Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works November 8 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Public Works and Safety Committee 3 4 November 8, 2006 5 6 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the 7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 8 9 Present: Absent: 10 L. Ward Nelson None 11 Sam Crawford 12 13 Also Present: 14 Carl Weimer 15 16 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 17 18 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 19 FOR 2007 -2012 (WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — APPENDIX F) 20 (AB2006 -384) 21 22 Brenner asked about the cost of $52 million. 23 24 Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated they tried to put a 25 cost on the trail corridors they don't own. A ten -foot wide multipurpose trail is estimated at 26 $120,000 per mile. There are two ways to estimate acquisition, which are about the same 27 amount. Either use $2 per square foot, the going rate for an easement, or the cost is about 28 $10,000 per acre for property. There are about 6.6 acres in a mile. 29 30 Brenner stated she can't support it. There's no way she can budget $52 million for a 31 six -year improvement plan. It would be nice, but it's not realistic. 32 33 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services, stated the County has an adopted 34 level of service in the Comprehensive Plan. That level is three - quarters of a mile of trail for 35 every 1,000 people. They are in a deficit already. This is a mathematical operation. If they 36 remove trail projects, they won't plan to meet the level of service. The Growth 37 Management Act (GMA) says that the County must have a plan that shows how to meet 38 future needs. If they don't have that, they would have to reassess the land use element. 39 One alternative is to amend the level of service. They'd have to docket that as a 40 Comprehensive Plan amendment for next year. 41 42 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are working daily on building a 43 concurrency program. The concern is that they have all the relevant documents in place to 44 allow the appropriate revenue exchanges to occur to implement parks, transportation, and 45 other services that need to occur as growth occurs. 46 47 Brenner stated she agrees. However, this estimate is too much. Someone who 48 wants lots of trail will look at this and harp on the Council about what the plan says. 49 50 Nelson stated the $52 million is conditioned with the idea that they still have to have 51 a core function of government that competes with this funding. That gives Council leeway. 52 Having this in the plan allows the County to receive other funding mechanisms and grants. 53 If they take this out, then they don't have a trail system plan, and they won't have a 54 funding mechanism to get grants and other funding. Public Works and Safety Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 1 Brenner stated this is budget time. This amount looks bad. Crawford stated that with all the other County needs, the administration should agree with Councilmember Brenner. They aren't going to spend $52 million in the next six years in trails. Desler stated he agrees. However, they are trying to identify and prioritize projects. If a project is not on the list, the County may not qualify for other Interagency Commission on Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grants and federal funds that come forward. Crawford asked if it would be wise for the administration to recommend a lower level of service. Let the Planning Commission work on a new, more realistic level of service. He asked the recommendation. Desler stated the recommendation is to go ahead and adopt a plan, so a plan is in place, and then also come back with a revision to the criteria to allow for a more accurate level of service. Brenner stated there has to be another way besides adopting something unrealistic, just so there is a placeholder. That wasn't the intent of the Growth Management Act. McFarlane stated the level of service for trails came from a desire to make the level of service (LOS) much higher. Trails don't have standards on a per capita basis. They looked at the big trail plans at the time the level of service was established, and applied those proposed trails on a per capita basis. The problem is the high cost of development. Park acquisition and development don't flow with the six -year plan. The level of service is a realistic concern. Crawford stated he could go along with amending the language on Council packet page 100, at the end of the Finance for Trail Improvement Projects section, to say that it is not anticipated that the entire amount will be spent on the trails. Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 100, "...have to compete with ether core functions of County government." This much trail is not a core function of County government. There are core functions, such as criminal justice and health, that are more important. Desler stated they are trying to meet the level of service requirements of the GMA, but not put in question the need for downzoning in the county. There needs to be integrity in the existing plan. Crawford suggested a friendly amendment to amend Council packet page 100, "...have to compete with ether- eer-e higher priority functions of County government." Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Crawford stated he asked Williams Pipeline about discussing the placement of a multi -use trail along the pipeline between the Nugent's Corner area around the Mt. Baker Highway. At the time, the company expressed an interest, but there would be obstacles. He asked if that idea got to Mr. McFarlane. McFarlane stated it did. Their easements were only for pipeline use, not for public use. Many are only underground easements. There are wetland issues. They don't outright own the pipeline corridor. If they did, it would have been a practical solution. Crawford stated he received a note of concern from Ellen Baker in the Glacier area last spring. The Parks Department notified her of the appearance of an encroachment into a trail area by her structure. He asked if that kind of thing happens frequently. Before the County tells people they are encroaching on County trails, a survey should be done. If the Public Works and Safety Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 2 County thinks there is an encroachment, turn it over to the County legal counsel. There are possession rights. McFarlane stated the letters sent out were based on surveyed property lines. The letter asked the property owners if they have an agreement that allows the encroachment. It gave the property owners an opportunity to respond. The County has given everyone an opportunity to show they have a right to be on the property. The next step, with help from legal counsel, is to give them an encroachment permit if things can't be moved. It's critical in some areas. The original rail corridor is the only thing the County has to put the trail on. It is on high ground with drainage. Another option is to offer to have the trail rerouted if it makes sense. Each instance is different. There are at least a dozen encroachment issues up there. Crawford stated the County should be cautious in asserting ownership even if it's through encroachment. There are many legal issues that people can pursue, especially with the older buildings. Brenner asked if the administration has worked out anything with the City of Ferndale about increasing service for the proposed consolidated services building at the intersection of Smith Road and Northwest Road. The County should consider putting in a well and septic if the City won't consent to providing increased services. Desler stated the City may have other things on its mind regarding the lots per acre issue the Council dealt with at the same time. The administration tried to separate the issues. They know now that the line size for water and sewer is okay for the desired capacity. He needs to show that information to the officials at the City of Ferndale. Brenner asked for comments on the minority report from the Planning Commission about the ferry. It seems like the County isn't being realistic about the number of trips. Aamot stated the County has not met the level of service since 2000. The ferry staff have told him that they won't be able to meet that level of service with the existing ferry. This is the officially adopted level of service in the Comprehensive Plan. They can have a future plan to meet level of service, which the new ferry would be able to do. Brenner asked if they want to leave it in to make the County eligible for future funding. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated one issue is the new ferry as part of the capital facility plan. Now, the plan is a reprint of what the Council already adopted. Next year, they want to discuss capital facility options regarding the ferry system. Staff needs to clearly know the County's position going into this legislative session in seeking financial support. They can't waffle on that topic. As the subarea plan was being updated, revisit whether there is a level of service standard at all, and use a different formula, which is currently archaic. Because that subarea planning process was put on hold, they are carrying forward something that shouldn't be there. However, they don't have anything to replace it. There is no requirement for LOS for a ferry. Brenner asked if they can remove the ferry LOS. Aamot stated that change would have to be a docketed Comprehensive Plan amendment. This is appendix F of the Comprehensive Plan. They haven't docketed any changes to chapter four this year. This plan is just to show how they can and can't meet the LOS in the Comprehensive Plan. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated a number of things will impact Lummi Island. One is the Futurewise case. The LOS is a local option they wanted in 1997. Public Works and Safety Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 3 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 Aamot stated the appropriate process is to pass this as it has been done in years past, then docket the LOS change. Then, update this plan next year. Brenner asked if they need to keep a ferry placeholder if monies become available. Monsen stated the recommendation was to put it into the six -year road program to be eligible for consideration for a low interest loan from the State and other funding. Early next year, the Council has decide to move ahead. The legislature will be asked to allocate money to Whatcom County. Weimer stated they are talking about reconveyance of property around Lake Whatcom. It's not reflected in this plan. He asked if that should be included, and if the costs associated with that reconveyance can be recuperated through impact fees, if included in this plan. McFarlane stated it will be in the Parks Comprehensive Open Space Plan. It would be premature to have it in this plan without being in the Parks Plan. Desler stated it would be natural to go into the next version of this capital facilities plan, assuming the Council approves the policy about the issues of exchange. Weimer asked when it would be included. Aamot stated they would look at this in two years. Weimer stated the formulas for impact fees for parks are structured so that they can only recapture impact fees for things in the plan. If they run the formula now, they won't get much money from impact fees for parks because not much is included. He is concerned they would move forward with concurrency, have an impact fee, and not be able to collect the impact fee for, parks. Brenner moved to forward to the full Council for a hearing as amended. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeji@g adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Jill Nixon, MiijtWM9Vhht6r ption ATTE • Q. • r U. Dana 81;z wn- 0bQs';.'rLdtir3pil i 11111111 11110% WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 11/8/2006, Page 4