HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 23 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 23, 2007
Committee Member Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 3:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Carl Weimer
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON
THE EBE FARM PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $270,400 (AB2007 -418)
Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
presentation (on file). The property is 40 acres. He indicated the location on a map and
described the property and purchase of development rights (PDR) program. The
development rights price is less than other properties because the agricultural land is very
valuable. This is a good purchase for the County in terms of cost per acre. This property
does not have a building site. It is irrigated. It is a high -value property. He recommends
approval.
Caskey - Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Fleetwood asked when the area was zoned rural, one unit per five acres. Olason
stated it Was probably zoned when the original subarea plan was done in the mid- to late -
1980's.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this program is very important. Mr. Olason has accepted
another position. She hopes the position is filled a soon as possible. She thanked Mr.
Olason for his outstanding work. The farming community has a lot of faith in him. It's
great that this program has kept going. Olason stated the program has come together this
year. People out there are interested in the program. Funding is always the challenge.
Crawford asked how much of the property is farmed. Olason stated all of the
property is farmed.
Motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND WORK SESSIONS
1. PRESENTATION ON THE EAST BAKERVIEW /JAMES STREET ANNEXATION
PROPOSAL (AS2007 -417)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page I
1 Kathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is an
2 update and overview on an annexation proposal. She will come back on November 7 with
3 an amendment to the interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham regarding this. The
4 area has approximately 635 acres. Approximately 770 residents are in that part of the
5 urban growth area (UGA).
6
7 When annexation happens, the City will designate zoning comparable to the current
8 zone. This part of the UGA is going through the subarea plan process. The County has
9 made a recommendation on UGA zoning, which are not yet final. The City recommends
10 increasing the zoning in that area. When the annexation is final, the City will pursue a
11 higher density.
12
13 McShane asked if the Council's exercise in reviewing the UGA zoning designation is
14 pointless if the City annexes this area. That would indicate there is more density in that
15 area than what the Council proposes. Craver stated the County Council proposes similar
16 zoning. Had the UGA process finished before this annexation, they would have increased
17 the zoning. The process has been useful. The timing has been interesting.
18
19 Fleetwood asked the County's obligation in this annexation request. Craver stated
20 the County works with City and County departments on road and maintenance issues. This
21 is a designated UGA area. The County will make sure rights -of -way are included in the
22 annexation agreement. A small portion of the road will be in the County's jurisdiction, so
23 they would make sure there is a maintenance agreement in place. They talk with the fire
24 departments and fire districts in case they have any concerns. The County's obligation is to
25 review those things. If the County Council has concerns that the annexation will have
26 impacts to the County departments, the County will work with the City on those issues prior
27 to annexation. It is possible to invoke jurisdiction with the Boundary Review Board if there
28 are serious issues that haven't been addressed. Now is the 45 -day review period. If no one
29 invokes jurisdiction in that time, then the Boundary Review Board deems the annexation
30 accepted. Once the 45 -day period is over, the City creates an ordinance to amend the area.
31 There will be an amendment to the interlocal agreement. After that, it is sent to the
32 Boundary Review Board and becomes final.
33
34 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County, through the interlocal agreement, can make
35 purchase of development rights (PDR) conditions on the upzone. Craver stated she's
36 worked with the City on the annexation. They haven't looked at any amendments regarding
37 Lake Whatcom. The idea was to resolve issues before taking this to the Councils. If that is
38 an issue, she can look into whether that will fit into this process.
39
40 Caskey - Schreiber stated they've talked in the past about conditioning zoning
41 increases on the transfer of development right (TDR) program. She's heard that the City of
42 Bellingham shares that same perspective. She asked if this would be the process in which
43 to include it in the interlocal agreement. Craver stated the TDR program would be best -
44 addressed in the urban residential, mixed use (UR -MX) zoning rather than in the interlocal
45 agreement.
46
47 Crawford stated the City has no TDR receiving areas within the current city limits.
48 He asked if this area will be a TDR receiving area. Craver stated the city of Bellingham does
49 not have UR -MX zoning, so the County would lose that option.
50
51 Crawford stated the City Council is open to taking newly - annexed city areas. It
52 would be worth finding out what the City is thinking. See if there's a way to make sure
53 TDR's can be accepted here. There should continue to be additional incentives to buy
54 development rights there.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 2
He asked the future of the Fire District 4 station on Bakerview Road. Craver stated
she doesn't have that information. She can find out.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there has been a formal process. It's unusual that this
much annexation is coming forward. She asked if there is a new City policy.
Crawford stated the City won't extend services. These are all generated by
applicants. The City did not initiate any of these.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the paperwork refers to an annexation committee. It says
the City Council initiated the annexation resolution.
Crawford stated the citizens come forward to the Planning Department first. They
had so many inquiries that Pat Carmen started a public education session for residents.
Another big area that hasn't come forward yet is the Bennett Road area. It is more
developed, so the pressure is not quite there for annexation that the lesser areas have.
He's received numerous business phone calls from people asking about the annexation
process. The reason for the requests is because the City said no more utility extensions.
Ironically, people cannot develop in the urban growth area now.
Caskey - Schreiber stated that's okay. It's not good to have the County serve those
high densities. No one is happy with that scenario.
Crawford stated that if cities keep refusing to extend utilities until annexation occurs,
they may reach a day when the Growth Management Act runs its course and urban growth
areas become fairly useless. Everything becomes an annexation request and they get out
of the entire urban growth boundary.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the exceptions are Kendall and Birch Bay.
Crawford stated unique, stand -along UGA's would be the exception.
McShane stated the question becomes how other countywide policies are
implemented in these expansion areas. The City hasn't had a propensity to designate TDR
receiving areas within the city limits. Urban growth areas will go into the city limits. The
City has a goal of a certain density out there. They've used the carrot of extending services
before, but that carrot is now gone. It creates a dilemma. When an area is added to an
urban growth area, it will have to acquire development rights before annexation.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can legally condition it.
McShane stated that is another question. Otherwise, they shouldn't even be talking
about TDR's.
Crawford stated it is a city decision. There has been a considerable amount of
debate about infill in neighborhoods. This is an excellent opportunity for the City to
condition future development, because there aren't existing political structures in these
areas, which would be hard to overcome.
He asked how the County constituents who become city residents have a say. They
may have to accept the apartment buildings, high rises, or other high density development
that existing city residents don't want in their neighborhoods.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 3
Fleetwood asked how it's only a City issue. The quality of the City's TDR program
affects the quality of the County's TDR program.
McShane stated that's right, but another question is whether the City has any
interest in the County's TDR program. The County's charge, which is different, is to protect
natural resource areas. Now, they are trying to address old decisions through the TDR
program. If the County doesn't have a willing partner, which is the City, it cannot address
those issues. The County must have a way to create conditions, through either the
annexation process or UGA process.
Fleetwood asked if the Council should give direction on this issue before the 45 -day
period is up. Craver stated it would be better if they have more time. The City zoning isn't
set up to receive TDR's a this point.
Next week is the Joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee meeting, during which
they will discuss the 2008 work plan. Enhancing the TDR program is on that plan. This is a
topic to bring up at that time. Tim Stewart is interested in getting involved in the TDR
program also. In this instance, it wouldn't be best to try and put something into the
interlocal agreement. However, bringing it up would be positive so the City can evaluate its
potential receiving areas.
Caskey- Schreiber stated legal counsel can give the Council an opinion on putting it in
the interlocal agreement. They put infrastructure agreements in interloca[ agreements.
Craver stated it's new to have all these annexations coming forward. It has a lot to do with
the way services are approved.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. WORK SESSION ON A PROPOSED SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT FEES
ORDINANCE (AB2007 -119)
John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, stated he hopes to
get feedback today on the policy questions from the Planning Commission. He described
each of the first policy question. The Planning Commission prefers to assign impact fees at
the time of building permit application, when the impact is made, rather than when the lots
are created. One potential drawback to that is that the impact fee gets paid by the builder
when the permit issued, but that's far from the time when the raw land was converted into
lots, which enables that growth to occur. In theory, they would like that impact fee cost
shifted back to the original development of those properties rather than added at the very
end. Either way is acceptable.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a discrepancy in the ordinance about who should
collect the fee, the school district or the County. Everett stated the ordinance specifies that
the County shall collect the fee.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of that. The school districts don't have the
infrastructure in place to collect fees and are not familiar with the County's permit
processes. The Treasurer's Office can create a system for collection. Everett stated a
system will be set up through interlocal agreements with the individual school districts.
He continued to discuss the policy questions. There is a provision in the proposed
ordinance to waive or adjust the fee for affordable housing. However, the County will still
have to pay that cost. They plan to better - define the term "affordable" housing, which is
Planning and Development Committee, 10/2312007, Page 4
1 the term used by the Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force. The Planning
2 Commission recommends changing the term to "low- income" housing. However, it is
3 complicated to introduce new terminology that the existing Comprehensive Plan doesn't
4 support. The Comprehensive Plan uses the term "affordable" housing.
5
6 Fleetwood asked if the housing will be defined by the percentage of area median
7 income. Everett stated there is a discussion on how to best implement that definition.
8
9 Caskey - Schreiber asked if there will be a list of definitions associated with this.
10 Everett stated the proposed ordinance says they can adjust the fee if it will result in the
11 provision of low - income housing as defined by the then- current Whatcom County Code.
12 Currently, there is no definition of either affordable housing or low- income housing for
13 Whatcom County's purposes. They are setting a placeholder for the conclusion of the work
14 done by the Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force. That definition and system will
15 be integrated in some fashion into the Comprehensive Plan.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated she hopes this will get done first. She would hate to delay
18 this to wait for that definition. She asked if they can insert one definition and eliminate the
19 reference. Everett stated they could. He asked if the committee wants to discuss the
20 definition of affordable housing for this purpose.
21
22 Fleetwood stated the definitions depend on who they are trying to serve and give
23 this benefit to, because everyone could argue that they have a problem with affordable
24 housing. It's a policy question. Get insight from County staff who've served on the
25 Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force. Everett stated it depends on how large of a
26 housing classification for which the County is willing to subsidize.
27
28 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the County collects a recording fee for affordable housing.
29
30 Crawford stated the County collects a recording fee for homeless housing, not
31 affordable housing.
32
33 Caskey - Schreiber stated they can fold the subsidy into the portion of the impact fee
34 that goes into the County's administrative cost. Everett stated he can look into options.
35 The main question is whether they are looking to create an incentive for the lower end of
36 the low- income segment or a larger affordable housing effort.
37
38 McShane stated they should restrict the range of housing that would even qualify.
39 Don't make it too broad. The limit he envisions is the one used by Whatcom Housing
40 Authority projects or Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) projects.
41 Affordability can be addressed in other ways.
42
43 Fleetwood stated that threshold is 50 percent and less of area median income.
44 Everett read goal 3G and policy 3G -1 of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Chapter. In
45 essence, the Comprehensive Plan says to relax impact fees for affordable housing, not just
46 low- income housing.
47
48 Caskey - Schreiber stated she doesn't want to slow this down because of that small
49 section. Have it in place for those school districts like Lynden that are ready to go, and
50 modify it later when they have an idea of what they're trying to accommodate and what
51 they desire to have. Everett stated the affordable housing exemption in the draft code is
52 optional. They can put it aside until those issues are more fleshed out.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23 /2007, Page 5
I Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Governmental
2 Affairs Director, stated the Planning Commission was concerned that someone would try to
3 sneak through an affordable housing proposal.
4
5 (Clerk's Note. End of tape one, side A.)
6
7 Dickinson continued to state that any proposal to waive impact fees will have to
8 come through the County Council. They were focusing on the definition the Countywide
9 Housing Affordability Task Force would use.
10
11 The Council can follow what is in the Comprehensive Plan. If the task force decides
12 to go with a certain percentage, amend the ordinance later on. Waiving the impact fees
13 have to come forward on a case -by -case basis because it comes out of the general fund.
14 The waiver doesn't give everyone a free ride. The City waives park impact fees on a limited
15 basis.
16
17 Crawford asked if the County has to make up the cost if someone wants a school
18 impact fee waiver. Dickinson stated it does. That's State law. The idea is to not benefit
19 one entity and burden the rest of the public.
20
21 Everett stated the funds don't have to come out of the County general fund. It just
22 has to be replaced with public funds. It may not even have to be the County's public funds.
23 It could be other public funds. The impact fee has to be paid in some way.
24
25 Caskey- Schreiber stated remove the low income housing option until that movement
26 is done and they have a clear Idea of what they are trying to accomplish. Otherwise, it
27 could bog down the entire ordinance. Delete Whatcom County Code (WCC) section
28 20.75.140(2).
29
30 McShane stated it's a non -issue if the ordinance references the definition of low -
31 income housing in the County Code, but the County Code doesn't have a definition for low -
32 income housing. Everett stated that's correct.
33
34 McShane stated it's a placeholder until they define low- income housing. It shouldn't
35 interfere or slow down the ordinance at all. Everett stated it's a provision that will have no
36 teeth until the County Code defines it.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber asked if that opens the County up to some kind of legal challenge.
39 Everett stated he will check with legal counsel. He understands that it wouldn't be a
40 problem.
41
42 Fleetwood stated they can add language to the ordinance that the provision is moot
43 until a Code definition is created.
44
45 Caskey - Schreiber moved to delete 20.75.140(2) and line 321, "The County
46 Council may adjust the fee and if ene e€ the following exists: {-l-} An applicant requests
47 reduction in writing and submits compelling data demonstrating a lower student generation
48 rate and the district concurs;
49
50 ."
51 Eventually it will come back when they have a clear formula. She's only doing this for
52 clarity.
53
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 6
Fleetwood stated they can instead add language that says subsection (2) is moot
until the Code is changed to include a definition. Then they just have to change the
provision in the Code that defines affordable housing rather than amending this ordinance
as well.
McShane stated he is fine with the language as it is.
Fleetwood stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane. It won't be enforced until
there is a definition.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
McShane stated that if the housing authority has a project in the County jurisdiction,
they'd be upset if this definition weren't included.
Everett asked about using the term affordable housing or low- income housing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated neither term is defined, so it doesn't matter.
Fleetwood stated that most people have a problem with affordable housing in
Whatcom County today. They need to distinguish it against the bell curve of the area
median income. He would rather refer to it as low- income housing. The term affordable
housing is too broad.
Everett asked if they should revisit Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that say
the County should waive impact fees for affordable housing.
Fleetwood stated they could.
Crawford stated they need to be careful about the unintended consequences of using
this over -used term given social engineering. The low- income housing for which they want
to provide exceptions also would generate a higher cost per student for the school district,
in the form of free and reduced lunches, remediation programs, and other things that occur.
The County is saying that it wants impact fees because the kids are adding to the schools,
yet they are excepting out the kids who cost the districts the most. They need to be
ca refu l .
McShane stated this is about capital facilities, not serving students. They don't have
to do it. The impact is paid for no matter what. That issue is gone. If they forgive the
impact fee to the applicant, the County then pays, so it's a non- issue.
Crawford stated it's not a non- issue. It's an issue of being up front about where the
money is coming from.
McShane stated it's about keeping out the poor people.
Crawford stated it's understanding from where the cost for the poor people is paid.
It's acknowledging and recognizing where the true costs are coming from. Be careful about
suggesting another cost of social programming that needs to come from another sector.
He's not opposed to the impact fee. The more they talk about it and the more information
he gets, the more he is in favor of it. However, be careful about the exceptions they make.
McShane stated Councilmember Crawford is talking about having a policy for when
the Council approves or not approves a waiver. There could be a trend when a tremendous
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 7
1 amount of affordable housing goes into one district. They may want to have a policy that
2 doesn't allow one district or one section of the community to get hit too hard. It's not a bad
3 idea to have a broad policy that disallows dumping in one area.
4
5 Fleetwood stated it's fine to leave the term as affordable as long as it's defined.
6
7 Caskey- Schreiber stated they could include both terms.
8 McShane stated the term should be "low- income" only.
9
10 Caskey- Schreiber stated that would create a discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan,
11 which promotes affordability.
12
13 McShane stated they can take care of that later.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber stated there are too many other things that are supposed to be
16 taken care of later.
17
18 Crawford stated affordable housing and low- income housing are very different
19 things. Don't say both. Stick with low- income housing.
20
21 McShane stated the Comprehensive Plan can include a policy that says low- income
22 housing fits the definition of affordable housing. It's a part of it. They don't have to do the
23 whole thing.
24
25 Everett read through the final two policy questions. The Planning Commission and
26 school districts prefer that the County collect the impact fees on behalf of the school
27 districts. Most jurisdictions simply adopt the capital facilities plans that the school districts
28 create and make sure they collect and spend the fees in accordance with State law. The
29 staff recommends the same thing in Whatcom County rather than the County becoming
30 overly- involved.
31
32 1. UPDATE REGARDING LONG -RANGE PLANNING ISSUES (AS2007 -281A)
33
34 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he received an email from Council staff
35 that this item would be scheduled on today's agenda. He read the email.
36
37 Fleetwood stated councilmembers want to know what is going on with this item. He
38 asked if they've come up with potential solutions. Desler stated the administration is
39 working on a series of things. He reviewed the minutes of the July 24, 2007 special
40 meeting, but the motion wasn't clear to him. He read the Council's motion from the
41 meeting minutes.
42
43 The administration has been looking at its options. He would provide updates on
44 what the long -range planning staff are working.
45
46 Fleetwood asked how they've broadly defined the options. Desler stated the options
47 include adding resources to the Pianning and Development Services Department and
48 Planning Division, adjusting the staff's priorities, and adjusting the resources assigned from
49 one department to another department.
50
51 Fleetwood asked Mr. Desler's opinion of adding resources. Desler stated he's
52 concerned about the County's ability to sustain over time so many things that the County
53 government has going. Their revenues are not as strong as they would like. They are a bit
54 less than anticipated. Expenditures remain high. They have rejected many supplemental
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 8
1 budget requests from the departments unless there is attached revenue, with the exception
2 of the animal control issue. They asked for additional resources at the beginning of the year
3 to assist the Prosecutor's Office. The administration helps the departments readjust their
4 priorities to accomplish new issues and objectives. However, they've opted to not do that.
5
6 Fee revenue for the Planning and Development Services Department is down
7 significantly. Over many years, the County general fund supported the department's
8 budget by about $250,000 per year. In 2006, that number was about $1.5 million because
9 they added a 50 percent increase in staff between 2004 and 2007. The revenues did not
10 keep up with that increase.
11
12 As they started 2007, there is a $1.6 million general fund subsidy. However, it looks
13 like they won't make that target. There may be a deficit of as much as $3 million. The
14 difference between expenditures and revenues has to come from the general fund balance.
15 The administration is concerned about that. They will have to work with the staff and
16 Council to make sure the cost of services equals the fee revenue.
17
18 Given the turnover is staff, expenditures haven't been as great as expected. That
19 will bring down the deficit to about $2.1 million. That is still a significant sum. The
20 administration isn't interested in adding to a deficit. Be sure they can sustain the staff they
21 have. He hopes the Council agrees.
22
23 They've considered adjusting resources in other departments. That's easier said
24 than done. Therefore, they've looked at what they can do inside the Planning and
25 Development Services Department. He submitted paperwork regarding the current
26 planning staff and their work plans, a list of ongoing projects, and a list of projects that are
27 on hold (on file). They can always use direction on work priorities. They are planning to
28 initially transfer two staff from the Land Use Division to the Planning Division to start
29 working on items that are on hold.
30
31 Weimer asked the number of vacant positions in the department. Desler stated
32 there are six or seven vacancies today.
33
34 Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there is one
35 vacancy in the Planning Division. They are trying to adjust that position from a geographic
36 information system (GIS) specialist to a planner. They also have three Planning Division
37 staff working on the water resource inventory area (WRIA) project. There are two senior
38 positions open in the Land Use Division. All the hiring requisitions have been signed and
39 approved for all available positions. In addition, the assistant director position is vacant
40 until after the new director begins working. They've advertised for the administrative
41 assistant position. The clerical position also posted today internally.
42
43 Caskey- Schreiber stated Kraig Olason's position is supposed to be dedicated to the
44 purchase of development rights (PDR) program. His duties have been shifted to other
45 areas, and she was concerned about that. Ryan stated she is aware of the importance of
46 the agricultural program, They are working to reestablish that liaison. Until Kraig Oiason is
47 permanently out of that position, management is trying to cross -train existing extra help.
48
49 Crawford asked about one of the open positions is the Land Use Division. Ryan
50 stated the two open positions are senior positions. They are both associated with
51 subdivision and discretionary permits. They are being advertised now.
52
53 Weimer stated the meeting in July was clear. There were too many high- priority
54 items on the list. The Council asked the administration to come forward with a proposal
Planning and Development Committee, 10 /23/2007, Page 9
about how they can do things more efficiently or come up with more resources. There are
many things the Planning Division hasn't done. The Water Resources Division, which
overlaps with the Planning Division, has 450 items on its list to do. By not providing
resources to deal with these problems, they are digging themselves into a deeper hole. He
would like to hear from the administration how they can start digging out of the hole. There
is $4.5 million in flood fee the County can tap into if it has the political guts to do so. Some
of that money may be able to replace general fund money to pay for planners. The Council
needs assistance soon, because the levies are coming forward at this evening's meetings.
There has been no discussion about whether they should slightly increase those levies.
Fleetwood stated there was a great deal of anxiety in the Planning Division regarding
the loss of staff. He asked if it is better.
Linda Peterson, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they have
ten planners for over 60 projects. Anxiety goes along with those numbers. She is working
to get better information on what the staff are working on and the time it takes to do
things. She's very committed to working with the staff to improve efficiencies. They will
produce shorter, more concise staff reports that can go through the process more quickly.
They will try to improve the way the team works together.
She started developing a capacity analysis for each staff position. She's found that
each staff person is doing the work of 1.2 to 1.3 full -time equivalent (FTE) employee.
People have to work overtime to keep up with current ongoing work assignments. She will
continue to work with and adjust the capacity analysis as priorities change.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance deadline is now looming before
them. The deadline is February 25. That deadline creates a great deal of pressure. The
Futurewise issue doesn't have a deadline, but they are beginning to work on that issue.
Those are two major projects. She's trying to reallocate staff as they have time available to
work on one or both of those issues.
Caskey - Schreiber stated the Council didn't reach a good resolution for this problem
at its meeting in July. Councilmember Nelson and Executive Kremen twisted her original
motion. She's not sure why she agreed to it. She read her original motion from the July
24, 2007 minutes. Executive Kremen said during that meeting in July that the
administration will come up with more options, per her motion. The Council hasn't done
anything since then. The Council is assuming the administration will come up with
proposals for where staffing needs to be added. She asked if moving staffing around will
really solve the problem. Ryan stated that moving staff is an attempt to move in the
Council's direction. It won't solve the whole problem.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is open to considering using consultants for big
projects. There is no way that they can remain in compliance with everything they are
tasked.
Crawford stated he went through the prioritization exercise for the July meeting. He
asked the results of that process. He asked if all the councilmembers went through that
exercise.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they did not. The Council felt like it had already done its
prioritization when it docketed certain things. There was just too much.
Crawford stated the Council wanted a recommendation from the administration on its
priorities, based on what they see actually happening.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 10
1
2 Caskey - Schreiber stated the Council wanted to know options to relieve the burden by
3 hiring out someone to finish certain things.
4
5 Desler stated the administration is aware of the Council's desire to do more. There
6 are different opinions on the Council on how to do that. He would like to help the Council
7 coalesce its desire to focus on certain things. In the meantime, he's concerned about their
8 ability to sustain things. The fund balance is rapidly decreasing. Staff will be adjusted to
9 the Planning Division. The WRIA integration project is a high priority for the Council and
10 staff are assigned to it. Near the end of the year when the project is finished, those staff
11 will be reassigned to other identified long -range planning issues.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber stated they've already gone through a prioritization process every
14 time they've docketed something. Now, they are far behind on the Comprehensive Plan
15 amendments. She asked if the Council is supposed to say no to all the requests. Desler
16 stated that agenda bills that come forward will begin to include information on fiscal impacts
17 of the action. The Council can debate the ordinance with that information.
18
19 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
20
21 Desler continued to state that if something is adopted, the administration will build it
22 into the next County budget. Too often, they've adopted things about which they don't fully
23 understand the cost. People become frustrated when those things aren't done, because the
24 money isn't available.
25
26 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's always advocated for docketing less rather than more.
27 It's good to have that kind of information to help decide on issues. She would appreciate
28 that information. Hopefully, the Council will make wiser decisions on proposals.
29
30 Fleetwood asked about the agriculture- related Comprehensive Plan amendments that
31 he and Councilmember McShane filed two years ago. He asked if they will be aggressively
32 pursued in 2008. Ryan stated staff are already working with the Conservation District. It's
33 a matter of better - coordinating efforts. She expects positive results in 2008.
34
35 Desler asked if the committee would like to see the material the administration has
36 developed that shows what staff is working on.
37
38 The committee concurred.
39
40 Crawford stated it sounds like the administration is working to advance this issue
41 further. Have another planning retreat after the first of the year to review those priorities.
42 Perhaps it would be helpful to have a broader group of planning staff spend the first few
43 hours of the day educating the Council on who they are and what projects they're working
44 on. It may be helpful for the Executive and Deputy Administrator to attend so they
45 understand exactly what is happening with the staff and their projects.
46
47 The committee concurred.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber stated many important things are on hold indefinitely. Their
50 process is paralyzed. She can't, in good conscious, docket anything with many other
51 projects already waiting. She asked if that's what the administration intends. She feels like
52 she's being sabotaged from doing her job because everything is on hold. Peterson stated it
53 would be very useful to have another retreat with the Council and staff. The staff had many
Planning and Development Committee, 10/2312007, Page 11
1 good discussions following the retreat. The process works much better when the staff and
2 councilmembers get to know each other.
3
4 Some of the projects on hold will be addressed early next year. The docket items
5 are at the front of the line, and can usually be done in a short period of time. She will
6 continually use the workload and staffing capacity document as a management tool to keep
7 track of what staff are working on, how much time it takes to do certain projects, and
8 schedule future staffing. Staff are keeping track of how much time projects take, so they
9 will have better information on that.
10
11 Caskey-Schreiber stated she appreciates the staff's efforts, but is concerned about
12 the projects that are on hold, including the Parks plan, Fire and Emergency Medical Services
13 (EMS) concurrency, and other minor projects that wouldn't take much time to finish. She
14 asked if the projects on hold will be done in the next year. Peterson stated a number of
15 them can be done, especially if they get a couple additional staff people. For now, they
16 haven't looked at the items on hold since July, because they have so many ongoing projects
17 they must complete. As soon as current projects are completed, they will move on to other
18 projects. Another retreat will be extremely helpful with re- prioritizing projects.
19
20 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like the option to consider hiring consultants for
21 large projects, depending on the costs. Peterson stated staff has been discussing the option
22 of consultants. It can be helpful to bring on a consultant to do public outreach and public
23 information on subarea planning. They can facilitate good communication between the
24 community and the department.
25
26
27 OTHER BUSINESS
28
29 There was no other business.
30
31
32 ADJOURN
33
34 The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
35
36
37
38 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcr tion
39
40
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
42 AMl1�C•!�'', WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
43
44 (�
45
46 m 47 Dina u n erk d, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 12