Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 7 20051 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council June 7, 2005 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber 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 Sharon Roy L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None Caskey- Schreiber announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding various cases of pending litigation (AB2005 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. MINUTES CONSENT 1. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR MAY 17, 2005 Nelson moved to approve the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association Executive Director, stated that before the Council is the resolution approving the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) standards (AB2005 -233), including the Built Green Program operated by the Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County. The BIA works with Sustainable Connections and others on its Built Green Program. He appreciates the service of Planning and Development Services staff person Wayne Harrison on the committee. The difference between Built Green and the Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 1 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. LEED program is that Built Green is for residential homes and LEED is for larger buildings. The BIA adopted the Built Green Program last August. They have hired the finest consultant in the northwest to establish the other five Built Green Programs in Washington State. The program gives homeowners an opportunity to choose from a checklist of over 200 items that address energy efficiency, environmental protection, and other things to create a better quality, sustainable home. Approve the resolution. Doug Rovell, 817 - 25th Street, Bellingham, asked the Council to ban the sale of tobacco, pass a resolution establishing a department of peace, and more vigorously prosecute people who litter. Marion Beddill, 3600 Seely, Bellingham, stated she agreed with the recommendation of the previous speaker. The Council will introduce an ordinance establishing new precinct names for elections. She has been working on the Whatcom Citizens Elections Advisory Committee. She supports the change with a minor hesitation. The numbering system is made in the unincorporated area with no gaps in the numbers which may not allow for growth in the area. She invited the Council to the Whatcom Human Rights Task Force annual award ceremony at the Faith Lutheran Church on Northwest Road at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 9. Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the Public Works Committee discussed the resolution approving the Whatcom County Six Year Transportation Improvement Program for 2006 through 2011 (AB2005- 246), specifically Lincoln Road. Birch Bay is an urban area. Think about speed control. Put in a three -way stop sign at Birch Bay Drive and Shintaffer Road. People from Birch Bay Village would have to stop there. Also, put in a four -way stop at Shintaffer Road and Lincoln Road. That would give automobiles from Shintaffer Road to get onto Lincoln Road. There is a problem on Lincoln Road. Post the speed at 35 miles per hour. People are concerned about having a stoplight at the corner where the gas station is on Harborview Road. Encourage the gas station to join the Birch Bay Public Lighting District to put up a light at that location. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE TO REMOVE EXISTING SCHOOL ZONE ON GULF ROAD (AB2005 -225) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 2 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2005 -227) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Tim Slater, 103 E. Holly Street, Bellingham, stated the plan is not a completed plan. He talked to Tom Anderson, Dick Grout, and Bruce Roll. No one will say it's a completed plan. According to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.82, the planning units, once there is a complete plan, will approve the plan by consensus, then bring it to the county for approval. The Lummi Tribe resolution refers to it as a road map for future planning. He's heard it said that it's a planned plan. He wrote a letter to Bruce Roll asking to look at certain records. However, when he went to look at the records, he was put in a room with about 75 binders and was told that the information he wanted was in there somewhere. He didn't have time to go through the binders, but he did find a summary of expenditures to- date. According to the information from the County, $5,420,000 from flood assessment fees have gone into this plan. That is an astronomical sum of money, and they don't have a plan. They want the Council to approve an incomplete plan and spend a bunch more money to get a plan. On the financial assessment, he didn't see where the U.S. government or the local tribes have put in one penny. No one has a common understanding of whether the tribes' reserved rights will be quantified. Marlene Dawson, 4029 Salt Spring Drive, Ferndale, stated the State legislature set up a procedure for county caucuses to address their water rights. This procedure was to limit litigation with tribes, which have senior water rights. Few people admit that the Point Elliot Treaty tribes never received title to reservation lands. Therefore, no tribal senior water right exists. The Point Elliot Treaty tribes were the only tribes in Washington that did not receive assigned land within the reservation boundaries. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly confirmed that finding in May. The reservation groundwater is a property right that attaches to the land, which went to the individual natives when the lands were allotted, and passes to subsequent purchasers. In addition, Judge Zilly said the primary purpose of the reservation was for agriculture and homesteading, and that fisheries is not a primary purpose because tribe was never granted exclusive rights to the fish within reservation waters. Other court cases determined that fisheries is not viewed as a civilizing effect, such as homesteading and agriculture is viewed, so it cannot be considered a primary purpose of the reservation. Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to grant the Lummi Tribe surface water quality control about five years ago. At that time, the County Council wrote a letter to the EPA challenging the Tribe's request for such control. Unknown to the Council, the EPA refused the Tribe's request because it could not prove tribal governance authority over any lands per its treaty. The treaty does not even mention the Lummi Tribe within the treaty in the context of establishing reservations. None of the 20 tribes are identified as to which of the four reservations they were assigned. False claims have empowered the tribes. Negotiations with tribes, which hold no more rights than any other property owner, is a waste of public resources. Please reconsider the tribes' placement at the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 table. Jeff McKay, 4693 Sucia Drive, Ferndale, stated there isn't a lot to show for what they've spent, but there is a framework for a process, at a cost of $5 million. He is not opposed to the WRIA process. The Council must make sure the process continues with a firm timeline and accountability. The process should be transparent. There should be a funding plan that doesn't rely on flood funds. The final result should be based on good science, good law, and good sense. Elizabeth Kilanowski, Bellingham, asked the Council to pass the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. She participated in the process as a citizen and environmental caucus member. The plan is necessary to manage water resources. The plan isn't perfect. It lacks a funding mechanism and contains too many generalities. However, it embraces the concept of adaptive management, which may allow decision makers and county residents to change the language to fit future needs. Separate the watershed management plan from the other more controversial products from Utah State University (USU). Much disagreement surrounded the role of USU. Many county residents spent many hours on this plan voluntarily. Begin the process of understanding and managing water resources. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he supports going forward with the WRIA plan, but they have spent too much time and money to get to this point. In the future, be more efficient. The volunteers had a difficult time staying involved. Set goals and budgets to make sure they get something for the money spent. Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she supports the Council's approval of the plan as it is even though it is not a detailed plan. An enormous amount of work has gone into the plan. It has merit and value, and is a base for ongoing activity. Those who are making complaints in the process were not involved in it. Every interested group could have participated and made proposals to develop the Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 4 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. plan. There has been a public process. Have some financial accountability and direct success. They have to do all they can to manage water for all. Judy Slotemaker, 840 E. Pole Road, Lynden, Whatcom Water Systems Caucus, stated she worked on the plan. The process is an essential part of the solution. The plan is finally a reality. Skeptics say it is just a process generating a lot of paper and not much substance. Development of the plan did take a long time, but the process worked. To make it all happen, no one got mad, had to compromise their principles and values, or walked away. All parties involved worked together on the common goal with unprecedented cooperation. The group will continue to develop an effective decision making process as they gear up to meet the water resource challenges. The process was slow, but stable. Some say more should have been accomplished. On the contrary, the plans limited approach to test pilot projects is one of the plan's greatest strengths. Key water resource issues are still uncertain, which demands the cautious, incremental approach embodied in the plan. The plan will evolve over time as they learn more. She suggested sunset clause on the funding. These efforts have a tendency to take on a life of their own and become self - perpetuating, tax - consuming processes long after their initial purpose has been fulfilled or lost. Prevent that undesirable transformation. Wind down the funding as the goals of the project are achieved. Marco Hubert, 4457 Dewey Road, Private Well Owners Caucus representative, stated he urged the Council to approve the plan as it is. A tremendous amount of work has gone into it. It is a good, representative plan. Carl Weimer, 1055 W. Laurel Road, Ferndale, Environmental Community Caucus representative, stated he agrees with everything Judy Slotemaker just said. He recommends approval of the resolution and the funding to go along with the plan. Without funding, the plan is a waste of time. Tom Anderson, Public Utility District (PUD) 1 General Manager, stated he recommends that the Council approve the resolution. This is the fifth effort he has engaged in with the Tribes and other water users to resolve the water rights issues. By far, this is the greatest progress they've made since 1991. Based on State and federal law and court cases, water law is very complex. They are making good progress. The original budget estimate for completing this plan was $12 million. They have not spent that much yet. That amount pales in comparison to the court costs that the County would have incurred if they end up in a contentious litigation over water. Fights over water in the Western United States have taken decades and cost tens of millions of dollars. They are far ahead financially and in terms of accomplishing goals for the community. He supports the plan and future funding. Tom Mortimer, Seattle, stated he is the Washington Water Council legal counsel. His professional opinion is that this plan meets the requirements. It is a substantial plan. It is not an easy process, but it's better than litigation. He Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. encourages the Council to pass the plan tonight. In addition, the Lummi Tribe is recognized as a federal tribe by the federal government. The local planning group is obliged to negotiate with the Lummi Tribe, which it has. He welcomes their ongoing participation. Fleetwood asked about the claim that it's not ready for approval because it's not complete. Mortimer stated the State Department of Ecology has substantial discretion to determine whether a plan is complete. The statute requires a water quantity assessment and a study that assesses the various natural and environmental conditions that occur in the basin. Relative to other plans the Department of Ecology has approved and which are a fraction of the size of this plan, the WRIA 1 plan is complete. The agency has discretion on the plan given the content and substance of the plan. Henry Bierlink, 1796 Front Street, Lynden, Agricultural Caucus representative, stated he encourages the Council to pass the plan. The plan goes to the principles of watershed planning, which is letting local people wrestle the issues and devise local solutions. The plan has done that. The plan does not get them to where they want to be, but it leads them in the right direction. He is looking forward to the next step of implementing the plan. Certain implementing projects have received grant funding already. Vern VandeGarde, 8837 Double Ditch Road, Bertrand Watershed Improvement District (WID), thanked the Council for its support. He encourages the Council to approve the resolution. It is not a finished product, but it gets them to where they want to go. It provides local control and gets people talking locally. Nelda Sigurdson, 5171 Ferndale Road, stated her caucus doesn't agree. She feels betrayed because she thought her tax money was going to flood control. They don't even intend to mow the dikes to see where the weaknesses are. She depends on the dikes in front of her place for protection. Rather than saving salmon, they should be saving land and crops, given the population growth. She's been working on this since the 1940's. The cost of water charged to her customers is more than the water is worth because they have to keep up with the what they must put on paper. There is no concrete result. The County spent an astronomical amount of money on this project. The County hasn't gotten any approval from the tribes. Don't appoint the representative who has, in the past, represented other tribes. Robert Bezona, 2219 Lummi Shore Road, Bellingham, stated he agreed with what Nelda Sigurdson, Marlene Dawson, and others said. Wait until Judge Zilly gives his report and quantifies this water before they go too far. The Lummi Tribe may be curtailed a little bit. Now, they get preferential treatment. He has been negotiating with them for 20 years, without success. If the County wants to negotiate, get someone who knows what they're talking about. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 6 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Slater stated he spent four years at the negotiation table with the Lummi Tribe, Department of Ecology, and the federal government. That experience resembles what they are doing with this plan. He thought he was getting somewhere, but the goalpost was constantly moved. People think that the result of this process will be quantification of tribal reserved water rights. However, the tribal resolutions say that is not their objective. He is concerned about the cost, also. The Council is looking at funding sources for many projects. There is a finite amount of resources. The plan is not complete, and the Department of Ecology would not consider it a complete plan. The question is whether the statute allows approving an incomplete plan with hopes that instream flows, water quality standards, and other things will eventually be addressed in a future complete plan. He respects the people who have been involved for the last six years. His experience with negotiations was a waste of time. Only a judge can quantify water rights. Linnea Smith, 2808 Leeward Way, Bellingham, stated she is concerned about a tax that is referred to in section four to pay for this. If the County approves this resolution, it is saying that it approves the tax. She asked if the councilmembers really know everything that is in the plan and are prepared for the consequences. Richard Grout, Department of Ecology Bellingham Office Manager, stated the statute provides that Department Ecology be the lead agency for all State agencies in ESHB 2514 watershed planning. It's primary responsibility is to ensure that the State has been a party to discussions and agrees to any obligations imposed on State agencies by any of the watershed plans. They have done that with the Whatcom County plan. Mr. Mortimer is right about the statute giving the agency broad latitude. People in Olympia have reviewed the plan and determined there is nothing in this plan that makes the plan incomplete, especially since the Nooksack River already has an instream flow rule. The Department of Ecology hopes that a result is a better instream flow rule. Nothing in the plan would cause the Department of Ecology to say the plan is incomplete. He has been involved in this for 11 years. This is the most hopeful he's been that they might actually get to a solution. If they don't, they will go forward with more creative approaches or will do a traditional general stream adjudication. The Yakima County adjudication is in its 30th year, and it is just winding down. The cost of this process pales in comparison to Yakima's adjudication cost. Ed Henken, Ferndale, Diking and Drainage Caucus representative, stated he is in favor of the plan. The plan is not perfect, but better than the alternative. They have to get the agricultural water users legal. Elisabeth Britt, 1403 North Shore Drive, Bellingham, submitted and read her testimony (on file). She strongly encourages the Council to adopt the plan. The plan represents the entire community. They can continue to plan a strong future. Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 7 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson moved to approve the resolution. They will be able to solve this problem without spending the many millions of dollars that other have spent. Budgetary funding mechanisms will be necessary. There will be interjurisdictional statutory requirements. Local control is an essential element of the plan. He is happy they have come this far. He thanked the community for working collaboratively on this project. Brenner stated the plan is not a complete, finalized plan. It is an evolving plan serving as a framework. That is what it was intended to be and that is what they've done. They may not avoid court costs, but this plan may reduce court costs. If they operate in good faith, it will show in court. She supports the plan. Nothing in the WRIA plan commits the County to collecting a tax. There are many funding options. One idea is to wean the County from being the money provider. Make sure certain taxing districts contribute their fair share. No matter how good this plan is, the process can derail if they don't keep close track of it and help it along. She came into this process reluctantly. However, she's never seen such a diverse, polarized group of people get together to create a framework like this. It's a good start, but it's only a start. Fleetwood stated that in the face of rampant growth, the plan is necessary. He supports the plan resolution. Roy stated Mr. Slater said he spent 100 hours with the County's record. However, 100 hours is not even close to the time the Council has spent on this plan. She acknowledged Dr. Roll for his efforts and hard work. The staff worked hard to get the Council to support their efforts. If they went to litigation right now, the agricultural community, which does not have water rights, would not be considered vested parties in the discussions. They would be eliminated from all of the discussions about water rights. That is one of the reasons they are doing this. They are working through a process where the agricultural community has legitimate water rights. She is in favor of the resolution and the plan. Crawford stated the Council spends more time on this issue than any other. Former Councilmember Dawson helped him understand the importance of water issues in the community. This issue has brought folks together. He encouraged Ms. Slotemaker to submit her testimony to Scott Ayers at the Bellingham Herald for the public to read. It will help folks understand where they are today. McShane stated he agrees with everyone's comments. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the plan. There was much community participation. Many volunteers spent their personal time working on this plan to find community solutions. She has hope for implementing the plan. She would like to know how much it would cost to implement some of the elements Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 8 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. in the plan. In the future, they will have to proceed step by step to win community support from the bottom up. Throughout the community and outside of the county, many people have a lot of respect for the plan because it is so thorough. This plan could be a model for other counties. She feels bad that people are dissatisfied with the plan, and hopes people will feel more comfortable once they begin implementation. This path is better than adjudication. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through 12. Caskey- Schreiber withdrew items two and 11. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one, three through ten, and twelve carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PURCHASE, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,000 (AB2005 -234) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT, SUPPLEMENT #2, BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR RIGHT - OF -WAY ACQUISITION RELATED TO SUNRISE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CPR #998023, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,616 (AB2005 -235) Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. Crawford stated the concern would be appropriately addressed to item 11. The firm has already done this work, and this is a contract extension. Caskey- Schreiber stated she realizes that the work has already been done, but she has not supported the work. She does not support the condemnation or the request. Motion to approve carried 4 -3 with Roy, Brenner, and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 9 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ISLAND COMMUTER SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2005, THROUGH JULY 31, 2006, TO PROVIDE ON -CALL EMERGENCY AND DRY DOCK COVERAGE FOR THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 (AB2005 -236) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE PROJECT NO. 05ST -14 TO INCREASE SPENDING BY $9,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,750 (AB2005- 237) S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTYWIDE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO SOLIDIFY EFFORTS TO KEEP THE COUNTYWIDE MEDIC ONE PROGRAM OPERATION AT CURRENT LEVELS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006 (AB2005 -238) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05- 35, THE ON -CALL CONTRACTOR/ EQUIPMENT LIST, TO ALL 21 NAMES ON THE LIST AND OBTAIN APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH EACH OF THE RESPONSIVE CONTRACTORS. CONTRACTORS WOULD ONLY BE USED SHOULD A SPECIFIC NEED ARISE (IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MORE THAN $35,000 COULD BE SPENT WITH A SINGLE VENDOR) (AB2005 -239) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05- 37 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, BARKERS WOODCHIPPING, FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF LARGE TREES WITH ROOTWADS, TO BE USED IN A PLANNED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,976 (AB2005 -240) 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05- 39 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WHITE CAP CONSTRUCTION, FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF COIR CLOTH, TO BE USED IN A PLANNED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,382.89 (AB2005 -241) 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DAN BOYCE AND TERESA BOYCE TO LEASE THE HOUSE LOCATED AT Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 10 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 5305 NIELSEN AVENUE, FERNDALE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $795.00 PER MONTH (AB2005 -242) 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BRIAN SHAUN THOMPSON AND GINGER THOMPSON TO LEASE THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 673 N. LAKE SAMISH DRIVE, BELLINGHAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100.00 PER MONTH (AB2005 -243) 11. RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 998023, SUNRISE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FROM BIRCH BAY - LYNDEN TO WEST BADGER ROAD, AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO IMCO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. AS LOW BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,259,945.60 (AB2005 -244) Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the resolution. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. There are other pressing road projects with no funding but with much higher volumes of traffic. This road can wait. It is not much used at all, compared with the volumes of other roads that are under duress. This item should be a lower priority on the six -year road plan. Roy stated she agreed with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. They can't do it all. There is a situation close to an emergency at intersections with a level of service rating close to F. There is nothing they can do about those intersections unless something higher on the list is removed. This project is based on a 20 -year old plan. The road doesn't get much traffic. There are other routes people can use to avoid this road. There is $4 million from this project that needs to be used on roads the citizens heavily travel. Brenner asked councilmembers to reprioritize the list. It doesn't mean this project will not get done. Once this money is committed, it will be difficult to reprioritize, which it the purpose of the six -year road improvement plan. There are new circumstances. They know how bad it is at Birch Bay. The County is funneling a lot of growth to Birch Bay. They must fix and upgrade the roads in Birch Bay. She moved to hold this item in committee. Nelson stated that even if they wanted to do this, no timeframe will change on the Birch Bay issue. There are other ways to address the issue with Birch Bay, such as fees from developer. Staff from engineering is short. There is no way the staff can get to this project, so the project will just sit. Therefore, nothing will have been done on Lincoln Road and they would have wasted time on this project. Crawford stated he agreed with Councilmember Nelson. The County all - weather road project was heavily lobbied for and was a successful planning effort of Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. the agricultural, traffic, and other industries who need essential supply routes in all weather conditions. This is the final leg of that route. The dairy industry needs and uses this connection. The road is in really bad shape. It badly needs replaced, whether or not it is all- weather. He understands the concerns with Birch Bay and other areas in the county. A number of areas are getting more congested. This is one of them. He cannot tell the residents that Birch Bay should be the highest priority. To forgo a 20 -year project of all- weather roads without hearing from the trucking or agricultural industries would be inappropriate. Brenner stated she agrees, which is why she would like to table the issue. They don't have all the information on this issue. The Engineering Division doesn't have the staff it needs to work on Lincoln Road. Mr. Bovencamp is negotiable about supplying funding and engineering capacity on the project. Get more specifics. Roy stated this is not the place to get into the relative merits of the different projects. When they do discuss the merits, the Council is always told why it can't change the priority. Put this item back in committee. Have an honest, real discussion instead of being told why nothing can happen. The Lincoln Road extension has also been going on for 20 years. Fleetwood asked if there is any harm to be done by holding the Sunrise Road project. Jim Karcher, Engineering Manager - Design /Construction, stated Sunrise Road is one of the worst roads in the county. Staff has spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this project. The utilities will be moved in a week. They have all the right -of -way. This project is poised and ready to go. Caskey- Schreiber asked where people are traveling now. Karcher stated he can't speak to whether this road is the highest priority in the county. It's a dangerous road. They have two 8 -foot panels for a 16 -foot roadway with little shoulder. They have been spending maintenance money trying to keep the shoulders filled in. A car has to move off the panel to pass a truck. The County has some liability there to not fix that road. If held for two weeks, it will affect the schedule. There are two bridges that have a fish window associated with the replacement. There has been wetland mitigation. Crawford stated he can't believe that this is becoming a sacrificial Iamb. This project has been planned. It appears this opposition is a knee -jerk reaction to a lot of folks who came to a meeting today from another area. The Council would not be responsible by taking this off the table at this point. Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to pull this item even before hearing anyone testify today. She spoke against this project the last time it came up. If the citizens on the road are fighting the County against the road repair, there is no Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 12 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. reason for the County to put funds toward the project when other areas need attention. Brenner stated this is not a knee -jerk reaction for her. The Lincoln Road connector has weighed heavily on her for a long time. She was told today that the county funding is getting low, and they need to be careful of how they are going to spend the money. Regarding six -year road plans in general, she's not interested in being a rubber stamp for anyone. She asked the reason for bringing the plan to the Council, if there is no negotiating the project priority. It seems like they always talk about doing things differently, but nothing ever happens because staff claims they can't make any changes. She has been on Sunrise Road. It is in bad shape. Roads all over the County are in equal or worse shape. Don't talk about liability. The County is a rural provider of service, not urban provider of service. Nelson stated capacity is a significant issue. They have reserve funds that can be borrowed from and paid back by the road fund. Funding is available. If the project is that important, they can get the funding. The issue is whether or not they have time to get it done. Holding the money from this project will not solve the concerns. He is also concerned about Lincoln Road, but funding is not the issue. McShane stated it's important to have debate and discussion on the six -year road plan. He had not supported projects on the plan in the past. However, when the contract comes forward, the issue is whether the contract is acceptable. The Council adopted the annual construction plan with this project ranked highly. A few times, the Council had questioned the project ranking. The Council is really starting to think about priorities, which is controversial. They need a healthy debate about the project ranking in the next round. This contract is a good, sound contract that meets the will of the Council. He's not thrilled about the project, but they should go forward with the contract. Roy stated she is frustrated when given something to prioritize and then being told they can't change the priority. The Public Works Department told the councilmembers that the problem was financial. The Council was told that it could move two projects out of the list to put the Lincoln Road connector higher on the list. However, those two projects were projects the Council would never move. They were told they have a choice, but they really don't. They are really being asked to just approve it as it is. That's her perception of what happens in this process. She will not support this item. Either don't ask the Council to approve the plan, or give the Council some latitude to change the priority. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Nelson stated the process is frustrating for all the councilmembers. They all hear from their constituents. They must work with what they have. This is a plan. It is not etched in granite. Consider that the county is growing, how they can Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 13 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. address the issues, identify the areas that are growing, and determine the resources that are available. Those elements constantly change. Motion to hold in committee failed 3 -4 with Roy, Brenner, and Caskey - Schreiber in favor. Motion to approve carried 4 -3 with Roy, Brenner, and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 12. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 904021, E. SMITH CREEK BRIDGE NO. 277 REPLACEMENT, AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD CONTRACT TO STRIDER CONSTRUCTION AS LOW BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $634,265.50 (AB2005 -245) OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION PROMOTING THE USE OF LEED STANDARDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION OF COUNTY BUILDINGS AND IN THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR (AB2005- 233) Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to approve the substitute version. Crawford stated he will vote for this resolution, but he has a concern. The resolution says that the State of Washington passed legislation requiring all new public buildings to meet these Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) standards anyway, so the State legislation may trump the County resolution. Brenner stated the State legislation is applied to State public buildings. Crawford stated they should allow future councils the maximum amount of flexibility in investing in future facilities. This is commendable if the County is allowed to weigh the financial merits of various building designs. This resolution resolves to meet the silver rating for buildings over 5,000 square feet. If the Council has an option that does not meet that rating, yet there is a cost analysis showing the option is the financially prudent way to go, then don't tie the hands of future councils from making that decision. He trusts that the lifecycle cost analysis will show that a project can meet the silver rating and still be the most cost - effective, so he will approve the resolution. However, he is concerned they are tying the hands of future councils. Brenner stated the Building Industry Association and others around the country are getting on board with this because of the combination of long -term costs, which public agencies need to address. This is an excellent collaborative Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 14 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. effort between the building and environmental groups. LEED is about having that balance. She supports the resolution. Caskey- Schreiber stated this type of building may cost more than a normal building in construction, but there are savings in energy costs, worker health, and other areas. In the long run, LEED buildings produce a cost savings. Motion carried unanimously. 2. APPOINTMENT TO ACME WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, APPLICANTS: EUGENE ROBERTS, JACKLYN ROSSING (AB2005 -214) Caskey- Schreiber stated that Ms. Rossing's husband is the manager of Water District 18. She asked if that is a conflict. Jacklyn Rossing, applicant, stated Acme Water District is a special water district in the county. It is sometimes referred as Water District 18. Caskey- Schreiber asked if her husband receives a paid salary. Rossing stated he does. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there may be circumstances that arise that could be a conflict of interest for Jacklyn Rossing. Brenner stated she would like to take the time to find out for sure. Caskey- Schreiber stated the board supervises and works with the staff. Nelson withdrew his motion. The Council concurred to hold in committee for two weeks. Crawford asked the number of water users in the district. Rossing stated there are around 200 water users in the district. 3. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF AMY VERGILLO THE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2005 -247) Brenner moved to confirm the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.92.210, HEARING EXAMINER, FINAL DECISIONS, TO CLARIFY PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED LANGUAGE (AB2005 -215) Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 15 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS McShane moved to accept the Introduction Items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2005 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SIXTH REQUEST (AB2005 -248) 2. ORDINANCE REPLACING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.14 (IN ITS ENTIRETY), DESIGNATING ELECTION PRECINCT NAMES AND THEIR LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS (AB2005 -252) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 20.15 — MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS, ESTABLISHING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH SUCH FACILITIES WILL BE ALLOWED (AB2005 -105) (AS REVISED BY THE COUNCIL ON MAY 24, 2005) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Fleetwood stated the Planning and Development Committee received an update on the subarea planning process. Bellingham must accommodate 31,000 people, which equals 14,000 housing units. Approximately 9,000 housing units would be in the existing city limits and the remaining in the existing urban growth area (UGA) or the five -year review area. City and County planners are working with the community on a steering committee to develop recommendations for how to do that. The process is ongoing. The Council will act on this some time by the end of the year. The timeline for finishing the UGA planning are mandated to be done by then. ADJOURN Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on June 21 , 2005. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 6/7/2005, Page 17