HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole October 24 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
October 24, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Carl Weimer
L. Ward Nelson
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION (AB2006-
018)
Nelson moved to go into executive session to discuss this item for ten to 15
minutes.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Brenner and Weimer out of the room,
(Clerk's Note: The Committee immediately came out of executive session, to discuss
this item at the end of the meeting.)
1. DISCUSSION WITH ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BRUCE ROLL
REGARDING WATER RESOURCE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND
INTEGRATION (AB2006 -407)
Bruce Roll, Public Works Director, stated they have adopted many plans in the last
year. There is interest in seeing implementation occur. In addition to the plans, there are
many other water resource issues. They have begun discussing how to create a process to
get through all the implementation needs. Staff began in February to map out those steps
that would go into the process.
Before the Council now is a supplemental budget request that has been transferred
to an additional services request (ASR). The funding amount has been reduced from
$200,000 to $55,000. His goal is to understand what the Council wants to do, and
implement something that everyone can agree on. Councilmembers Nelson and Weimer
have been involved in this from the beginning, and are interested in seeing implementation
move forward.
Weimer referenced a document that listed projects and programs, overarching
issues, and a matrix used to weight the overarching issues. The matrix was used to
accomplish task one of the scope for the $200,000 funding request. He's fine with spending
$200,000 to start moving some of these programs forward.
Nelson stated his experience convinces him that things can get bogged down in
politics when processes aren't in place. The process must be based on more than programs
that have been done and criteria that meet the needs of certain groups of people. Begin the
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2006, Page 1
1 initial steps to outline the things they have in the local communities. Outline the shared,
2 yet diverse, interests among the communities in the county. There is no process in place
3 for the citizens to start prioritizing their interests. Bring each communities' lists of priorities
4 forward to the consultant to consolidate. The consultant would bring forward the
5 consolidated, prioritized full list to the County Council and County administration, so they
6 can make informed decisions based upon the County's broad scope of criteria and interests.
7 That will send the message to local communities to begin their planning processes and form
8 the funding mechanisms to meet the County's funding abilities.
9
10 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the goal is to identify costs, and work toward creating a
11 funding mechanism.
12
13 Nelson stated the objective of the $200,000 is to put together the programs that do
14 and do not interact and help communities find out what is best for their areas.
15
16 Roll stated citizens and communities who want to do projects have different abilities
17 to help fund the projects. Some people want the County to fund everything, and some
18 people ask the County to pay for a portion of everything. The County needs a process to
19 know how to fund the different projects in all the different communities. Everyone can't get
20 100 percent County funding for every project.
21
22 Weimer stated he and Councilmember Nelson agree on wanting a clear process to
23 move projects along. He fears the idea that they are going to stop projects, such as the
24 shellfish protection districts processes, that have been existing for many years. It comes
25 down to the Council having the political courage to start funding some of these things.
26
27 Fleetwood asked if the scope of work in support of the supplemental funding request-
28 is sufficiently broad to do everything.
29
30 Nelson stated it covers the first phase, which provides a process for the Council to
31 consider. This has not been done anywhere else. It's unfair to all the groups that are ready
32 to go, when the County has issues. A process can be put into place that will be far better
33 for this community than what currently exists now. It will help try to find funding and
34 support in the community.
35
36 McShane stated it also provides the County the ability to deny a project.
37
38 Weimer stated certain things will rapidly go to the bottom of the list.
39
40 McShane stated he supports the concept. He asked if the ASR is still $200,000. Roll
41 stated the original supplemental budget request was for $200,000. It was changed to
42 $55,000 and submitted as an ASR.
43
44 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the administration now supports the request for $200,000.
45 Roll stated he got that approval today. The request is back to $200,000. The first phase
46 doesn't invent a new plan. It is to consolidate all the work and plans that have been done.
47 It does require something new. He talked to many people in this and other states to see
48 who is doing this. People have attempted pieces of this, but no one has tried to look at it
49 comprehensively. Whatcom County is further ahead in having broad support for its many
50 different plans. Any scope that they create, given this uncharted territory, needs to be
51 checked from time to time. As the scope moves forward, he will check in. If they aren't
52 getting value along the line, then they can cut their losses and do something else. That
53 could happen based on certain conditions. Tough policy questions need to be asked.
Committee of the Whole, 10124/2006, Page 2
1
2 Caskey - Schreiber stated the Council should figure out its own priorities before
3 handing it to someone else.
4
5 Roll stated that when the Council begins to understand the process and there is
6 consensus on where they're going, those drafts need to go to the communities where they
7 are actually going to try and implement projects. Organized community groups will know
8 what needs to be done. Other communities aren't yet organized, and need to be.
9
10 Crawford stated the $200,000 doesn't cover phase two, and it doesn't cover
11 geographically defining management areas or coming up with a financial strategy. Roll
12 stated the management areas have already been geographically defined, in terms of
13 drainages. That was part if the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process. They have
14 not refined how to divide the coastal marine areas.
15
16 This may not be the exact scope of work. A request for proposals (RFP) will go out.
17 The County would select a consultant and then develop the scope. He hopes there is a
18 framework to deal with drainage -based management and countywide priorities. By the end
19 of the first phase, he hopes to have a draft or outline of both of those. Don't create
20 something that dictates a change in direction by the WRIA or salmon recovery plans. The
21 question is how the County can help implement those plans. Don't have a huge stakeholder
22 driven process. When the Council has a product, it should be presented to the community.
23
24 Crawford stated he is generally supportive, but this is a lot of money that won't
25 produce much. It may be a necessary evil. Roll stated the scope needs be done in three to
26 six months. They need to have milestones for the contractor to deliver and for the County
27 to check in with the contractor. The Council needs to be engaged in those check -in points
28 and milestones. He doesn't want to waste $200,000. Many people in the community want
29 to understand this process.
30
31 Fleetwood asked if they will use a consultant for phase two and phase three. Roll
32 stated that hasn't yet been decided. Don't go down this road unless there is clear Council
33 support. He would like the Council to confirm whether or not it desires the County to go
34 through phase one.
35
36 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see a more defined scope of work. Roll
37 stated they will do a competitive selection process, then negotiate the scope. He will build
38 milestones into the scope, which the Council will have to approve.
39
40 Crawford stated that in a different paradigm, the County staff could probably come
41 up with suggestions to meet the six items listed under phase one. The staff could spend an
42 half day working on those six items, or a consultant can be paid $200,000 to work on those
43 six items. He asked how different the staff's product would be from the consultant's
44 product. Roll stated staff couldn't do it in a half day. Unless they are willing to dump a lot
45 of planning efforts, staff can be redirected.
46
47 Nelson stated phase one is developing the map. Once they have a map, phase two
48 can become more of a reality, perhaps even with County time and staff. Without the map
49 from phase one, phase two would be impossible to do. Give this a chance. Have a
50 concerted effort to get a product.
51
52 Crawford stated he will support it.
53
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2006, Page 3
Caskey - Schreiber stated staff can bring this forward for Council approval in two
weeks. None of the councilmembers are speaking against it right now.
McShane stated a lot of staff time will have to go into this. They are not going to
Find a good consultant who can go through this stuff. Roll stated four or five people are all
ready to get things ready to go for a consultant. Staff will have to contribute to the
process.
Caskey- Schreiber stated County staff has the best collective wisdom about all this.
Brenner stated they can prioritize this for water resources staff. They've done all
these things in phase one, which is just to put everything together. She's not comfortable
bringing in someone who hasn't been involved.
Nelson stated this is to develop a process for the community to get involved in
implementation and for the County to make funding decisions, not to review plans.
Benner stated she's not sure they have to spend $200,000 to hire an outside firm to
get ready for implementation.
Roll stated he can't develop a scope until he goes through the RFP process. The
Council will have the opportunity to approve or reject the scope of work. He doesn't want to
go through the exercise of developing an RFP if the Council isn't going to agree. He agrees
that they need to proceed cautiously, with clear milestones showing progress.
Weimer stated he is fine spending the $200,000 if they can come up with a process
that gives the Council clarity on which direction to move. He is concerned that existing
groups lose funding in the face of paying for a new process. The shellfish protection
districts have been waiting for funding for a long time, and the County just keeps coming up
with a new process.
Roll stated that from now, the Council would approve it, an RFP would go out, and a
scope would be developed. He will start the RFP soon.
Brenner stated this is more than WRIA. Don't focus just on WRIA.
Roll stated the list of issues that will be included is endless.
OTHER BUSINESS — COUNCIL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN
1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY LISA SCHENK AND MIKE SUMNER
FOR "HARBORVIEW ROAD DEVELOPMENT" (AB2006 -364)
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the parties have entered into a
stipulation to incorporate, by reference, the briefs that have been filed in previous
cases. There is no (inaudible). She doesn't know why this item is scheduled before
the Committee of the Whole.
Doug Robertson, attorney, stated he represents the applicant. The applicant
and the fire district have entered into a stipulation. With regard to the permit
applications, there was concern about whether or not the Council could hear any
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2006, Page 4
1 comment about the project before the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
2 appeal was decided. Staff and the applicant agree with what the Hearings
3 Examiner recommends to the County Council.
4
5 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
6
7 Robertson described the Harborview Road development. There is one issue
8 of concern with the Birch Bay Center. They have agreed with the County to pay the
9 recommended (inaudible). One condition included in the mitigation determination
10 of non - significance (MDNS) was that the occupancy permit not be granted until the
11 roundabout was complete. The problem is that involves the State. The County and
12 the applicant will work hard to get the State to work hard on the roundabout.
13
14 Petur Sim, David Evans and Associates, described the location and scope of
15 the development project.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber asked if this would adhere to Birch Bay's new stormwater
18 management plan.
19
20 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they have to
21 adhere to the strictest stormwater regulations in place right now.
22
23 Robertson stated the applicant asks the Council to make a decision on the
24 Hearing Examiner appeal and to make a decision on whether or not the Hearings
25 Examiner's recommendations for both projects and the subsequent plat approval is
26 granted by the County Council.
27
28 2. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A
29 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FILED BY MAYFLOWER EQUITIES FOR
30 "BIRCH BAY CENTER" (AB2006 -365)
31
32 (Clerk's Note: This item was also discussed during the discussion of AB2006 -368,
33 above.)
34
35 Mike (inaudible), David Evans and Associates Engineer and Project Manager,
36 described the project. They will use the 2005 stormwater manual.
37
38 Brenner stated porous asphalt would work on this project. Mike stated they are
39 planning to do low impact development, using a rain garden set up. They made an under -
40 drain pipe to channel the stormwater. There will be treatment through grass and a pond.
41 An issue with pervious asphalt and concrete is that they wear down with vehicle use. That
42 type of concrete works in driving lanes and low traffic use areas.
43
44 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the design issue is
45 going to be addressed. This development is under the existing rules and regulations.
46
47 2. DISCUSSION WITH ASSISTANT CHIEF CIVIL DEPUTY PROSECUTOR DANIEL
48 GIBSON REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2006 -018)
49
50 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
Committee of the Whole, 10124/2006, 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
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION (AB2006-
018)
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she has no new information. Nothing has
changed.
Weimer moved to go into executive session to discuss this item and the last item
for approximately 30 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER`S DECISION
FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #13
ON FILE NOS. SEP06 -0022, PUD05 -0008, BSP05 -0008, AND LSSOS -0013
REGARDING HARBORVIEW_ ROAD DEVELOPMENT (AB2006 -368)
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
I 'Nr',pproved these minutes on February 13 , 2007.
A .�N�T 4149 0.." WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
? _� • `� — 4lz-.% WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
aurie Caskey- Schreiber, C ncil Chair
Committee of the Whole, 10/24/2006, Page 6