HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 13 20041
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
January 13, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
McShane announced that the following four items were discussed in executive
session during the Committee of the Whole meeting:
Discussion with the administration regarding a personnel issue
(AB2004 -018).
McShane moved to allow the administration to enter into an agreement
regarding health insurance for a retired deputy.
Motion carried unanimously.
Request authorization for the Executive to sign Memorandum of
Understanding extending the expired 2000 -2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement by and between Whatcom County and Teamsters Local 231,
Sheriff's Support Staff Bargaining Unit through 2003 (AB2004 -054)
McShane moved to approve authorization.
Motion carried unanimously.
Request authorization for the Executive to sign Memorandum of
Understanding extending the expired 2000 -2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement by and between Whatcom County and Teamsters Local 231,
Corrections Officers Bargaining Unit through 2003 (AB2004 -055)
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
McShane moved to approve authorization.
Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding
legal defense of a County employee (AB2004 -018). This was an open
meeting.
Discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor David Grant Regarding BP
Cogeneration Plant issues (AB2004 -018).
McShane stated he abstained from attending the meeting since it pertains to
the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC).
Roy stated there is no motion for this item.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ANNUAL REORGANIZATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
(AB2004 -022)
Council Chair
Nelson nominated McShane, and withdrew his name from the position.
Crawford nominated Crawford.
Crawford voted for Crawford.
Caskey- Schreiber voted for McShane.
Fleetwood voted for McShane.
McShane voted for McShane.
Brenner voted for McShane.
Nelson voted for McShane.
Roy voted for McShane.
Councilmember McShane was appointed Council Chair.
Council Vice -Chair
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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
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 nominated Crawford.
Brenner nominated Caskey- Schreiber.
Roy voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
Nelson voted for Crawford.
Brenner voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
McShane voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
Fleetwood voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
Caskey- Schreiber voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
Crawford voted for Crawford.
Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber was appointed Council Vice - Chair.
Executive Pro Tempore
Fleetwood nominated Crawford.
Nelson moved to approve the nomination by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
McShane withdrew his name from the position.
Roy stated she would add her name to the position, and remove her name
from the Planning Committee.
McShane moved to appoint Councilmembers Nelson, Crawford, and Roy by
acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee
McShane withdrew his name from the position.
Crawford nominated Councilmembers Crawford, Fleetwood, Caskey -
Schreiber, and Brenner.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
Crawford voted for Crawford, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner.
Caskey- Schreiber voted for Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner.
Fleetwood voted for Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner.
McShane voted for Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Crawford.
Brenner voted for Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner.
Nelson voted for Fleetwood, Crawford, and Caskey- Schreiber.
Roy voted for Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner.
Councilmembers Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber, and Brenner were
appointed to the Planning and Development Committee.
Public Works Committee
Crawford nominated Councilmember Nelson.
McShane moved to appoint Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously,
Natural Resources Committee
McShane withdrew his name from the Natural Resources Committee position.
Crawford withdrew his name from the Natural Resources Committee position.
McShane moved to appoint Councilmembers Fleetwood, Caskey- Schreiber,
and Roy by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously,
Other Committee Assignments (Uncontested)
Bellingham International Airport Advisory Committee
Crawford moved to appoint Brenner.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 4
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.
1 Council of Governments (2)
2
3 Nelson moved to appoint Fleetwood and Crawford by acclamation.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee
8
9 Caskey- Schreiber moved to appoint Roy.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Economic Development Council
14
15 McShane withdrew his name from the position. He nominated Crawford.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber nominated Caskey- Schreiber.
18
19 Roy voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
20
21 Nelson voted for Crawford.
22
23 Brenner voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
24
25 McShane voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
26
27 Fleetwood voted for Crawford.
28
29 Caskey- Schreiber voted for Caskey- Schreiber.
30
31 Crawford voted for Crawford.
32
33 Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber was appointed,
34
35
36 Forestry Advisory Forum
37
38 McShane moved to appoint Nelson.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 Health and Human Services Advisory Board (2)
43
44 Nelson nominated Councilmember Brenner.
45
46 McShane moved to appoint Nelson and Brenner by acclamation.
47
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 5
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.
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 Public Health Advisory Board
4
5 McShane moved to appoint Nelson.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8
9 Developmental Disabilities
10 Roy nominated Roy.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Mental Health Advisory Board
15
16 McShane moved to appoint Brenner.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Substance Abuse Board
21
22 McShane moved to appoint Crawford.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Intergovernmental Tribal Relations Committee (2)
27
28 McShane moved to appoint Fleetwood and Brenner by acclamation.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters (LEOFF) Board
33
34 McShane moved to appoint McShane.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 Local Emergency Planning Committee
39
40 McShane moved to appoint McShane.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Marine Resources Committee
45
46 McShane moved to appoint Roy.
47
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 6
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.
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 North Sound Regional Support Network
4
5 McShane moved to appoint Nelson.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8
9 Northwest Air Pollution Authority
10
11 McShane moved to appoint Caskey- Schreiber.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Northwest Regional Council
16
17 McShane moved to appoint Nelson.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District
22
23 McShane moved to appoint Roy .
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 Opportunity Council
28
29 McShane moved to appoint Crawford.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Public Defense Advisory Board
34
35 McShane withdrew his name from the position.
36
37 Fleetwood withdrew his name from the position.
38
39 McShane nominated Brenner.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 Solid Waste Advisory Committee
44
45 Roy voted for Brenner.
46
47 Nelson voted for McShane.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
Brenner voted for Brenner.
McShane voted for McShane.
Fleetwood voted for Brenner.
Caskey- Schreiber voted for McShane.
Crawford voted for McShane.
Councilmember McShane was appointed to the position.
Urban County Caucus
Nelson nominated McShane.
Crawford nominated Crawford.
McShane moved to appoint Crawford.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom Transit Authority
McShane moved to appoint Fleetwood.
Motion carried unanimously.
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC)
McShane stated he has already been appointed to this position earlier, and
he doesn't think they can change it at this point. EFSEC has not met to discuss BP
nearly as much as it did for Sumas Energy 2, which totaled 33 day -long meetings.
MINUTES CONSENT
McShane moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
1. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR DECEMBER 2, 2003
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DECEMBER 9, 2003
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 9, 2003
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Jocelyn Winslow, Alzheimer's Society of Bellingham Representative, stated a
fund raiser walk is to take place next week. She submitted a brochure (on file).
The City Council challenged the County Council to participate.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, asked the number of councilmembers who
support the BP Co- Generation Plant.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane left the room due to a conflict of
interest because he is on EFSEC.)
Caskey- Schreiber asked Mr. Wiesen to define "support." Wiesen stated
supporting it means trying to make it possible.
Fleetwood stated it's more complicated than that.
Wiesen asked if the co- generation plant is zoned right, conforms or exceeds
to all environmental standards, and if it would add to the tax base. He asked how
much money they are spending to frustrate BP at this point, and if they've hired
experts to frustrate BP.
Mildred Snydar, 302 Ten Mile Road, Lynden, asked for a boundary line
adjustment to give four acres to her daughter. She was told by Kraig Olason to
come to the County Council.
Brian Calder, Point Roberts, submitted a petition from people who object to
the bylaw passed regarding tree retention in Point Roberts. He's been a consultant
for real estate, land use, and development for 30 years. He's never seen a tree
retention policy like this one. Point Roberts is not being treated fairly. It has no
growth industries, no employment for the young people, or land zoned as
industrial. Contractors can't legally park their equipment anywhere. The cluster
housing designation has been foisted onto Point Roberts. People don't come to
Point Roberts for cluster housing except by the golf course and marina. A proposed
air park and race track are land intensive, but don't provide an employment base.
Everything in the planning laws are punitive. There is precious little guidance in the
laws. Point Roberts deserves better.
Jerry White, Point Roberts, stated he is involved in real estate sales for 20
years. The latest tree retention ordinance and Indian archaeology latest laws have
gone beyond the limits of what's fair and tolerable. Point Roberts is the only
community that has its own special rules. He questioned the benefit of the tree
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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
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.
retention policy. It only benefits the public, and not the owner. The Constitution
guarantees freedoms, and this action appropriates one's rights without any
consideration. Staff sends something to the County Council, which rubber - stamps
their proposals. On this issue, the councilmembers did not do their own thinking or
research.
Jo Slivinski, 6163 Semiahmoo Lane, submitted information regarding the
Birch Point rezone (on file). She represents Neighbors for Birch Point, which
organized a petition against the rezone. She asked the Council to approve the
Planning Commission's recommendation if this item is appealed to the County
Council. She asked if citizens cannot contact the Council if a matter is before them.
McShane stated this is not a site specific rezone. It's an area plan, so it
would be fine for the public to talk to the Council.
Ruby White, Point Roberts, stated the bureaucratic tail that wags the Council
is much larger than the County. The Council has to rely on staff reports and their
recommendations. The Point Roberts special district the Council adopted on
October 21, 2003 doesn't benefit any taxpayers or property owners. Singling out
their island is discriminatory. A sufficiently onerous tree retention regulation
already exists. Point Roberts is not apt to become urban. Whenever the citizens
request enforcement for any regulations they already have, they are told the
County doesn't have the money or the staff. She asked who is going to pay the
cost of enforcement for tree retention. The archaeological regulations are
redundant. It would have been sufficient to advise people when they come in for a
permit. It doesn't have to be incorporated into another layer of bureaucracy.
Brenner stated she supported that ordinance, but now has concerns. No one
who looks at property in Point Roberts is allowed to see the archeological map. She
asked if the Council can tweak this ordinance to make it so that someone can find
out easily if property is within such an area.
Ann Christie, Point Roberts, stated she is for the environment, trees, and
Mother Nature, but is also for the rights of property owners. The Council has it's
own agenda, and does not listen to the citizens of Point Roberts. Tourist and
recreational users come first, before the citizens. At a recent planning meeting, 98
percent of the people attending were against tree retention. There are many non -
buildable lots in Point Roberts because of septic problems. Adding more tree
retention laws only destroys the property owners who are paying the taxes on
them. The Council needs to buy all this land that is now rendered useless to their
owners and make them into parks.
Heather McPhee, Point Roberts, stated the people of Point Roberts need to
have a more vocal chance to be heard.
Neil Harvey, Point Roberts, stated he is trying to build a house on Claire Lane
in Point Roberts. The new archeology laws have put his project on hold for two to
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
four months because of the archeology study and laws. Due to these archeology
and tree retention changes, it will make Point Roberts a ghost town. Contractors
need to make a living in Point Roberts.
Sharon Crosier, Bellingham, stated the City of Bellingham decided to put the
issue of not allowing motor boats on Lake Whatcom for water protection in
committee. She asked the Council to put it on the ballot for the people to decide.
Two of the three main reasons given for not removing motorboats are because the
boats have always been there, before the reservoir, and; the County is working on
other things.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crosier continued to state that the third reason given for not removing
motorboats is because the boats are symbolic. Those are not good enough
reasons. The most efficient motors are 90 percent more efficient than the old two -
stroke engines. Let the public vote on whether or not boats are prohibited from the
lake.
Kent Nelson, Geneva, stated he opposes the previous speaker's view. Run
off is the real issue, not boats. The Council is doing everything it can to control the
runoff. Maybe the lake should be lined with hay bales and soil retention fences
instead. Boats are on the lake for three months out of the year.
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated electing
representatives is a valuable democratic element in the country. When the
elections are held, they have to trust the way the votes are counted or nothing else
much in politics will matter. Contact legislators to insist that a paper ballot be
maintained as an integral part of elections. Do not eliminate the paper vote.
Whatcom County already does that, and she thanked Auditor Forslof for delaying
any decision to do otherwise until the equipment has been adequately reviewed.
They must have the ability to audit the votes that are cast. Use the optical scan
ballots, which are similar to the paper ballot. It will allow for auditing an election
after a vote.
Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated they need to have
honest elections. He lived under a dictator and has seen a rigged election in
Venezuela. They're losing the means for maintaining a democracy.
Fritz Mueller, Point Roberts, stated he agreed with the points made by
previous speakers opposed to the tree retention regulations. The rules and
regulations are overwhelming. He can't do anything with his property. He
suggested scrapping the tree retention policy to let them do what they want with
their properties. They're not all standing by with their chain saws. They can't do
anything with sewers anyway. Anyone with mature trees on their property has the
right to log the trees. Instead, have guidelines on fire hazards and debris on roads
to allow citizens to do it in an orderly manner.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
Point Roberts is a beautiful place. The development permit on Lily Point has
expired. Part of that property is for sale. Find a way to purchase it and turn it into
a park. It is a choice property that would benefit everyone.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through 26.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through 26 carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
(DSHS) FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER
CONSOLIDATED JUVENILE SERVICES, SPECIAL SEX OFFENDER
DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE, COMMUNITY JUVENILE
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND THE CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY
DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $642,448
(AB2004 -030)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING & PSYCHIATRIC
CLINIC TO ENGAGE HOMELESS PEOPLE WITH CO- OCCURRING
DISORDERS IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT, AND TO ASSIST THEM IN OVERCOMING BARRIERS FOR
HOUSING, IN THE AMOUNT $60,000 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $102,122 (AB2004 -031)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE ARC OF WHATCOM COUNTY — PARENT
COALITION TO SUPPORT A BROAD -BASED COMMUNITY COALITION
OF PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND THEIR
PARENTS, GUARDIANS, AND CAREGIVERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDED AMOUNT OF $74,000
(AB2004 -032)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTH
SOUND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE ONGOING
REVENUE FOR MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING,
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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
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.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SPECIFIC CONTRACTUAL SERVICE IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,203 (AB2004 -033)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES TO
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $44,500 (AB2004 -034)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM VOLUNTEER CENTER TO PROVIDE VOLUNTEER SERVICES
TO A NUMBER OF COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS COMMUNITY
NON - PROFITS, SCHOOLS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AND
HEALTHCARE RELATED WORKSITES IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000
(AB2004 -035)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LAKE
WHATCOM RESIDENTIAL & TREATMENT CENTER TO PROVIDE FOR
THE RENT SUBSIDY PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,856
(AB2004 -036)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
BELLINGHAM WHATCOM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF THE
ANNUAL SKI TO SEA FESTIVAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,000
(AB2004 -037)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
BELLINGHAM / WHATCOM COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS
BUREAU TO PROVIDE VISITOR INFORMATION SERVICES AND
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY AREA IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2004 -038)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MAWSON, ET AL., FOR
REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY CASES
IN WHICH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER (AB2004 -039)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND SCOTT M. CHOATE, FOR DEFENDANTS
WHERE THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
DEFENDER; SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
040)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND BRIAN ZANOTELLI, FOR DEFENDANTS
WHERE THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER; SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
041)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND ANDREW L. SUBIN, FOR DEFENDANTS
WHERE THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER; SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
042)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND CARL S. PAGAC, FOR DEFENDANTS WHERE
THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
043)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND PAULA MCCANDLIS, FOR DEFENDANTS
WHERE THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
044)
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND MCGREEVY, ET AL., FOR DEFENDANTS
WHERE THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
045 )
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CRIMINAL INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND PAGE, ET AL., FOR DEFENDANTS WHERE
THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, SUPERIOR, JUVENILE AND DISTRICT COURTS (AB2004-
046)
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SUBSTANCE
ABUSE SERVICES, INCLUDING CRISIS SERVICES - ALCOHOL
PROTECTIVE CUSTODY CONTRACT WITH ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $57,529 (AB2004 -047)
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE
DELIVERY OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $250,392 (AB2004 -048)
20. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT CONTRACT ACCEPTING $75,000 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO HELP
COMPLETE THE REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND AMEND AS
NEEDED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PLAN PROGRAM, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND
THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB2004 -049)
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT CONTRACT ACCEPTING $600,000 FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO COMPLETE AN UPDATE
OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (AB2004-
050)
22. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
AWARD OF BID #03 -91 FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF RIP -RAP ROCK
TO THE APPROPRIATE VENDOR AS DICTATED BY THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR JOB, IN AN ANTICIPATED
AMOUNT OF MORE THAN $35,000 (AB2004 -051)
23. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
AWARD OF BID #03 -92 FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF MINERAL
AGGREGATES TO THE APPROPRIATE VENDOR AS DICTATED BY THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR JOB, IN AN
ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF MORE THAN $35,000 (AB2004 -052)
24. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF A VARIETY OF ROAD MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS
USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT FOR ROAD STRIPING
PAINT AND BEADS IN THE AMOUNT OF $375,000; HERBICIDES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $90,000; TIRES IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000;
GUARDRAILS AND MATERIALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000; AND
RUBBERIZED ASPHALT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2004 -053)
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, 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.
25. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXTENDING THE EXPIRED
2000 -2002 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 231,
SHERIFF'S SUPPORT STAFF BARGAINING UNIT THROUGH 2003
(AB2004 -054)
26. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXTENDING THE EXPIRED
2000 -2002 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 231,
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS BARGAINING UNIT THROUGH 2003
(AB2004 -055)
PUBLIC HEARING
3. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #09 -03 (AB2003 -412A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
The Treasurer's Office staff still needs to prepare the language for the agreement
for the sale of the property and easement.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the resolution refers to a
covenant that would be added to the property to provide a restriction. This applies
to public hearing items three through 12, which are all Sudden Valley properties.
The Property Management Committee recommends that a restrictive covenant be
added to the properties at the point of sale. The Treasurer indicated that the
wording for the covenant is not complete. The funding and recording also isn't
done. The Council should deal with these after the restrictive covenant has been
properly filed and recorded. The proposal is to keep the public hearing open until
the next Council meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if these lots are a part of the Sudden Valley density
reduction program. Desler stated that is correct.
4. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #10 -03 (AB2003- 413A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 16
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.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
S. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #11 -03 (AB2003 -414A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
6. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #12 -03 (AB2003- 415A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
7. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #13 -03 (AB2003- 416A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
8. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #14 -03 (AB2003- 417A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 17
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.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
9. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #15 -03 (AB2003- 418A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
10. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #16 -03 (AB2003- 419A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
11. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #17 -03 (AB2003- 420A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
12. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #18 -03 (AB2003- 421A)
McShane opened the public hearing.
No one spoke.
McShane stated the public hearing will remain open until January 27, 2004.
(Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item three for discussion of this item.)
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 18
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.
13. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
REQUEST #19 -03 (AB2003- 422A)
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP FOR SOME AREAS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AS DEFINED ON THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP)
(AB2003 -386)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, gave a staff report and provided a history of the
proposal.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs
Director, stated there are four concerns with this plan: a Growth Management Act
(GMA) concern, an increase in the cost of housing, compliance with the Whatcom
County Charter, and the water quality of Lake Whatcom.
The Growth Management Act requires Whatcom County to consider a variety
planning goals. The proposed ordinance is correct in that one GMA goal is to
protect the environment. However, there are other goals that should be
considered, including goals that deal with housing and property rights. Also, the
Comprehensive Plan must encourage affordable housing, promote a variety of
densities, and preserve existing housing. There is no mechanism to replace the
home sites eliminated by the downzone.
The Whatcom County Charter says that no regulation or ordinance shall be
generated without consideration of compensation for those unduly burdened. She
disagreed with the Council that no one would be unduly burdened. Property owners
in the watershed will be unduly burdened. The language 'unduly burdened" in the
Charter is a much lower legal standard than an "all viable use" standard.
No one denies that safe drinking water is important for a community. She
has not seen any comprehensive analysis about whether this specific watershed
that had pinpointed the actual causes and sources of contamination. Whatcom
County has enacted a number of regulations this year that have already greatly
reduced and restricted development. It does not deny the fact that houses that
have not yet been built do not pollute the lake.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 19
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.
She asked that this downzone not be passed.
Carl Batchelor, 754 Cain Lake Road, stated he owns 32 acres in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. He supports the downzone. He asked the Council to look
again at the Planning staff and Planning Commission recommendation regarding the
transfer of development right (TDR) program. If they do downzone his property,
he would like to transfer his development rights at the pre - downzone density,
which is one house per two acres. Half of his 32 acres is outside the watershed.
Allow his density to be transferred.
Chris Dillard, People for Lake Whatcom President, stated there is plenty land
supply in Bellingham to meet GMA requirements. The downzone doesn't raise any
GMA issues in terms of land supply. He supports the downzone. He read his
statement into the record (on file). Don't link the downzone with TDR program.
Eliminate densities greater than one unit per five acres.
Jan Adams, 1709 - 4t" Street, Bellingham, stated she supports the
downzone. It's a start. They have a sensitive area here and globally. They're
over - populating the world, and must make critical choices. This is their only
drinking water source. They're selling drinking water to other countries. It will be
far more expensive to buy drinking water than the cost of the downzone. It's
simplistic to say the problem is just runoff. Western Washington University has
studied the lake for ten years, and shown it's dying. Basins one and two are
already polluted. The third basin has flushed out the lake, but they can't rely on it
to continue. The boat and logging operations are not good for the lake. They need
to think about how much blacktop is going in around the lake. There are also
pesticides and fertilizers. The resource is unrenewable.
Ellen Gray, Thousand Friends of Washington, stated she supports the rezone.
It protects the water quality of Lake Whatcom, the rural and scenic areas around
the lake, and other critical areas around the lake. She read her letter into the
record (on file).
Seth Cool, 1083 Chuckanut Drive, thanked Council for the rezone. This step
will protect drinking water. He agreed that this proposal doesn't go far enough, but
it's a beginning. If they link the rezone to the TDR program, it will unnecessarily
burden that program. TDR's are complex. The current program has never been
used. To design a functioning program is difficult. Make sure there are enough
receiving areas for the supply of TDR's.
Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, stated he supports downzoning. It's a
fairness issue. There is incontrovertible evidence that development pollutes the
water because of fertilizers. He has a right to good water. There is a question of
whether the people who live on the lake have a right to take his water away from
him. With the increased algae bloom, there will have to be more water treatment
with chlorine. That results in organic chlorides, which is a carcinogen. Robin
Matthews has been working on this for years. Her work is good.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 20
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.
David Henry, 4613 Willis Street, Bellingham, thanked the Council for taking
on this issue. This is not a problem this Council created, but it is taking the flack
for it. This development pattern happened a hundred years ago, and they're
dealing with it now. People in 100 years will thank this Council for providing water
for them to drink. The Growth Management Act did not mean for people to move
into a reservoir. Look at the Cedar River watershed as an example. A recent tour
by school kids were the only ones let into the watershed, and had to haul out their
trash from lunch. The reservoir for Snohomish County is similarly protected.
Skagit County's reservoir is also protected. Having all these people live in one
place on the reservoir is an anomaly. He supports the downzone. They have to
balance everyone's rights.
Carol Fugelstad, 4613 Willis Street, Bellingham, stated she agrees with
previous speakers and supports the downzone.
Jon Sitkin, Western Washington University attorney, stated he would speak
about Western's property on the lake called Lakewood. There is an unintended
consequence of the downzone that affects the manner of future modifications to the
facility. The loss in density is not a problem.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Sitkin continued to state that there is a process of conditional use permitting
that would replace administrative approval for larger modifications, and minor
modifications could be approved outright. The zoning conditional use permit
criteria changes the area to rural, which makes modifications harder to approve.
They recently experienced an appeal under the urban classification to install Bullard
lights for safety reasons. This request deals with unintended consequences of how
this affects zoning approval. Lake Whatcom impervious surface limitations will still
apply to the site. The questions from the committee have been addressed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought they already modified the appropriate
section. Sitkin stated the committee did make the amendment. He recommends
the committee's amendment.
Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, stated this is a good thing. He
wanted to correct something he read in the newspaper. It was stated that logging
is the big problem in the lake, and development is not the problem. All the
evidence he has for Lake Whatcom is that the largest concentration of pollutions
comes from the most developed areas. Mr. Pratum submitted the statistical
analysis of the data the Department of Ecology collected. As the Department of
Ecology collects more data, that trend is supported more strongly. Recent
newspaper articles call into question all they've heard over the last few years.
McShane stated that statement wasn't made by the newspaper, but by
someone who wrote to the newspaper.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 21
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.
Robyn duPre, 2203 - 22 d Street, Bellingham, stated she supports the
downzone. A study from 1,000 Friends of Washington found that a ten to 15
percent covering of impervious surface in a landscape was enough to result in
measurable degradation of water quality. When they're looking at the number of
rooftops, driveways, and roadways that support 1,400 households, the impervious
surfaces become a huge issue. It is easier to downzone than change the
regulations on things such as how big a roof can be, which can be onerous.
She encouraged the Council to consider the cautionary principal. The
Building Industry Association (BIA) representative testified that there is not
conclusive evidence that development is the problem in this particular watershed.
However, one should be able to draw some conclusions about the impact of
development on water quality from every other urban area in the country. Take
precautions now. If studies later show that development is not a problem, then the
Council can upzone the land.
Property rights end where her nose starts and where her mouth touches the
drinking glass. She would like to think they can have clean drinking water into the
future. She would like to see more from the Council in the coming months and
years.
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon, stated Steve Hood referred to a
memo he gave the Council on December 5, 2003, which went through the analysis
of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) data. That analysis, along with the work
done by Robin Matthews, show this downzone is needed. Residential development
has an effect on the lake. This effect may not have been known when zoning was
put into place in the late 1970's and early 1980's. It's become clear in the last 20
years that this effect is real. The downzone is a good thing. He liked the original
downzone proposal better. More areas were downzoned. However, he understands
the reasoning for the changes.
Transfers of development rights (TDRs) are necessary to save the
watershed. There are 3,500 undeveloped parcels in the urban residential, three
units per acre (UR -3) zone. When all those parcels are divided, there could be
4,000 to 5,000 parcels in the UR -3 zone that this downzone won't affect. The
TDR's are necessary for that. Giving out TDR's for this downzone is a little bit
dangerous. Giving TDR's on speculative development rights is not worth as much
as giving TDR's to someone with previously- existing lots. They're going to have a
lot of those to deal with in the watershed.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he supports downzone. There are
three studies, including the TMDL and Robin Matthews studies, show that there is
no question that Lake Whatcom is degrading. It suffers from oxygen depletion,
algae growth, and silting. Anyone who has lived there for awhile knows that. This
is not a partisan issue. The County has made the decision to sustain Lake
Whatcom water quality. That is what they're doing. The Council should continue
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 22
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.
doing what it's doing. A zone change may boost the TDR plan. He doesn't know if
they should be linked, but they need both a zone change and a TDR plan. Mistakes
were made in Sudden Valley. They're trying to fix them.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she supports the proposal
with one amendment. Remove the link between the TDR's from the downzone.
She supports the testimony given earlier by Chris Dillard of the People for Lake
Whatcom organization.
New residents in the county find it incredible that the drinking water
reservoir has the activity on and around it that there is. There is a great deal of
support for these actions.
Vincent LaLonde, 1317 Roland Street, Bellingham, stated he supports the
downzone. Make drinking water protection a top priority. He is also in favor of
removing the link between TDR's and the downzone.
Jim Trowbridge, 1853 Academy Road, thanked the Planning Commission.
They have open minds, listen to public testimony, and makes reasonably wise
decisions. That commission recommended that this Council proceed with the
downzone only if there's first a mechanism to justly compensate property owners
who are unduly burdened. This Council has taken the attitude that fairness is not
required, and that it only needs to do what is necessary to keep from losing a
lawsuit. That is not the moral high ground the Council should be on. He's sat
through many public hearings on this rezone. After listening to public testimony,
only two people who support the downzone actually own more than five acres. Of
those two people, one was lying. That person is his neighbor, who wanted to seem
morally superior. He had already rezoned his property and had it for sale. The
other person legitimately does not want his property to be divided into smaller
parcels, but could file a covenant any time. There are other models to use besides
the flawed TDR program. Look to the commercial fishing industry that has used
buyback programs fair to everyone.
Warren Sheay, 1453 Humboldt, Bellingham, stated he supports downzone.
However, don't tie it to the TDR program, for reasons that have already been
stated. The danger with TDR's is that their politically convenient. If they grant a
TDR to an angry landowner, the landowner will get off their back. They have to be
concerned about receiving areas for TDR's. He hasn't heard of many
neighborhoods that want to be a receiving area for TDR's. Use them judiciously
and prudently. When a person buys a chunk of land, the government has no
responsibility to ensure a return on the investment even if it rezones the land for
the public good. There are no guarantees.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Rd, Ferndale, asked what's fair. Removing the
link between the TDR's from the downzone is not fair. He agreed with Jim
Trowbridge's comments. They're close to getting some TDR pieces in place to work
with. They can make it work. TDR's could work on upzone requests.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 23
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.
He asked what makes these landowners different from agriculture land
owners. They are concerned about agriculture land owner development rights.
Most other urban areas in Whatcom County drink from the Nooksack River, and he
doesn't hear many complaints about the rivers water quality. There is dispute
about the water quality in Lake Whatcom.
Robert Davis, 2757 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he supports downzone,
It's too little, but it is not too late. They should go further as time permits.
Separate the TDR's from the downzone. There is no guarantee on investment. It
should not be this generation's destiny to build out the watershed.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane stated the Council received a letter which raised legal questions.
Nelson moved to go into executive session for about 5 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously,
(Clerk's Note: The Council went into executive session from 9:01 p.m. to
9:15 p.m.)
McShane stated the reason for executive session had to do with a part of the
downzone that is within the Bellingham urban growth area. The County has not
received any commitment from the City of Bellingham for changing that urban
growth area.
McShane moved to adopt the Planning and Development Committee's
recommended version of the ordinance.
McShane moved to amend the ordinance to remove the section in the
Bellingham urban growth area that is proposed to change from the rural residential,
two units per acre (RR2) zone to the rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) zone,
which is a vested plat. That plat would remain in the RR2 zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked if the TDR's have been detached from the ordinance that is
moved for approval.
McShane stated the TDR's were detached as recommended by the Planning
and Development Committee.
Nelson asked the result of the vote on the Planning Commission
recommendation. Pederson stated there were eight commissioners present. The
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 24
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.
correct vote count was five commissioners in favor and three commissioners
opposed.
Nelson stated there was a comment that previous zoning in that area did not
comply with the GMA. He asked if that comment is correct. He keeps hearing
testimony that this ordinance brings them into compliance with the GMA. Pederson
stated the zoning changes that are proposed are based on rural amendments to the
Growth Management Act that were adopted after the County's Comprehensive Plan
was adopted. There are no outstanding compliance issues with the Growth
Management Hearings Board.
Brenner stated there was testimony that densities greater than five acres
are not rural according to GMA. She's spent the past few weeks going through
GMA cases. There are some postage stamp sized lots that were not declared
urban. The representative from the State Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development (CTED) said it has to do with many factors and an analysis.
CTED says that four units per acre are urban. Because there is no middle ground,
everything else is considered rural. These are open to case -by -case analysis. It
would be easy if the County had clear lines about what is what.
On the other side of the issue, there was testimony that property owners in
upzones get a windfall. She disagreed. Certain property owners with an upzone do
receive a benefit. The average resident who is upzoned gets a lot of impacts with
no benefits. It's all a balancing act.
The last comment made was that investments are not predictable.
Government is supposed to be predictable. She has mixed feelings about people in
the watershed who already have their large estates asking for a downzone because
they will receive a benefit from a TDR. On the other hand, there are people who
have been hurt by this. She would like to give them some hope that they might be
able to take advantage of the TDR program in the future. She moved to amend
the ordinance, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED... Section 4. In the future, if a
workable TDR program is developed, the Lake Whatcom watershed may become a
transfer of development rights sending area."
Nelson asked if those who are impacted by the downzone would be able to
come back in the future to apply for TDR's if there is a successful TDR program.
Brenner stated they may be able to. Leave that door open. Connect this to
the TDR program, but don't make the downzone dependent upon the TDR program.
Roy asked if these people would always have the option for TDR's, with or
without this amendment. She asked if there is an option for anyone to apply for a
TDR. Pederson stated the Lake Whatcom watershed, except for Sudden Valley, is
designated as a TDR sending area. The issue tonight is whether or not those folks
who are rezoned will be granted the higher densities they might have had prior to
the rezone.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 25
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.
Roy stated it sounds like that option is already in place. The people in Lake
Whatcom are in a TDR sending area. Regardless of the amendment, they may
apply for TDR when and if the program gets up and running.
Crawford stated they wouldn't receive TDRs for the density that exists now,
before the downzone. The motion doesn't address the issue of allowing those who
are affected by the downzone to keep their densities for a future TDR program.
Add language, "...and properties with densities that existed before the downzone
can retain the development rights before the downzone."
Brenner stated she won't say those property owners will have those densities
if they don't get a workable TDR program. They may have those densities if a
workable TDR program is developed that works.
Fleetwood asked what this motion does. They have the intent to consider
this as part of the TDR program later.
Brenner stated the motion puts their intent in writing. They have to
acknowledge that some people are being unduly burdened.
Crawford stated he agreed. The issue is if they want to allow folks who had
densities before this vote to retain that many development rights when they get
involved in the TDR program. Otherwise, those people would have post - downzone
development rights. The motion does not make the downzone contingent on a TDR
program. It just says that, after the downzone is adopted, the folks will have a
pre - downzone number of development rights to trade through the TDR program.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. The TDR program should
be used for platted, vested, or existing and real lots. Councilmember McShane has
been working diligently for a year to narrow this downzone down to properties
without a reasonable expectation of being developed anytime soon. They have a
lot more work to do in this watershed. After removing this last property, they are
eliminating only 1,200 homes. A lot more needs to be done. TDR's need to be
used for development rights that are in -hand. That isn't what this is about.
Nelson stated Councilmember Brenner's intent is to be fair. They are dealing
with individuals who have made investments with the understanding that there
would be a possibility for a return on their investment. For government to take
away the possibility of a return on investment is not what the founding fathers
intended. They intended to allow the ability to own and use land in fairness. Not
allowing the property owners to participate in the TDR program takes away that
chance for a return on an investment.
Crawford asked for a friendly amendment to add language at the end of the
proposed language, "...and that property development rights will be calculated at
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 26
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 number of potential parcels that would be created prior to (insert the date of
the first moratorium)."
Brenner stated the most important thing is the connection between the TDR
program and the downzone. If the language in her motion helps make that
connection, she is willing to keep the language more general. She did not accept
the friendly amendment.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the founding public of this county always counted
on having Lake Whatcom as a natural drinking water source. The Council is
obligated to ensure that happens. She's sorry if they have to disappoint some
people in what they expected to make off their property. However, they have to
ensure a viable drinking water source for this and future generations. They are
following the Growth Management Act in protecting the water supply. Look at the
larger issue of what's best for the county as a whole, versus certain individuals and
their property rights. They are mandated by their conscious to make decisions that
ensure the future viability of this county. Be reasonable about the amount of
development they allow in this watershed.
Nelson stated that has nothing to do with this motion of fairness. They all
want to preserve water quality. They are trying to decide how to do that and still
provide fairness to the people they're impacting. They are impacting some people.
Others are impacted when they increase densities. They have supported several
million dollars worth of land purchases in the watershed. He asked councilmembers
to use their heart and remember that people will be impacted.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Councilmember McShane spent a lot of time coming
up with a fair solution that still leaves value in people's properties. That's why she
supports it.
Brenner stated she supports the downzone. She also supports the
amendment.
McShane stated everyone on the Council has committed to protect the lake.
This zoning proposal has pushed them to the point of talking about what is unduly
burdensome or fair. When the zoning change was first proposed, it was to push
them into thinking about what was or was not fair zoning and what was or was not
speculative development. The original proposal was eroded away and watered
down.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane continued to state that the Council changed the proposal during
each phase when it heard actual stories from people, and then decided whether
that person was likely to develop easily. What's left is not anything they are going
to see developed in the next few years. These properties don't have adequate
water, sewer, and transportation.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 27
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.
This is more than a water quality issue. It's also an infrastructure issue.
The County doesn't have the infrastructure in those areas. The County has serious
problems with the TDR ordinance now. He was in an uncomfortable position
recently of refusing to sign a plat because there was a mistake of giving
development rights to someone who did not have development rights. All the
rights were used for increasing the impervious surface area. The method for
evaluating development rights is convoluted. They are readily given away. A lot of
areas are platted lots within the downzone that can be developed, but won't be
developed because there aren't roads, sewer, or water. This is a long -term view of
something that can happen in 20 or 30 years.
They might have to think about TDR's for areas that have been downzoned
or that are rural forestry right now, so there are long -term covenants in areas they
don't ever want developed. He is open to that at that point in time. He wants a
TDR program in the watershed that addresses the short -term threats to
development in certain parts of the watershed. By opening it up, they are going to
water it down so the TDR's aren't attractive to the target population in the urban
growth areas. It would be nice to have that option for the community. If they
have to do something else down the road to address a fairness issue, he would be
open to it.
Brenner stated that's why her motion includes language about a workable
TDR program for the future. The Council will vote on whether or not it's workable.
They need to have something that works well. Her amendment covers that.
Fleetwood stated he has a problem with the proposed language. It doesn't
say anything.
Brenner stated the language says that there is hope in the TDR program for
people who have been burdened. It isn't guaranteed. The key is having a
workable TDR program.
Fleetwood stated people should be able to rely upon a TDR program. Until
they do anything with TDR's, the Council needs to have a policy discussion on
where the receiving and sending areas are and why they've been designated as
such. They haven't had that discussion.
favor.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner in
Crawford read a statement into the record (on file).
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning Committee has spent the last year
going over the reasons why they don't want to encourage development in the
watershed. They've heard from the State Department of Ecology and read studies
from Western Washington University about the effects of development on the
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 28
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.
1 watershed. Councilmember Crawford has heard and read the same information
2 and come up with different conclusions. They may have to agree to disagree. She
3 is confident that what they are doing is the right step for the county and that, if
4 they don't take this step, the reservoir is in jeopardy and will continue to degrade.
5
6 Fleetwood stated he disagreed with Councilmember Crawford. The findings
7 in the record demonstrate the nexus. He wholeheartedly supports the motion.
8 This is but one component in a comprehensive, multi- faceted approach to
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
protecting Lake Whatcom.
Roy stated they've listened to a lot of experts in a lot of meetings. She's not
so much worried about the legal aspects. There are times when they do things
because it is the right thing to do for the community. They have the science.
They've done their best to follow legal parameters. It's what needs to happen for
this community. There's no question about the impacts of human development on
water quality.
Nelson stated a neighbor has a friend with 40 acres used as a horse farm to
breed thoroughbred horses and put them out to pasture. The owner died and left
the property to the neighbor and his children. The neighbor wanted to maintain the
farm so the animals would have a place to live. The neighbor takes daily care of
seven or eight of the aging thoroughbreds that are left. The neighbor bought out
the children, based upon the zoning. Now, the neighbor loses her potential for
getting that money back. She has no intention of developing the property, but she
also has no ability of regaining a fraction of what she spent on getting the land and
helping those horses stay where they are. They need to put a human face on this
action. He hasn't seen any proof that anyone has acquired any diseases from
drinking the water in Lake Whatcom. He swam in the lake as a child, when there
were more algae blooms and open sewers than there are now. Look at the human
faces to understand the impacts.
Brenner stated she would support the ordinance. She doesn't have a legal
mind, but her instinct says that things will continue to deteriorate with more
development. She's disappointed the TDR program was not connected. She
sympathizes with what that person is going through. Come up with a program that
works, and then revisit this issue. This is the first time she's supported a
downzone. Over half the county gets its drinking water from this source. They can
balance being cautionary with caring for those who are unduly burdened.
McShane stated he knows the woman in Councilmember Nelson's story. This
person has a preliminary plat, and is in the uncomfortable position of deciding
whether or not she should finalize her plat. That's one reason why an effective TDR
program is an opportunity for her. There is also a possibility of directly dealing with
her problem, given that she has a vested plat that she can develop as it is. It isn't
appropriate to address it within the larger context of zoning.
Nelson stated that's just one story.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 29
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.
McShane agreed. That's why the changes were made. It's difficult to draw
the line between what is and isn't unduly burdensome. That's where the
councilmembers disagree. This Council has become educated on the complicated
subject of water quality.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson
opposed.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AB2003 -075A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
this ordinance addresses more than just population projections. She gave a brief
explanation of the topics the ordinance covers. She is concerned about the low
growth projection of 11,925 for the rural areas, and most of that is in Birch Bay and
Columbia Valley urban growth areas, leaving 5,400 additional growth in the rural
areas. That equates to 2,150 houses in the unincorporated part of Whatcom
County. Last year, the Planning Department approved the growth of 500 housing
units in the unincorporated part of the county that is outside of urban growth areas.
If that growth rate continues, the proposed projection for unincorporated Whatcom
County areas outside the urban growth areas equates to a four year supply. If they
considerably reduce that growth in the urban growth area, they could get up to a
ten year supply. However, that allocation is low. The County has authority to
reduce the zoning substantially in those areas. There are about 9,000 vacant lots
in those parts of the county, and they're only planning on 2,000 houses being built.
The others will not. Projecting too low is not a serious problem. If they are
unsuccessful in reducing density, they will revisit the projections in five years and
can increase the projections. It won't hurt anything to project low, but they are
talking about increasing the size of the jail and infrastructure in the county. Over
five years, some of the small cities may have overestimated the population and it
may even out. They should put a projection of another 5,000 or 10,000 people in
the rural area. If they don't, closely monitor the growth and look at those numbers
again.
Roy stated the overall figures are in the medium projection. Goodwin stated
they are.
Roy stated they were able to accommodate the small cities and give them
the high projections they wanted, and to also increase the Birch Bay projection.
Goodwin stated that's correct.
Roy stated she would leave the rural projection low, which may provide
incentive to work on it.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 30
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.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs
Director, stated she encourages the Council to set populations projections higher to
comply with the Growth Management Act. The high projection doesn't ensure that
this number of people will arrive. It doesn't require that this density be met.
However, planning for higher density prevents other social and environmental
problems later on. The alternative is the cost of upgrading inadequate facilities, the
likelihood of poorly controlled urban sprawl, unnecessary environmental
degradation, and the process of property condemnation to catch up with
unanticipated demand. If land for infrastructure isn't identities and allocated, they
may have to place infrastructure in established neighborhoods through the process
of eminent domain. Washington State law demands fair market value for
condemned property.
Some councilmembers are interested in adopting higher numbers for the
cities and urban growth areas and the lowest numbers for rural areas. This is a
backdoor attempt to downzone rural areas. Real property is different from stocks
and other intangibles that are personal property. A portion of real property is
investment - backed expectation.
The resulting social and financial burden on taxpayers and property owners
can be enormous, and avoided by proper planning. Any attempt to artificially
restrict the number of households strikes at the heart of diversity, vitality, and
survival of this community. It will also strike at the heart of the local construction
industry, dominated by small, family -owned companies that generate wages and
benefits for employees in the amount of $200 million per year, 12 percent of
Whatcom County's total wage base.
Ellen Gray, 1,000 Friends of Washington, stated she urged the Council to
lower the projection for rural areas. The current proposal directs 23.8 percent of
the growth into the rural areas.
Kenni Merritt, 1304 - 39th Street, Bellingham, stated she supports using
lower projections, retaining urban growth area (UGA) boundaries, and retaining the
current zoning. When they make these policy decisions, the values and visions of
the citizens to preserve rural character and vitality is at stake. Preserve the
livability of the community. Population forecasting is far from an exact science.
The research of ECONorthwest was done two years ago. There have been changes
since then. Consultants using different data could decide that a lower projection is
just as likely. Also, consultant studies are necessarily based on subjective
assumptions. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM)
develops the objective range of population projects. A demographer for OFM said
that consultants conclude what the people who pay them want to conclude. It
comes down to a balance of how soon residents want Washington to look like
California. They don't want to look like Los Angeles. Whatever population number
they choose, they are going to have to find a way to pay for all of the public
facilities and services that are necessary to support the new development. If
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 31
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.
revenues and budgetary constraints are such that they can't finance capital
spending, they may be pressured to lower service standards. She asked who would
fairly pay for the services.
Warren Sheay, 1453 Humbolt, Bellingham, stated he likes the idea of taking
a cautionary approach. If they go with the low numbers, they can always go back
later and add more later. He agreed with the concept of induced usage. If they
don't build it, maybe the growth won't happen. The mayors of the cities say they
want more growth, but he doesn't know if the citizens want it that way. The
medium projection recommended by the Planning Commission and City of
Bellingham is not a moderate number. It is a 40 percent increase for the City of
Bellingham in 20 years. That creates incredible stress on an environment.
Bellingham is one of the fastest growing towns in the United States, according to
Reader's Digest. They are already crowded.
Kathy Berg, 7585 Sterling Ave, Birch Bay, stated she supports the proposed
population projection for Birch Bay. It's consistent with the Birch Bay community
plan. Birch Bay grew 97 percent from 1990 to 2000. No one predicted it. They
need to plan for the growth.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he supported a mid- to low -
projection in the rural areas. Sudden Valley is platted for 65 percent growth from
today. They have put in a sewer that accommodates more than what they need.
Now, they have to get more developed lots to pay for the sewer. If Basin two dies,
the City of Bellingham will have to extend its pipe to Basin three at a cost of $3
million to $5 million.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Jones continued to state he supports mid -low numbers.
Bob Tull, Attorney, stated the real challenge is that somehow they have to
guide the cities and the UGAs to attract people to the cities and UGAs. There are
9,000 existing rural parcels. That has to be a positive attraction to the cities. The
County is going to have to find a way to do that.
In 1990, the County Council sponsored the Natural Heritage Task Force on a
report. The report recommended that key areas in the county be preserved to
keep the county a nice place in 150 years. The Council needs to dust off and
review the report. The report led to the adoption of the Conservation Futures levy,
which has been successful. Get that process going. They have to keep working as
a community to acquire some of these sensitive areas. Make sure the special
things about Whatcom County are dealt with through regulation or to acquire
control of these sites. Go forward as they have proposed tonight and be prepared
to make adjustments from time to time.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 32
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.
Jo Slivinski, 3920 Silver Beach Avenue, stated she is involved with Pro -
Whatcom. This group is in favor of using the lower projection figures. The chair of
the Planning Commission is a member of that steering committee. Using the lower
projections are worth looking into to limit growth and urban sprawl, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act advocate.
Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, stated she supports the lower population
projection. The Birch Bay representative was not upfront with the community when
the plan was done.
David Hunter, 819 Mason Street, stated high projections in the cities will
have important environmental impacts in the county. Lower the population
projections for the cities.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
Fleetwood moved to send the ordinance to the concurrency hearing, as
proposed by the Planning and Development Committee.
Brenner stated she supported the medium range until tonight. A few things
were said that touched a nerve. First, there is a question of whether the mayors of
the small cities represent what the people in those cities really feel. There was
never any County Council meeting in any small city. She's not comfortable giving
the high projections to all the cities just because the mayors and planners
recommend it. She didn't hear from anyone in the urban growth areas except Birch
Bay and Bellingham. There is at least one small city that may not do the best
planning job. Shoving the growth into cities, which may be ill prepared, is wrong.
It could have impacts that create backlashes on the Council. Everything the
Council can do, a new Council can undo. She won't support the middle projection
unless she hears from the citizens of the small cities.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she asked planners and mayors on several
occasions if they had the support of their councils. They all seemed to think it is
just fine. They are all elected officials. She can only assume they went through
their process. She hasn't heard otherwise. Don't mess with it at this late minute.
She will support the Planning Committee's recommendation and the motion.
Roy stated she would support the motion also. One reason they heard from
Birch Bay was because it was unhappy with the numbers. The people they usually
hear from are the ones who don't like what the Council proposes. There's been a
lot of publicity about this. She believes that the Council would have heard from
these citizens if they disagreed with their elected officials. The recommendation
have come from the Bellingham Planning Commission, the Bellingham City Council,
and the Whatcom County Planning Commission. She supports leaving the rural
numbers low for the time being, respecting Ms. Goodwin's comments. That may be
an area the Council wants to work on.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 33
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.
Crawford moved to amend the motion to adopt scenario eight. It is a
projection that is about 20,000 more. It is extra high for the Bellingham urban
growth area, high for the other cities' urban growth areas, and moderately high for
the rural areas. The population projection is critical to insuring that they have
developed infrastructure in Whatcom County to support people.
They are getting into dangerous territory when they project very low
populations. There is a tremendous number of platted parcels in the county.
They've seen a tremendous amount of growth. The economy is on an upswing.
Whatcom County is an attractive place for people to come. They need to plan for
those people. If the Council basis its planning on smaller population projections
that what occurs, the County is going to have problems. If they plan for more
people to come, and the people don't come, the County won't have any problem.
It's prudent to use the high numbers. The bottom line population growth figure for
scenario eight is 94,269 over 22 years.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is a harm that comes from planning for too
much. The burden of the cost is put on those who already live there. Rarely do
they plan for too much, and the growth doesn't happen. If they plan for too much,
the county becomes marketable for growth to happen. Western Washington
University professors talked about induced use, which happens all over the country
where development is attractive. This is a good compromise that follows the
Growth Management Act (GMA) closely. The projection tries to keep the rural
areas rural. The County may not supply all the services people desire in the rural
areas, but those people have to be aware they won't get urban level services in the
rural areas. That is a sacrifice those people have to make if they choose to live in
rural areas. The package they've put together follows the GMA's philosophy.
That's why she supports it.
Fleetwood stated he is opposed to the motion. The only consultant that has
done a truly in -depth analysis of this issue is ECONorthwest. The motion is
consistent with its findings.
Crawford stated the projections he's moving to approve are all from the
ECONorthwest study except for four from the Growth Management Oversight
Committee.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor.
Brenner stated they should wait, and not vote on anything. Birch Bay knows
it is in unincorporated Whatcom County, so those people are more apt to come to
the County Council. She's been to most of the small cities. The people she's talked
to are concerned about growth. Unfortunately, some people are apathetic about
getting involved. Don't assume all people think it's fine the way things are. People
do get involved. For the people she knows, the economy hasn't been looking up.
People are struggling just to get by. When the Council makes projections, the
people who are here are going to absorb those costs.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 34
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 referenced finding 13 on Council packet page 667. He asked if
urban growth areas include the cities or just the area that has not yet been
annexed. Goodwin stated UGA's include the cities and the areas that have not yet
been annexed.
Crawford moved to amend the City of Bellingham's projected population
growth number to the ECONorthwest high number of 39,432. The pressure is on.
Don't say growth is not going to happen. He's concerned about the urban growth
area. There are problems with Bellingham's existing urban growth area. This is
the first step. The next step is to choose whether or not they re -draw those
boundaries. The County has to deal with this tremendous growth.
McShane stated he agreed philosophically with Councilmember Crawford. He
expressed to the City Council that they didn't approve the higher projection. Part
of the niceness of living in urban Bellingham is that one can get out of Bellingham.
That said, he's not willing to push another projection over the Bellingham elected
officials' wishes.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
McShane stated they should continue to maintain the vision of Whatcom
County that everyone has. That's not going to be easy to do. Don't plan for
growth in the rural areas. Plan to reduce growth as much as possible. That might
be uncomfortable to do.
Nelson stated he would support the motion. Population projections are pie -
in- the -sky. This is just a tool the Council could look at again. He would prefer to
go with projections that are a little higher in the cities. If the cities, particularly
Bellingham, project too low, it will force more growth in the county.
Motion to send the ordinance to the concurrency hearing, as
recommended by the Planning and Development Committee, carried 6 -1
with Brenner opposed.
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(AB2004 -029)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously,
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 35
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.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING OF APPLICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE WITH PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS ACQUISITIONS FOR ROUND 2, 2003 (AB2004 -029A)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM
COUNTY'S MASTER FACILITIES PLAN (AB2003 -288)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and stated this will be discussed in a special Council work session on February 3rd at
1:00 P.M.
4. DEVELOPER RE- IMBURSEMENT APPLICATION FOR MISSION ROAD
(AB2003 -369)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
stated staff will come back to the Council with a revised reimbursement schedule
for a hearing. The Council may have to have a new hearing.
S. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE DRAFTING OF
A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING
AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE 2004 JOINT LAKE MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS (AB2004 -064)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
stated this item was held in committee.
6. APPOINTMENT OF CHRIS PHILLIPS AND JENNY SHULER, AND
REAPPOINTMENT OF M. WAYNE ERICKSON AND DAVID DAVIDSON
TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (AB2004 -056)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to appoint.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT OF
JOHN GAY, JERRY LANDCASTLE, MITCH MUSCUTT AND LES
REARDANZ, III TO THE COUNTY APPEALS BOARD (AB2004 -057)
Nelson moved to confirm the reappointments.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 36
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.
8. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
BRUCE RADTKE AND JAMES HARLE TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
MENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (AB2004 -058)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointments.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
ROBERT SCANLON TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (AB2004-
059)
Nelson moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING A POSSIBLE CHANGE TO THE SCHEDULE
FOR COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS (AB2004-
022A)
Crawford asked to hold this in Council for two weeks.
McShane stated they need to give this item serious thought. It causes a
rush on the Council's decision - making process, which creates negative
consequences. They could open the discussion about whether they should have
Council and committee meetings on the same day. They are long days to endure.
Nelson stated he is reluctant to do that because they are filling up their off -
Tuesdays with meetings.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003 -075B)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
stated this item was held in committee for two weeks.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2), WHICH INCLUDES
RURAL LANDS (AB2003 -075E)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
this item was held in committee for two weeks.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 37
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.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the addendum
submitted earlier in the day regarding the real estate excise tax proposal
(AB2004 -066)
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN GENERAL,
URM AND URMX POLICIES (AB2003 -075G)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN, MAP 13 MAP
AND TEXT (AB2003 -075H)
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 20) CHAPTER 20.22 (URM) AND 20.24
(URMX) (AB2004 -060)
4. ORDINANCE PROPOSING A REVISION TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
24.06, SOLID WASTE RULES AND REGULATIONS - STANDARDS AND
PERMITS, AND REPEALING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.08,
DEMOLITION AND INERT LANDFILL REGULATIONS (AB2004 -061)
S. ORDINANCE REVISING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.01, PUBLIC
HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE HEALTH
BOARD) (AB2004 -062)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
FIRST REQUEST (AB2004 -063)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.02.150,
REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES
(AB2004 -028)
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.20 BY IMPOSING
AN ADDITIONAL ONE QUARTER PERCENT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
UPON THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED
AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND ALTERING SUBSECTION 3.20.050B TO
REFLECT STATE LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
EXPENDITURE OF EXISTING COUNTY REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
REVENUES (AB2004 -066)
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 38
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
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.
OTHER BUSINESS
Caskey- Schreiber stated Board of Equalization member Marlene Dawson sent
a letter as a Board member to the State Board of Appeals regarding Sandy Point
land issues. She doesn't agree with how Ms. Dawson is using her position on the
Board of Equalization to keep advocating for her Sandy Point versus Lummi Tribe
issues. She is concerned that people get the wrong impression and may think her
views represent the Council, since this is a Council board. Send a letter to the
Board of Equalization asking that their outgoing correspondence be sent to the
Council for approval before correspondence is mailed out. She is very upset that
this person is using this board to facilitate her personal vendetta.
Crawford stated he rarely supported Marlene Dawson on tribal issues when
she was a councilmember. However, if someone is going to review
correspondence, it would be more appropriate for Mr. Willnauer to review the
correspondence. Mr. Willnauer may be reluctant to take on those battles.
However, he's sure Mr. Willnauer is very concerned about the issue in the letter.
The Council needs to keep an arm's length at what Council- appointed boards and
commission do to give them a certain amount of autonomy.
Brenner stated the Board of Equalization represents the Whatcom County
Council. Other boards don't necessarily do that, and the Council does need to give
those boards autonomy. She doesn't believe Ms. Dawson is on a vendetta. She
does believe that correspondence has to reflect County Council concerns, business,
and opinion. The appropriate place for correspondence to be reviewed is with the
County legal counsel. She's talked to Marlene Dawson about that. She moved
that non - routine letters the Board of Equalization writes must go through the
Council's legal counsel.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he looked at the letter
recently. The State Department of Revenue statutorily acts as a resource for the
Board of Equalization. By State law, the Department of Revenue acts as the Board
of Equalization's supervisor in many respects for the business it conducts as the
Board of Equalization. In regard to correspondence and communication, if the
Board is seeking guidance, as is allowed per the State statute, it wouldn't be
inappropriate for the Board to correspond with the Department of Revenue directly.
However, that particular letter was also addressed to the State Auditor.
Roy stated the letter sounded like it came from the County Council. Grant
agreed. That letter is a different matter.
Roy stated she was bothered about the tone of the letter, which really
sounded like the letter was coming from the Council's direction. She found that
tone really offensive.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 39
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.
Crawford stated it's appropriate to have some kind of filter. If the Board of
Equalization sees a problem, it's a good idea for the Board to consult with the
County Council about the tribal issue and ask what the Council wants to do about it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Marlene Dawson has already broken her trust. It's
good policy for the Council to review what the Board sends out, since the Board
represents the Council. There isn't any harm in reviewing non - routine
correspondence. Make that policy so the board members know they can't act like
they represent the Council without Council approval, just to stir up controversy.
Crawford asked if her term expired recently.
Brenner stated she was reappointed.
McShane stated the issue comes down to the board not having a letter -
writing policy. There were several things wrong with the letter. The tone of it
could have been changed. One issue was that the return address was to Ms.
Dawson's home address. Ms. Dawson did bring the letter to the Council Office after
she sent it. There needs to be a letter writing policy similar to the Council's. He
agreed that non - routine letters be sent to the Council's attorney before they are
mailed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated the Alzheimer's special is on PBS on January 21 at 8:00
p.m. It looks very interesting.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
McShane stated he and Councilmember Roy went to the Board of Natural
Resources meeting on the Lake Whatcom landscape plan. The Council will have to
talk more about that in the future.
McShane asked the administration for a staff report on the Draft Salmon
Recovery Plan within the next month or month and a half.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on February 10 , 2004.
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 1/13/2004, Page 41