for the
8 community. It is like taking 7,000 acres out of agricultural lands. This forestry land is used
9 to provide economics to this community. There will be impacts, such as transportation
10 concerns, to surrounding communities from new parks and trails. There will be off road
11 vehicles that use the lands whether or not there is a park for it. If they go ahead with this,
12 it's important for the Council to have a full discussion about benefits, impacts, and how to
13 offset the impacts, and costs. McFarland stated that they need a proposal before they have
14 that full discussion, so they can capture those numbers and talk about the issues
15 surrounding those specific parcels. At this time, they don't know what that would look like.
16 The staff does need to come back to the Council with that exact information.
17
18 Caskey-Schreiber stated the councilmembers should ask the administration for
19 information if they want. No one voluntarily updated her. She sought the information and
20 asked others about the status. She knew this was coming up because the Council budgeted
21 for it. Much of the budget for the $300,000 was to do to what they're doing now, which is
22 assessing the impacts. In the long run, this is cheaper than an upgrade to the water
23 treatment system. This is worth pursuing. The administration should keep at it and keep
24 the Council involved. This is positive for the community.
25
26 Crawford stated he has the same concerns as other councilmembers. He hopes this
27 will work. It's an exciting legacy that is more profound than any single thing the County has
28 done. He will be optimistic about it. He appreciates Mr. McFarland's work. He has concerns
29 about items nine and ten. The management issues are big issues. He hopes they can
30 address items nine and ten on an ongoing basis concurrent to this framework.
31
32 McShane stated this is the beginning of the conversation. The Council will have to do
33 a lot of hard work and think carefully about how to proceed. The exciting thing now is that
34 the DNR will work in conjunction with the County, which is much better than the County
35 trying to do this on its own. That will make things better all around.
36
37 Brenner stated she thought she was supposed to get more options beyond just
38 reconveyance. They have a limited budget. She is afraid of the ongoing costs. The most
39 benefit will come from eliminating or reducing development rights one way or another. Well
40 managed forests are one of the greatest resources they have. They must look equally at
41 other options with $300,000. This will require a huge amount of ongoing money. She
42 didn't even know there were consultants. She asked if consultants have to come through
43 the Council for approval. McFarland stated there is a limit on the amount.
44
45 Brenner stated this is from the fund that the Council can't vote on.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated the focus is not so much eliminating 13 buildable lots, but
48 to preserve natural forests around the lake instead of having it logged and developing 30
49 miles of new logging roads. Every reservoir for any major city on the West Coast is
50 surrounded by old growth forest. An uncut forest is the best filtration system for any water
51 body.
52
Committee of the Whole, 9/25/2007, Page 3
I McFarland stated preserving those 13 home sites is only one tiny bit of any proposal
2 that will come forward. The issues include connectivity between the park areas and
3 improvement of the DNR`s management of the working forests. This is a multi- faceted
4 approach. The State DNR must have a benefit from the standpoint of a working forest,
5 because that is its charge. The County would not recommend entering into an agreement
6 unless there were substantial benefits to the watershed and recreation.
7
8
9 OTHER BUSINESS
10
11 AD30URN
12
13 The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
14
15
16
17 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
18
19 1 gjj%Qujf10i approved these minutes on October 23 _, 2007.
20 0 �Y C
21 Al�`',.••.,��/'��ii WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
22 `���� wwi; •,y '� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
23 .O O
24 •
25 -
26
27 Lana �•• �� Vii ® ,Co unsr'I Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 9/25/2007, Page 4