Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 20 20071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council November 20, 2007 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. MINUTES CONSENT Absent: Bone Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried unanimously, 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 23, 2007 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 23, 2007 OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Johnnie Grames, 1506 E. Maplewood Avenue, stated this Council reflects the county and its dynamics. Their maturity is timely. They don't have to break in another member. They will have to work with the City Council. He proposed to the Bellingham City Council last night that the City of Bellingham share BTV 10, and its expense, with the County. Gwen Hunter, 2540 Applejack Lane, Bellingham, stated the national interest rates determine the number of hookups in the Lake Whatcom reservoir. The water and sewer district hopes to hook up 2,000 new homes in the next 20 years. Something has to be done. Walter Ilyin, resident, stated he thanks Councilmember Crawford for voting to lift the moratorium, He is opposed to continuing it. There have been no subdivisions allowed for three years, and the ordinance says that the oxygen levels keep declining. Therefore, the problem is not lot subdivision. They should lift the moratorium. The zone is three houses per acre. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 1 1 2 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated taxes can go up by one 3 percent. The County also gets everything in new construction. There is a problem with 4 things going up one percent. That can't keep pace with inflation. They need to keep costs 5 down, but do it through longer range planning. Talk to the State about allowing something 6 that meets the pace of inflation, so the County won't be so eager to let Birch Bay build out, 7 so they can service the rest of the county. 8 9 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated the Planning Commission started on the urban 10 growth area (UGA) process in 2002 with the County and the City of Bellingham. Bellingham 11 has 40 percent of the county's population, but wants to accommodate 51 percent of the 12 growth. Neighborhoods in Bellingham were not happy with the amount of growth they were 13 asked to absorb. Therefore, the City placed most of that density into the UGA areas, which 14 are areas where the residents can't vote for City officials. People in UGA's were also not 15 happy but were not able to vote on issues in the city. UGA residents look to the County for 16 protection and representation. Large developers have laid the groundwork to file lawsuits. 17 David Bricklin has suggested they lower the population projection for the City of Bellingham. 18 Only the City of Bellingham or the Governor can sue the County about that. Individuals 19 would not be able to sue the County.. 20 21 Wendy Setter, 4230 King Mountain, stated she is shocked the Council is considering 22 adding 80 acres into the UGA. It has not gone through the Planning Commission. When a 23 developer deforests two mountains, people from as far away as Anacortes can see it. It will 24 change the entire character of the north side of town. It will all be developed as 25 apartments. 26 27 Cindy Anderson, 347 Van Wyk Road, stated they have a unique opportunity to 28 preserve some of the mountain so it doesn't become completely bulldozed, with no 29 relationship to what it currently is. Also they can preserve true agricultural land that has 30 long -term sustainabiiity. The mountain is rocks with trees. Many of the trees can be saved 31 and interlinked with trails. The neighborhood could be connected with other neighborhoods. 32 The development will do the best job possible to maintain the trees, hillside, and green 33 spaces. The community will use transit. The roads will move people and goods. This is a 34 unique opportunity to do development right. 35 36 37 PUBLIC HEARINGS 38 39 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR THE WHATCOM 40 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FOR 2008 (COUNCIL ACTING AS 41 THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (AB2007- 42 420) 43 44 Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 45 46 Duane .lager, 2401 E Street, Bellingham, stated the Council proposes a zero percent 47 increase in the flood tax in spite of the fact that there is a long list of water projects that 48 need attention. He submitted and read from a letter (on file). He support taxes with a 49 purpose. Increase the flood fund to reallocate general revenue funds for proactive long - 50 range planning in Whatcom County. 51 52 Charlie Maliszewski, 760 Old Samish Road, Bellingham, read from a letter he sent to 53 the Council earlier today (on file). He is in favor of Councilmember Weimer's proposal to 54 begin working on the backlog of over 400 water projects that have gone unfunded. 55 Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 2 1 Wynne Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she is not in favor of keeping the 2 flood fund levy at the same rate. Return this item to committee to increase the levy or 3 specify and approve alternative funding sources for water - related projects. The current levy 4 level is insufficient to fund mandated and important projects. Problems have worsened. 5 Delays will continue to increase the costs to taxpayers. These mandated projects are 6 essential for the integrity of all water. They must take care of the water where they live by 7 taking care of rapid growth, which threatens the waters and watersheds. Reject the 8 proposal to keep the flood fund levy at the same rate it's been at for several years. Return 9 this item to committee to increase the levy, or pass an alternative funding source for these 10 projects. 11 12 Myra Ramos, 2877 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, stated they need to stop 13 taking water for granted. They need to invest in water, so they have enough good water. 14 Don't allow the project backlog to increase. Invest in water quality.. 15 16 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated a fee is different from a tax. 17 They do need to study drinking water issues, but the money for that comes from the flood 18 fee, which is a fee for services. It must come from a drinking water fee. 19 20 Robin Dexter, 3726 Broad Street, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of increasing this 21 tax. The Flood fund can be used for almost anything they want. If they are not willing to 22 raise the tax, they ought to look at the list of projects that aren't getting done. Be honest 23 about why the projects aren't getting done. This fee should not go to any more planning. 24 25 Gwen Hunter, 2540 Applejack Lane, stated she is willing to pay 10 cents or 20 cents 26 per day to pay for the water projects. 27 28 Geoff Menzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, Ferndale, stated the Drayton Harbor watershed 29 was identified as the top priority watershed in Whatcom County. The Drayton Harbor 30 Watershed Management Committee completed in 1995 its action plan for water quality 31 recovery in Drayton Harbor. They are still trying to achieve water recovery in Drayton 32 Harbor. Whatcom County adopted the Shellfish Recovery Plan, including 30 33 recommendations to restore water quality in Drayton Harbor. Only eight of those 34 recommendations have funding and are scheduled for implementation. Seventeen 35 recommendations aren't funded at all. He supports increasing the flood levy rate to fund 36 programs like Drayton Harbor, or find other ways to fund these programs. Otherwise, 37 advisory committees will not continue to do their work. 38 39 Nelson asked if the shellfish protection district may tax those in the district. Menzies 40 stated the County Council is authorized to tax residents of the watershed to implement the 41 plan, but has not chosen to do so. An alternative to doing that is through the flood fee. 42 43 Nelson asked if the committee made a recommendation on what to tax the district 44 residents for shellfish. Menzies stated that is beyond the expertise of the committee. The 45 Council must work with the Executive and Assessor to develop an appropriate and fair tax. 46 47 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated there is a cost for growth. The 48 County sets the level of service. It's nice to say they aren't raising taxes. However, there 49 should be commitment by the representatives to serve the people they represent at those 50 set levels. He would rather the costs be paid by impact fees, but supports raising the taxes. 51 52 Middy Shaw, 4372 Francis Avenue, King Mountain, stated the councilmembers should 53 think long and hard about denuding mountains and building lots of apartments. 54 55 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 11/70/7007, Page 3 Brenner moved to approve the resolution. They are working on implementation tools. Birch Bay is a special watershed area. They are creating a plan and implementation tool regarding impacts and benefits. She will not support a regular, regressive property tax. This flood tax is not a fee. It's a tax. It doesn't have anything to do with impact or benefit. She supports a fee for impact and benefit rather than a tax based on property value. If the Council wants people to have ownership in this community, they must let the people see a correlation between money out and projects done. People with low- impact development homes shouldn't necessarily pay more because they have higher assessments. Reward people for reducing or eliminating stormwater impacts. Provide an incentive to those people who are causing the problems and who benefit. Putting more money into something without a direct correlation won't necessarily give them the results they want. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Brenner stated she hopes the Birch Bay plan will end up a model for the rest of the county. They must have watershed districts throughout the county that are based on benefits and impacts. The Council has budgeted money for Drayton Harbor projects and improvements. The County is doing many things right now. There are some people who can't afford more tax of $30. A home only has value when it's sold. Otherwise, it's not an investment. Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to know what the money is going toward. They haven't worked through the prioritization list of projects. She knows there is a need. She's not opposed to an increase if that's the best thing. She asked if they can delay passing this until they go through the January project list. Weimer stated there is not. The Treasurer's Office needs this by the end of the year to develop the assessment roles. Brenner stated that every time a budget amendment request comes to the Council, the Council can add it to the supplemental budget request. Caskey - Schreiber stated they may not necessarily have the revenues to pay for it. McShane stated he's been frustrated with the flood tax. He will vote in favor of this item. At some point in the future, he would be in favor of raising the tax if he were assured that the tax would go to projects with a broad public benefit and was distributed equitably. However, his experience on the Board of Supervisors has proven that isn't how the fund is used. The majority of the Board of Supervisors has not been able to turn down projects. They are making progress to establish priorities and create equity in the system. He will vote in favor of this item. Think about funding a variety of projects that have a broad public benefit. Lay out an approach for prioritization first. Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. This continues to motivate the Council to continue to work with the administration to identify projects and funding sources. The administration will be open to looking at it next year in that light. If they have the priorities set, including associated costs, the administration is willing to identify sources of revenue. Brenner stated she has no trouble denying a project she doesn't believe in. There is money in the budget for worthy projects if the Council wants to add them to a supplemental budget request. It has nothing to do with a levy. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 4 McShane stated there may be a possibility for an Outside revenue source, since they are acting as the Board of Supervisors for a district that is separate from the County municipal corporation. Weimer stated he will vote in favor of this. He's been involved with water resource inventory area (WRIA) planning since 1998. E=very year they've been told that there would be a process to start funding things. The Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection Districts have been told the same thing since the mid- 1990's. However, nothing has been funded. The water resource integration project identified over 400 projects that don't have funding. The price for those projects is $380 million over the next 20 years. They aren't adding any money to start digging out of that hole. They will have a prioritized list in January. The Lake Whatcom stormwater plan has a $3 million price tag. They will have a list of high priorities to choose from. Some people will never have enough information to want to fund anything. People are frustrated. Nelson stated the funding problem has long been a problem. It will always be a problem. They can either add more taxes, but they will never have enough money for all the problems that come up. Therefore, they have to prioritize. The public has to understand that a tax raise would make sense. They have responded to the public request to look at programs and come up with ideas. They've never promised to pay for anything. They've only said the County will do whatever it can to help with projects. That is what the integration program is for. It will define the priorities that are important for the entire community. A tax increase won't help the public if they don't know what it's for. Finishing projects in Drayton Harbor will neglect other projects in Lake Whatcom, the Nooksack River, and other areas of the county. Weimer stated that Councilmember Nelson's approach seems to be to neglect everything until they come up with a fair solution. Nelson stated that's not true. They've funded many program activities that are ongoing. They have funded many programs in Drayton Harbor and the Nooksack watershed. Not all the councilmembers agree on some of the programs. Caskey- Schreiber stated they need to figure out a revenue stream for some of the things that need to be done. However, she voted to lower the flood fee because she was told it was being misused. They channeled the revenues to the general fund, and spent out of the general fund when needed. She prefers to designate money for specific projects during the budget process so she can balance the cost elsewhere. When they go through the prioritization, they will have a better sense of the top priorities in each geographic area. One part of the Nooksack River has consumed three - quarters of the flood money. At some point, they need to find a balance. They've also designated a lot of money for Lake Whatcom. She understands the frustration of those areas in district three that may not get as much. They pay into the fund, but don't get a benefit. However, she wants the final prioritization list with associated costs before making decisions. Once she has that, she would have no problem with an increase a year from now. She wants to go through the prioritization first. She wants to be able to tell the public what she is voting for that will affect them and their property taxes. At least identify the top ten projects. She is in favor of the resolution. Brenner stated she has enough information to know she won't support a property tax increase. Find a better source of funding that correlates to benefit and impact. Motion carried 6 -I with Fleetwood opposed. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 2. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2008 (AB2007 -422A) Weimer opened the public hearing and the following person spoke: Henry Bierlink, Lynden, stated this tax is a lot cleaner than the last one. It has only been used for a couple of things, such as open spaces and the purchase of development rights in agricultural areas. The program doesn't have enough to make a huge difference. This is not the only tool they can use for agricultural land protection. They need to develop more tools. Keep up with inflation and the increasing cost of land. It's tougher to buy those development rights than in the past. He is in favor of the ordinance. Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. For every dollar they use in the purchase of development rights (PDR) program, they get a 100 percent federal match. They have preserved nearly 600 acres with around 70 or 80 development rights. As the urban growth areas (UGA's) continue to swell, this could be a key to draw boundaries around growth pressure points in the county. The agricultural industry annually produces $300 million in goods. This industry won't be viable in the long -term without County support, It will succumb to the pressures of growth. It is a minimal increase that goes to a good program. Brenner stated she is against the increase. If there wasn't an increase, she would support the ordinance. They are just as able to leverage federal and State dollars another way, such as an agricultural protection district. Fund by impact and benefit through a flat fee. Everybody should pay the same amount. Nelson asked why they are increasing a tax when $830,000 is left in the fund. They've only expended 42 percent of the budgeted amount this year. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they bring supplemental budgets forward through the course of the year for the Conservation Futures fund. They will be close to spending the budgeted amount for the year. The reserve will be a little less than $2 million. Caskey - Schreiber stated they have that balance now because the administrator of that program has left the position, which hasn't yet been filled. The program is on hold now. She hopes that position is filled soon so they can fully use the program next year. The County has turned away farmers who wanted to participate. They've always gotten their federal match, There is a growing need for this program. Weimer stated the increase amounts to about $.75 per year for someone who has a $300,000 house. They haven't kept up with inflation at all. They know what property values have done. The $57,000 won't purchase a lot, but every bit helps. McShane stated today's supplemental budget request included the purchase of eight development rights at a cost of $142,900. That is less than $20,000 each. There were matching funds from other agencies. The program works. There will always be supplemental budget items for these acquisition projects. Motion carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford opposed, Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 6 3. ORDINANCE REMOVING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, THE LOT CLUSTERING PROVISION FROM WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.42, RURAL FORESTRY DISTRICT (AB2007 -229A) Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Judie Westhoff, 4172 Squalicum Lake Road, Bellingham, stated lot clustering is incomprehensible in the rural forestry zone. It is inconsistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act and the County Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance to remove the lot clustering provision from the County Code should be made permanent. Gwen Hunter, 2540 Applejack Lane, Bellingham, stated they need the trees and forests. Developing any kind of cluster in rural forestry zones will destroy the adjacent commercial forestry. The Growth Management Act does not include a provision for clustering in rural forestry lands. Prohibit lot clustering permanently. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated clustering does not retain the rural character of an area. Clustering doesn't help on any level. It makes development less expensive. The development should be spread out. Bill Sygitowicz, 1864 Academy Road, stated a reserve tract in a cluster becomes an undevelopable tract. Clustering requires sewer service, which is better than septic tanks. Clustering allows scientific treatment of stormwater runoff. That is one of the better things they can do to manage the Lake Whatcom watershed. Clustering would demand that 85 percent of a rural forest remain in perpetuity. That's also the best thing for a watershed. Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She thanked Councilmember McShane and the public who come to the Council continuously who tried to change her way of thinking about clusters. She originally supported clusters in all resource areas, including agriculture. However, they've found that there are more complaints from neighbors about farming activities. There are hardships on farmers. Clustering puts people in closer proximity to each other. It makes it easier to organize and fight things. Clustering is important to protect critical areas in more urbanized settings, but not in resource areas like forestry or agriculture. There are unintended consequences. The natural way to prevent stormwater is better than the scientific way to treat stormwater. Don't allow clustering in resource areas. Fleetwood asked how long this will come forward as an interim. Nelson stated he hopes not long. The next step is to talk about zoning requirements in watersheds, since that's become a hot topic. It has an impact. They don't want to do something unnecessarily that will affect people outside of critical areas or watersheds. He's not sure how to do that. Consider buying forestry lands to be maintained in forestry practices in watersheds. Allow the property owner to receive the benefit of their density through a buyout, similar to the agricultural purchase of development rights. He also was an advocate of clustering at first. However, it's had an impact to forest lands. He's concerned about rural zones. Clustering doesn't protect rural character. It damages rural character. Crawford stated rural clustering has a lot of benefit. There are many good examples in Whatcom County. They are beneficial for the property owner, the environment, and access and traffic control. He agrees with Mr. Sygitowicz's comments. They can deal with household waste, have a smaller footprint, and have reserve areas. He is in favor of lot Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 7 I clustering from a practical perspective that enhances the community and environment. 2 There aren't many examples of clusters in rural forestry. 3 4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands both sides of the issue. She has an issue 5 with no clustering in rural forestry watershed lands. She doesn't know if it's better to have 6 a cluster or cleared lots and driveways spread out. She doesn't know which is better for the 7 lake. The biggest threat to take Whatcom watershed is another conduit to transport 8 sediments and phosphorus to the lake. Logically, it seems that risk is bigger with more 9 roads. One road to one cluster may be better than having homes spread out. She 10 questions whether someone who puts a home on 20 acres is really interested in logging. 11 12 McShane stated this is a complex issue in the watershed. This is an interim 13 ordinance regarding lot clustering only in rural forestry. He's worked on lot clustering 14 projects in other counties, which allow residential development on commercial forest land. 15 They are allowing cluster development within natural forestry areas. His concern is how 16 poorly managed those forest lands have become. They are driven by the value of creating 17 these clustered gated communities in the middle of nowhere. As-a geologist, he tries to find 18 appropriate road and building locations. They are horribly - managed forest lands that are 19 completely degraded. The owner of the property only wants to come up with a residential 20 development, and has pushed forestry management aside. If they prohibit clusters, the 21 property would be better - managed for a forestry use with a house. 22 23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) 24 25 McShane stated he's inclined to support it because they are not being managed in 26 any fundamental way. They're awful properties to walk through. This issue has been 27 cluttered with the Lake Whatcom area issue. That should be addressed separately in the 28 future to address Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's concerns. The reality is having roads 29 to separate 20 -acre parcels. They might be able to disperse the stormwater, but the 30 interception of groundwater into the ditch systems, particularly on steep slopes, is a 31 concern. On Squalicum Mountain, there is definitely intercepted groundwater flowing in 32 ditches. That causes a problem with phosphorus loading. That can occur on a 20 -acre 33 parcel with road construction. From a forestry perspective, clustering is not a good idea. 34 35 Brenner stated they wouldn't have those kinds of things if they adopt by reference 36 the low- impact development manual. The State has done this. There are many ways to 37 reduce and eliminate stormwater discharge with low impact development on steep areas. 38 39 Nelson stated the plan must be implemented with DNR on forest lands. There is a 40 plan for each of these lots. That has nothing to do with his reason for proposing this 41 ordinance. There are other things they can do with watershed management. He is 42 concerned that they are changing rural character. The development on Toad Hill is not rural 43 character. It is an area with problems. The City doesn't want it, and the County has 44 problems with it. They don't need any more of those areas in the rural area. To make 45 sensible plans for what is rural in nature, they must talk about what defines rural nature. 46 47 Brenner stated they must revisit the issue of the required amount of forest cover. 48 49 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 50 51 4. ORDINANCE APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON 52 NORTHWOOD ROAD AND HALVERSTICK ROAD (AS2007 -44S) 53 54 Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. 55 Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 8 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. S. ORDINANCE TO REVISE WCC 12.14, REFERRING PERMITS FOR USE OF UNOPENED RIGHTS -OF -WAY (TRAIL PERMITS) FEES TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2007 -446) Weimer opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC, TITLE 20, AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES (AB2007 -354A) Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Government Affairs Director, stated she is in favor of the legislative proposal. She thanked County staff and others for collaborating on this product. She read statements regarding this issue from her membership. The fee structure should be as flexible as possible. The school districts should have as much autonomy as possible in how they receive and allocate fees. This proposal does that. Her membership would prefer that the administration be done at the County Planning Department. Brenner asked about charging the fee at time of occupancy. Dickinson stated they are discussing it, but not advocating for it. Crawford stated the County will be collecting the fee. Dennis Carlson, Lynden School District Superintendent, stated the school district cannot collect impact fees or other taxes without going through a legislative body such as the County. He supports the ordinance. The fees should be equal within the incorporated and county areas within a school district boundary. Fees should be collected through the agency issuing building permits. Adopt the ordinance. John Krieg, Lynden School Board of Directors President, stated the average growth in the Lynden School District is 40 students per year, which equals about two new school classes per year. It costs $250,000 to build and equip a new classroom. He supports the ordinance to be more equitable way of building new classrooms and maintaining small class sizes. If they don't construct new classrooms as they grow, they tax the students by placing them in larger class sizes and having them not as well - educated. There are only two ways to build new classrooms. They can go to the general public and ask for bonds, which taxes the entire public for new classrooms. The other option is to pursue impact fees, which don't pay for the entire cost of new classes. However, impact fees place the burden of building classrooms on the people who cause growth in the community, which is new residential development. This is not a new tax. If this ordinance is not adopted, the school districts will end up taxes the students or taxing the general public. The school district should grow. They provide a good service at an inexpensive price. They are a growing community partly because they have a good school district. To Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 9 1 stay a good school district, the people who chose to move to Lynden should pay for some of 2 the good school district. 3 4 The County should receive the impact fees. The school district is not involved in the 5 permitting process. 6 7 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated he in favor of school impact 8 fees. The fees should be the same throughout a school district. The fee should be paid 9 when the foundation goes in, or sooner, because the district is going to have to start 10 working on its infrastructure. Work it out so the fee doesn't have to be spent so fast. Now, 11 the school will be impacted before the district can do a decent job of building structure. 12 13 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. 14 15 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She thanked Councilmember Caskey- 16 Schreiber for working on this ordinance. Some councilmembers have supported this item 17 for a long time. However, some of the school districts were a bit apprehensive about doing 18 this. She appreciates the County staff who worked on this, also. 19 20 Caskey - Schreiber stated County Planner John Everett did most of the work on this 21 important ordinance. There are plans for high densities in the urban growth areas. School 22 districts have to serve the kids in those areas. The Council must next adopt the capital 23 facilities plans of each school district into the County Comprehensive Plan before they can 24 collect the fees. This ordinance is important to meet the needs of future generations and 25 give schools the tools they need. Adopt the ordinance. 26 27 Fleetwood asked how soon the districts can get their plans incorporated into the 28 County Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 Caskey - Schreiber stated they can docket these plans outside of the normal docketing 31 process. She hopes the Council can work on them in January. 32 33 He supports this ordinance because it makes sense and reflects the issues of the 34 builders and developers. 35 36 Motion carried unanimously. 37 38 39 CONSENT AGENDA 40 41 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 42 moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through 11. 43 44 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through eleven carried 45 unanimously. 46 47 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN ADDENDUM 48 TO THE JAIL PHARMACY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 49 HOAGLAND'S PHARMACY IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $198,778 50 (AB2007 -447) 51 52 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT 53 TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 54 THE WSU COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM TO JOINTLY SHARE COSTS Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 10 FOR FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $82,885 (AB2007- 448) 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION ON THE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM (AB2007 -449) 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST YOUTH SERVICES FOR CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,500 (AB2007 -450) S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -110 TO LOW BIDDER TRI COUNTY OFFICE INTERIORS FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF MODULAR OFFICE FURNITURE IN DISTRICT COURT IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,136.44 (AB2007 -451) 6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE LUMMI NATION FOR THE HAXTON WAY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 (AB2007 -414) 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT ACTIVITIES TO INCLUDE THE OPERATION OF THE DISPOSAL OF TOXICS FACILITY AND THE ENVIROSTARS PROGRAM IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $438,213 (AB2007 -453) S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND COMPU -TECH INC. FOR TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES TO THE SHERIFF'S AND PROSECUTOR`S RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,295 (AB2007 -454) 9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2007 -455) 10. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FROM THE 2060 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RFP# 07 -88 IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 (AB2007 -456) 11. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF LYNDEN FOR THE EAST LYNDEN SUBAREA ANNEXATION (AB2007 -457) OTHER ITEMS 1 ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST #13 (AB2007- 444) Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE LICENSE APPLICATION FOR ]K], 4 (AB2007 -458) Brenner moved to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A LIQUOR CLUBHOUSE CIRCLE, BELLINGHAM Brenner asked if liquor licenses are approved, whether or not the Council and Executive want them approved. Nelson stated they do. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items including the two addenda. Fleetwood withdrew item ten. Motion carried to accept Introduction Items one through nine and eleven carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE 2008 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2007 -459) 2. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE SAMISH WATERSHED SUBZONE THROUGH 2008 (AB2007 -460) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) 3. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE LYNDEN /EVERSON SUBZONE THROUGH 2008 (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) (AB2007 -461) 4. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND LEVELS FOR THE ACME /VANZANDT SUBZONE THROUGH 2008 (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) (AB2007 -462) S. RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM & LEVELS FOR THE SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUBZONE THROUGH 2008 (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) (AB2007-463 ) 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP FROM THE DESIGNATION Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 12 OF AGRICULTURE TO THE DESIGNATION OF RURAL FORESTRY FOR A 39.5 - ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #370522 - 199054 (AB2007- 464) 7. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2008 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,478,522 (AB2007 -465) S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2007 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #14 IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,946 (AB2007 -466) 9. ORDINANCE REQUESTING PROJECT BASED FUNDING FOR PERMITTING AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE SLATER ROAD - NOOKSACK RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT AND APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT (AB2007 -452) Addenda: 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP, AND THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN (AB2007 -318A) Fleetwood stated the City of Bellingham is interested in continuing discussions in December and January that may result in agreement. For that reason, he does not support introduction at this time. McShane stated he is in favor of introduction. They must be clear on the direction they're heading. They don't have to make the decision on December 4, but they'll have two weeks to get good information and rationale on why they want to tweak the numbers. There is nothing to back up the suggestion to shift numbers. A delay is about making the numbers fit randomly to reach a compromise, with no supporting rationale. If he is provided rationale, he would be willing to vote differently on December 4 and carry it over to January. He didn't get anything of substance today. They can't defend arbitrarily making changes. He doesn't think they can legally add areas to the urban growth area (UGA) without a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS), for example. There was no rationale response to the question of arterials. There was no rationale given for changing the numbers to show where the County went wrong in its analysis. Brenner stated the legal counsel said this was one of the most comprehensive processes they've ever gone through. She's worried about making last minute changes. The focus has been on the Bellingham City Council. However, regular residents in the affected area are waiting for an answer one way or another. Don't keep those residents hanging. The County reached out to the City in August. The County received a slow response. The County went beyond the extra mile. Weimer stated he'd hoped they could meet further with the City Council, but the City Council didn't give an indication that it wants to work anything out with the County Council. The City staff hasn't chosen to brief the City Council on what the County Council passed, which is disappointing. Therefore, he will vote to introduce it. Brenner moved to introduce the ordinance. Motion carried 6 -I with Fleetwood opposed. 11, ORDINANCE FORWARDING CHARTER AMENDMENT 1 TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR, FOR INCLUSION ON THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, TO PROVIDE THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL BE Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 13 1 ELECTED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF WHATCOM 2 COUNTY (AB2007 -467) 3 4 5 OTHER BUSINESS 6 7 There was no other business. 8 9 10 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 11 12 Nelson stated he attended a meeting in Geneva last week. He thanked Public Works 13 Director Frank Abart for attending and helping at the meeting. The community residents 14 appreciated Mr. Abart's participation, also. The meeting was about traffic crossings and 15 other issues. 16 17 Caskey- Schreiber stated she will attend the Little Farm Conference in Snohomish 18 County next week. They seem to have broadened their program. She hopes it's worthwhile 19 for Whatcom County. She wants to learn more from the Agriculture Center folks in Skagit 20 County. 21 22 23 ADJOURN 24 25 The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 26 nn� 28 �v 29 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 30 31 TI .WWAM 1tlboovoved these minutes on January 15 , 2008. % i� 32 �. Q 33 ATT[ �� •' • •' •.�Ijj ��. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 34 0 •��FIA.TC, -;, 0:; WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 35 V ; O COUNTY �' • 36 37 38 39 Daifid. Brovr oGncil��lerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2007, Page 14