HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 10 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Safety Committee
October 10, 2006
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present
Dan McShane
Carl Weimer
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY 2007 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2006 -387)
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated the Blaine City Council will approve the
detour. His staff will continue with review and approval of the detour. The Sheriff's Office
has conditions that they'll work out.
Brenner asked what State law requires them to get permission to detour. Rutan
stated one jurisdiction needs to get approval to detour on the road of another jurisdiction.
For most construction, contractors will ask to close the road and detour around it because
it's cheaper. There isn't a State law. He doesn't have the authority to allow a detour on a
City road. Most times, cities come to the County requesting an approved detour route on a
County road.
This is the first year of the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program with more
information. In the past, this has been part of the Finance Committee budget process.
Everything on the annual construction program will be made a part of their base budget.
This year, they are putting projects completed in 2007 in the base budget. Other projects
will come to the Council with a project -based budget and then a construction budget. When
they are looking at a project, they will look at the entire project as a whole.
(Clerk's Note. End of recording on tape one, side A. Recording continued on side 8.)
Rutan stated all the projects are straightforward. Project eight is the Lincoln Road
construction. The alternatives analysis has been done. He would like to discuss the
roadway cross section.
Brenner stated the item number and number on the Six Year Road Program tally
until they get to project eleven on the list. Rutan stated there is no money associated with
project 11 in 2007, so it doesn't show up in the 2007 annual construction program.
Brenner asked if the same applies to projects 19 through 22. Rutan stated that is
correct. Project 22 has a small amount of money for preliminary engineering. Projects 24
and 25 do not have money in 2007. He listed which projects have dedicated money. This
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 1
1 year, the project summary sheets are included for each project that has money attached to
2 it.
3
4 Brenner referenced page 146, the Marine Drive project, and asked if it is in the
5 Bellingham urban growth area. She asked why the County is putting in the sidewalks.
6 When the County does that, it is a reason for the City to not annex because the County is
7 doing all the work. Rutan stated there are designed guidelines in urban growth areas
8 (UGA's).
9
10 Brenner stated they are guidelines, not requirements. Rutan stated these are the
11 standards that the County requires of developers.
12
13 Brenner stated developers are using their private funds and receive a benefit. The
14 County is creating reasons for the City to not take over the area. Rutan stated there is
15 federal funding for it. It's on the Coast Millennium Trail. It continues an existing sidewalk.
16
17 Brenner stated the County should not be doing sidewalks. It's a city amenity. Rutan
18 stated that would have to be addressed in the design codes.
19
20 Nelson stated that if it is a County policy to not do sidewalks or curbs and gutters,
21 then developers would have to do the same. Rutan stated it would make it hard for the
22 County to require it of developers.
23
24 Nelson asked why the County asks the developers to do those things. Rutan stated
25 it is a design code approved by the administration and Council for the urban growth area.
26
27 Nelson stated that if they want to change the code, it must be fair and equal to the
28 County and developers.
29
30 Brenner asked if they are saying that any roadwork done in an urban growth area
31 has to have sidewalks. She doesn't believe that. Rutan stated that is not what he's saying.
32 They're not proposing that for Lincoln Road. They are using the design guidelines for an
33 urban area.
34
35 Brenner stated there are many roads in the urban growth areas that the County
36 redevelops, and they don't construct sidewalks. Rutan stated they are connecting the
37 sidewalk on both ends of the project.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of recording on tape one, side B. Recording continued on tape
40 two, side A.)
41
42 Rutan continued to state the decision to build the sidewalk was before the Council
43 last year.
44
45 Brenner stated they end up promoting urbanization before it's ready.
46
47 She asked why the two Hannegan Road projects are being done differently. Rutan
48 stated the Hannegan Road and Pole Road intersection is a signal. They need right -of -way
49 for many reasons. The Hannegan Road projects that are just left -turn lanes don't require as
50 much right -of -way and have fewer drainage requirements.
51
52 Crawford stated it's a shame they don't have State participation in these projects. It
53 is a State highway. The State benefits from the project. Rutan stated he brings up this
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 2
I issue to the State every time he talks to people at the State. A lot of people at the State
2 Department of Transportation (DOT) agree that the State should contribute, but it doesn't
3 have the money. At one point, DOT money was budgeted for this project.
4
5 Brenner stated Seattle is very involved in deciding what projects the State is going to
6 fund with their gas tax money. Rutan stated Whatcom County is also very involved.
7 Seattle projects are very large in scope and funding amount.
8
9 Crawford stated the Council of Governments (COG) Board questioned the DOT list for
10 the gas tax. The legislature leadership mined the safety improvement list and pulled out
11 projects without talking to local folks or the COG. It was very frustrating. Rutan stated this
12 is an issue with all road engineers in the State. County two -lane roads are more dangerous
13 per mile traveled than other roads. Yet the money went to DOT projects.
14
15 Nelson asked about the difference in bike lane widths. Rutan stated six feet is
16 preferred because it is nicer. In places where right -of -way is expensive or there are
17 wetland impacts, they will make the width five feet and narrow the gutter plate. That has
18 problems with carrying capacity. The bike lanes will be on both sides of the roads.
19
20 Nelson stated it seems excessive. It creates a lot of impervious surfaces. Rutan
21 stated some areas are designated as bike routes, not bike lanes, which allows emergency
22 parking and other uses. There are two very differing opinions on what should happen on
23 Northshore Road. The County will work with the community to determine the final design.
24
25 Nelson asked if the final improvement will not take safety issues into consideration.
26 Rutan stated it will. It is a reconstruction for safety issues. They can reduce fatalities on
27 two -lane County roads by providing a clear zone recovery area, which is a shoulder.
28 Northshore Road has problems. It is very windy and there is no shoulder. Once they
29 address the safety issues, the question is whether the shoulder would be a shared -use
30 facility or whether they would create another facility somewhere else. Because of the safety
31 issues, multi -modal issues, water issues, and environmental issues, he expects the
32 Northshore project to compete well for grant funds. The money planned for 2007 is simply
33 to complete things like the survey work.
34
35 Nelson stated safety is one of the biggest concerns, bigger than bicycle
36 transportation. Rutan stated he included that at the request of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
37 Committee.
38
39 Brenner referenced the ferry dock improvements. She asked if they know that they
40 are going to have a contract to keep the Gooseberry Point dock.
41
42 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated there is a 25 -year renewal
43 clause if the two parties can agree on the price. If not, an arbitrator will settle the
44 difference. Also, the County and Lumml Nation is looking at the feasibility of relocating the
45 Gooseberry Point dock in terms of creating a more multi -modal center. They need to deal
46 with the tideland lease agreement before that happens.
47
48 A complete relocation will take at least ten years, but they must do dock
49 improvements before that. They need some improvements on the dock now.
50
51 Brenner asked if that is all this item is for. Monsen stated they are going to spend
52 more time talking about ferry operations and capital facilities. There are many major dock
53 repairs that need to occur. They are moving ahead with some of those things now. Until
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 3
they know for sure what their decision will be on a new ferry, they will presume that a
larger vessel will be purchased. It would be foolish to do a major repair that is inadequate
for a future decision. This proposal is for elements that need replacement now.
Brenner asked if there is a security problem at the parking area. she asked the
problems.
Ken Richardson, Public Works Department, stated they have one parking lot at
Gooseberry Point. There is a small area near the dock that has the handicapped area. They
provide security patrols in the big parking lot during the hours of darkness. They continue
to occasionally have issues with vandalism. Abandoned vehicles can be left in the lot. Part
of the lease renewal with the Tribe was to jointly spend money for security, surveillance,
and lighting.
Brenner asked what they are going to do about parking. It's not perfect, but it
works fine. Richardson stated there is a problem with getting water to run off of the lot.
Now, put in security cameras and maybe more lighting to increase safety for people to be in
and out of the area in the evenings. They will try to do something to improve drainage so
they don't have standing water for people to walk through to get to their cars.
Nelson asked if they are going to blacktop the parking area. Richardson stated they
won't.
Nelson asked if the lot is going to remain gravel. Richardson stated that is correct.
If they could provide more parking on the Gooseberry Point somehow, they would jump at
that opportunity. He doesn't see any ability to expand parking now.
Nelson asked if it is policy to but bike lanes on both sides of the road. Rutan stated
they like to have bike lanes going both ways. If there is an off -site trail, they may not need
to designate bike lanes. Each area is different. There are standards for width.
McShane asked the reason for spending $200,000 for parking on Lummi Island.
Richardson stated they've begun parking lot construction, which was put into use during dry
dock. They have not yet gone out for bids to complete the work on the parking lot.
Brenner asked what happened to the house. Richardson stated it is sitting in the
middle of the parking lot. The County and some residents have agreed to disagree about
the value of the proposal from the Lummi Island Community Land Trust. They are in limbo
about that now. It will be up to staff to make recommendations on what to do with the
house.
Rutan stated he submitted an application for a State grant to do non - motorized
improvements to Haxton Way. There have been a lot of accidents there. He was just
informed that those grant funds need to be spent by April 2007. There is no way they can
get everything ready by then. This project will come forward as a project -based budget.
He will see what they can get done by April 2007. There is about $2 million in grant funds.
He will try to get grant funds for a portion of the work that can get done.
Rutan described the Lincoln Road project. This has gone before the Birch Bay
Transportation Committee, which prefers alternate section C. He handed out and described
the alternate sections (on file). Alternate C provides road drainage in the middle of the road
area. one benefit of this alternative is that residents can have their driveways anywhere
they want. The design provides the feel of a parkway. The connector road will be similarly
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 4
1 built. The trail section of Semiahmoo Drive has an architectural theme. There will be many
2 traffic calming devices. The pedestrian path is on the south side of the road. Alternate
3 section C is a new design, Everyone wants to get that road in and built. They expect
4 between six inches and a foot of settlement under anything they build. There could be real
5 settling problems with the other sections, but not with section C. They want to look into the
6 ability to take the existing roadway prism and connect it through to Blaine. Then they can
7 go to the north, build a new road, and move everyone on to it. Then, they would build the
8 existing road to look like this. Alternate section C requires more right -of -way. A few people
9 would have to relocate. The option has more wetland impacts. Permitting is drastically
10 more difficult.
11
12 Brenner asked if there would be a latecomer's agreement for future developers.
13 Rutan stated any future developers would contribute via a transportation impact fee, if they
14 are approved. State law allows the fees to be retroactive for six years.
15
16 Monsen stated that there will be cash capacity issues over the next few years. the
17 County may need to borrow money to do Lincoln Road. That gives them an advantage on
18 concurrency issues and looking for developer contributions for repayment.
19
20 Rutan stated $3 million of the proposed construction cost will come from developer
21 contributions.
22
23 Crawford asked how deep is the ditch for alternate section C. Rutan stated it is
24 about two and a half feet deep. The ditch design allows drivers to recover if they go in the
25 ditch. The ditch is also a bio- filtration swale. There may be standing water in the ditch.
26 Anything steeper would have to be fenced.
27
28 Crawford asked if the staff wants action from the committee. Rutan asked if
29 alternate section C is something the Council would like the staff to pursue.
30
31 Brenner stated she would like to hear from people in the area.
32
33 Crawford stated it is worth pursuing. He is concerned about the acquisition costs.
34
35 Nelson asked if the roundabouts are a mile apart. Rutan stated they are. Because
36 there is a ditch in the middle of the road, people can't just run across the road. Make sure
37 they think through the design.
38
39 Nelson asked if people are willing to go one mile to turn around. Rutan stated they
40 may be, if they are in a car. It will be similar to the design for the Guide Meridian. People
41 will be happy that they can put their driveways wherever they want. They will be unhappy
42 that they will not be able to turn left from their driveways. However, it is much safer,
43 especially for younger drivers.
44
45 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION (AB2006 -352)
46
47 Brenner stated the Coalition for Community Media is having a meeting tomorrow
48 night.
49
50 Crawford stated he agreed with the letter from Jim Johann. The Council will want
51 the administration to weigh in, but he doesn't know that the administration has a lot to do
52 with this issue. It's a big policy decision for the Council.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 5
1 Brenner stated the administration would be responsible for contracting. It's
2 important to have the administration be included.
3
4 Crawford stated the question is whether the Council wants to make the policy
5 direction to request Comcast to allocate a station for public access.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
8
9 Crawford continued to state that he was okay with the initial proposal of the
10 community access group. He can support the County giving its blessing to this program.
11 He is not interested in seeing the County give financial support. The County can negotiate
12 an agreement with the franchise to provide the channel.
13
14 Nelson stated the Coalition is asking for financial support and a commitment for four
15 years.
16
17 Crawford stated that was a request from the original presentation. Now, the
18 Coalition wants the Council to simply move forward with the request to Comcast. He is
19 more in favor of the non - restricted version for public access.
20
21 Joy Monjure, Coalition for Community Media, stated the request would include seed
22 money. If it's done well, the public will support the public access channel. They feel
23 qualified to do it well. Mr. Johann has been a big help to this group. His letter took a lot of
24 thought and time. They will use this letter as a starting place for discussion at the
25 community meeting tomorrow. The original proposal was just one vision. It has evolved to
26 involve more people and flesh out the details. Before they can search for funding, they
27 must have a channel. That is the issue before the County Council.
28
29 Nelson asked about airing high school football games. Schools use the games to
30 earn funding. Monjure stated the school games would be aired after the game is over, not
31 live. After the meeting tomorrow night, they will have more information.
32
33 Lynn Barton, Barton Productions, stated she supports the concept of public access
34 overall. She would like to understand how the update of the Coalition proposal to a public
35 access scenario would change the format. The defnition of a public access channel is very
36 different from the current proposal. She asked how it might change. She asked if they are
37 getting direction from the Council to look at a pure public access channel or a more
38 controlled environment, Mr. Johann's proposal is a very different scenario from what is
39 before the Council now. She supports Mr. Johann's scenario. The current scenario is that
40 the channel management is really the main producer of content, with the people having an
41 opportunity to submit content for evaluation.
42
43 Brenner stated they've agreed that everything in the proposal is open for discussion.
44 She would like to see a management group that is not a producer group. She is concerned
45 about making sure decisions are made on a level playing field.
46
47 Nelson stated the money requested makes the Coalition dependent upon financial
48 support. The final format will depend on whether the Council agrees to fund it. Monjure
49 stated the funding is for equipment and operating costs. The skills required to operate the
50 channel are not the same skills required to produce video footage. Broadcast skills are
51 different from production skills. They need broadcast skills.
52
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 6
1 Brenner stated Ms. Barton is talking about making sure the management group
2 would not produce material for the station. Monjure stated it is a separate job in Olympia.
3 Anyone who is going to be in that world we be able to produce. There will be so much need
4 for content that producers won't be able to fill the channel with their productions.
5
6 Brenner stated it's about making sure there is no appearance of one producer or
7 manager getting better timeslots.
8
9 Barton stated a public access station can't be funded by sponsorship. There is
10 possibility for a lot of conflict. A true public access scenario should be proposed. Put this
11 proposal aside. There are many problems with the scenario. Public access can't have
12 commercials.
13
14 Brenner stated sponsorship would be like what the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
15 does. Barton stated PBS is not a public access channel. It is an entirely different structure,
16 even though they use the same words.
17
18 Nelson stated he understand that they would eventually get community support to
19 continue the service. Barton stated that the Thurston County model may have already
20 established how to get additional funding.
21
22 Crawford asked if there can be a mention between programming thanking a
23 contributor. Barton stated that her most recent experience with public access, in 1998, was
24 that a sponsor's name could only be listed in the ending title of a program. Guidelines may
25 have changed since then.
26
27 Crawford stated he envisions getting community support for the station, not
28 individual programs. The station can, in turn, acknowledge that support. Barton stated
29 that question needs to be investigated.
30
31 Crawford stated Mr. Johann's letter identifies four prohibitions of public access
32 television. He asked if a station would be able to broadcast most any recording medium.
33 Barton stated that is correct. A person can lay claim to a right to that content and have
34 been allowed to use the music that goes with the content.
35
36 Brenner asked if Mr. Johann found any answer to the question of whether a thank
37 you to sponsors would be considered advertising.
38
39 Jim Johann, 1405 E. Illinois, Bellingham, stated there are people who support public
40 access stations in the form of acknowledging that funds came, not in the form of
41 advertising. If a company provides sponsorship, the company doesn't have a right to
42 control access to the equipment, the facilities, airtime, or content.
43
44 Brenner asked if they can be thanked. Johann stated they can be thanked. He's not
45 sure if a program sponsor can control whether a program is aired.
46
47 Crawford stated he would like to see programming about what local companies do.
48 He asked the guideline between advertising and information. Johann stated that is a good
49 question to ask.
50
51 Barton stated one can go into an environment and present the environment in its
52 basic form. There cannot be commercials within the programming that tells people to buy
53 those products.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 7
1
2 Crawford asked if a company's pre- produced, stock productions can be run. Barton
3 stated they need to find that out from the guidelines. They must know if the production
4 promotes the company, such as an infomercial, or is information and educational.
5
6 Johann stated a public access station gives priority to local content.
7
8 Barton stated new productions entering the system typically get priority for
9 primetime before circulating to other times.
10
11 Johann stated these discussions are premature. They should be held after the
12 meeting tomorrow.
13
14 3. DISCUSSION WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
15 TRANSPORTATION REGARDING TWO ISSUES: ROADSIDE HERBICIDE
16 MANAGEMENT AND STATE HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES IN WHATCOM COUNTY
17 (AB2006 -391)
18
19 This Item was withdrawn from the agenda.
20
21
22 OTHER BUSINESS
23
24 There was no other business.
25
26
27 AD30URN
28
29 T e m g adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
30
31
r
32
33 Jill Nixon, Minutes Tran cription
34 `�����►rrrrrrnrl���
38 0.O`
39
40 _
41 _ Y
42 DanaYrowq-14Nfjj0Cvincil�Zerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 8