Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 20 20031 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 May 20, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. MINUTES CONSENT Absent: L. Ward Nelson Brenner moved to approve Minutes Consent items one and two. Motion carried unanimously. 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 6, 2003 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 6, 2003 OPEN SESSION (20 MINUTES1 The following people spoke: Sandra Renner, 3556 Walltine Road, Ferndale, submitted and read a letter and petition addressed to Mr. Andy Dunn, Water Resources Department of the Northwest Regional Office of the Department of Ecology regarding the Sandy Point Improvement Company test well (on file). She is opposed to the well. This is a County and State issue. They are all concerned about what will happen in ten or 15 years down the road if they apply for more water. The test well has been put in, and they have done a test that ran for 48 hours. Probes were put in four wells. That information is being compiled by and used for the final decision. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Bunny Schneider, 504 Linden Road, Animal Control Advisory Committee, spoke on the Security Specialists Plus (SSP) Animal control contract. The committee provided input on the language of the request for proposals (RFP) and contract. The committee included several recommendations in the contract that will improve the quality of animal care. She submitted a list of their recommendations (on file). The committee supports the contract. Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated he is opposed to the James Way vacation request. He presented a petition to Council opposing the request (on file). The County should not give any land away in the Birch Bay area. The County should acquire more land for public access. He asked for an explanation of how the beach reserve created by the lot line adjustment happened. Pete Huck, 1407 Iris Lane, Bellingham, asked what happened to his citizen's complaint regarding the death of Deputy Matt Herzog. The accident was not a hit and run accident. It was a vehicular homicide. McShane stated the Council sent the complaint to the Council's attorney, Dave Grant, who will take a look at the complaint and the case and provide any information on an appeal. Since this is a judicial matter, he can't provide any more information. Huck stated the Sheriff, Prosecutor, Public Defender, and Judge have lied. It's up to the Council to make sure there is justice. It's a County matter of how the county is being run. Brenner stated she talked to the Council's attorney. The case is the State's law, not County law. The Council doesn't have jurisdiction in criminal matters. It sets policy. Huck stated he addressed the Council, but the Council has not done anything. They need good protection in the courtroom. Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, stated she would discuss elections and voting equipment. A number of citizens have been working on the issue of watching the conduct of future elections in the state and county. This group wants to maintain a voter - verified physical, or paper, ballot for all future elections. The Auditor will seek funding for new voting equipment, since the punch cards must be eliminated. She requested that, whatever system is purchased, the system include a method for the voter to see the results of the vote he or she just cast. Keep the paper trail so a believable audit can be conducted. Brenner stated she would like to assign the well drilling issue to the Natural Resources Committee. She has concerns about how it affects policy. McShane stated the decision is due in about two weeks. They could have the issue scheduled in the committee, but it might not be of much benefit to those involved. He suggested that the Water Resources Division staff look at the issue. He also suggested that they discuss with the Council's attorney about whether the Council wants to become engaged. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Brenner stated she would like to have a discussion. This may not be the only time this will happen. It will change people's ability to get water in Whatcom County. It's important to work with the State on this issue. Roy stated she has a lot of questions about the issue. PUBLIC HEARING 1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM ZONING MAP FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2003 -181A) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated the Planning Commission has tabled this until the water resource inventory area (WRIA) planning is done in November. This may not come back until the end of the year. She doubts that this version of the plan will have detailed modeling on Lake Whatcom, so it may even be longer. This interim map is different than the previous map in three areas. The Eagle Ridge area is going back to the rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) zone, which is what it has been. It incorporates two of the three areas. The third area is a six -acre parcel near Cain and Reed Lakes. It was zoned commercial forestry. The owner purchased the property under the assumption that it was rural. The owner has an application to build a house. They recommend that parcel go back to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A), which is what the Assessor's map says it is. This piece was not properly zoned. They should not have commercial forestry on a six -acre parcel. Fleetwood asked how many additional building units would be allowed in Eagle Ridge. Goodwin stated the plats are already vested and the lots are already there. It wouldn't allow any further division. Under the rural zone, the footprint of impervious surface is limited to ten percent. If it is rezoned to rural residential, the footprint allows 20 percent of impervious surface, which is consistent with the surrounding area. Brenner stated the reason they are doing the change with Eagle Ridge is because it is mostly built. People bought lots thinking they could build similarly with what is already there. Goodwin stated that is correct. In addition, there are covenants in the area that prevent two -story houses, and it is more appropriate to allow the new houses to be built the same as the houses that are already there. McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, stated he represents Hal Arnason. He is happy to see the Council changing the small parcel in the Agate Bay area, which would go back to RR2. The Arnason's have a small vacant lot there. They do want to build a house on the lot, but they are limited to ten percent of impervious Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. surfaces on the lot. The lot is assessed at over $300,000. They want to build a house that is commensurate with the value of the lot. He is in favor of the change in this ordinance. Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated he supports the downzone. It's gotten watered down over time. They should proceed with the downzone. There are some large lots along Northshore that are zoned RR2, but could be downzoned. He understands the reason for leaving areas as they are. He asked the Council to try to leave it alone and not make any more removals from the downzone. Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. Fleetwood asked the reason for the southern portion of Northshore. He asked if that is the area being returned to the RR2 zone. Goodwin stated it is. Most of those lots between the road and the lake are only a half -acre. If 20 percent of impervious surfaces is allowed, it allows 4,000 square feet for a footprint. Many existing lots with a driveway and a house are already over 20 percent. The people who don't have houses are neighbored by large houses and driveways, but they can't build a small house with a driveway under the current rules. Fleetwood asked how many houses would be subject to the additional amount. Goodwin stated approximately 50 or 100 lots are in the area, but there are not more than a dozen that are vacant. Most are already developed. McShane stated there might be constraints in a small area due to an alluvial fan. Keep the tree buffer along the creek. Goodwin stated there are similar lots up the road, towards the park, that are in the same situation. They are remaining the same now, but the staff recommendation was to return those to a zone of RR2, also. Roy asked for a map that includes street names and color- coding, next time this issue comes up. Motion to adopt carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed. 2. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING), CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2003 -181) Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association, read a letter into the record (on file). He asked for a halt to any more changes and that a stakeholders group to be formed. Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley resident, stated an additional downzone within Sudden Valley for 500 lots was just proposed. The cost is five times the cost of buying Sudden Valley in 1967, when all of Sudden Valley was offered for sale. In 1992, a joint resolution for Lake Whatcom was approved. A plan was presented in December. This interim ordinance is part of the plan. Building and destruction of the watershed has occurred since December of 2001. They need this ordinance. They have goals and a plan. Start working on it. Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, stated the intent of the overlay is good. He is concerned with the number of flaws they keep finding in the document. He requested that they slow down the process a bit. He would like to discuss the flaws he's found during a work session. Do the work on this properly. Aubrey Stargell, Maple Falls, asked the Council to not adopt the ordinance due to unintended consequences. This ordinance will ban the creation of pasture land wherever the overlay provides, by virtue of the tree retention requirements. Requiring someone to leave 65 percent of trees is unconscionable because they've already got the critical areas measures in place. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Stargell continued to state that it adds time and review to a permitting staff that is already overburden. Permits take longer than they should already. Return the exemption from a previous draft for lots five acres and larger. If someone has 20 or 40 acres, they are only allowed to remove 35 percent of the trees at any given time. Don't adopt the ordinance in its current form. Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated this ordinance has been given due process. The Council has gone out of its way to collect input on this. The Planning Division staff has done a good job drafting the ordinance. This is based on science, and there are reasons for doing this. This is definitely necessary. He asked the water resource value of pastureland. The joint resolution Mr. Jones mentioned will provide a guide. He encouraged the Council to adopt this ordinance tonight. Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, asked if its true that a land owner can only remove 35 to 65 percent of the trees on a piece of property that is being logged. McShane stated that is correct, for certain parcels. A twenty -acre parcel can be logged. It does not apply to forestry practices. It is in place for building purposes. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Gilda asked if the County is liable if there is an accident due to trees, such as what happened in Paradise. McShane stated there is language allowing hazard tree removal. Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing. Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Caskey- Schreiber stated this would only be in place for two weeks. The Council will have an opportunity to adopt another version in two weeks. In the upcoming version, they've removed Drayton Harbor. She asked if the Drayton Harbor area could be removed tonight. At some point, they need to look at a specific overlay for the type of estuary area that Drayton Harbor has. Roy stated she would vote for the ordinance because it is a continuation of the interim ordinance. However, she is concerned that the upcoming version looks quite different from this. It is the responsibility of the citizens to look at the language of the permanent ordinance that will be proposed in two weeks, to see the differences from this interim ordinance. Brenner stated she will support this now because it's important to have everything in place, but it doesn't have everything she wants. She will bring forward a lot of amendments in two weeks. Motion carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed. 3. ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY AMENDING THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21, LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (AB2003- 175) Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated gift exemptions take more staff time to process than short plats. Since May 15th, they've taken in 60 applications for gift exemptions. They've not taken in any short plat applications. Brenner asked if, in the end when the house gets built, it matters if it is a gift exemption or short plat according to County standards. Middleton stated the standards are different. They both have to meet County standards, but the standards are different. When a house is built on a short plat, the septic, well, critical areas issues, access issues, and boundary lines have all been addressed. They both have to meet the critical areas ordinance, fire marshal standards, and building permit issues. All those are the same. Brenner stated the difference is when those things are done, but the final product is the same. Middleton stated that is correct. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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 asked the impacts to staff time. All the standards have to be met on a gifted lot. He asked if it is more complicated if someone does a short plat of four units. Middleton stated a short plat process is much more stream lined. The critical areas review on all four lots will be done at one time. Staff can work with the developer on clustering or other mitigation that may be required by the critical areas ordinance. If the land is divided by gift exemption, none of that work has been done. Instead of one review, staff has to do four reviews, for each gifted lot. Also, fill and grade permits are required for the gifted lots, which is different than the road review done through the short plat process. Each gifted lot will have to have a separate review for the driveway. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated one of the problems with the gift exemption process being used to divide lots is that they don't go through the review process, so one may end up with a lot that is virtually unbuildable because of critical areas or access issues. This can be a consumer protection issue. McShane stated one of the complaints with the short plat process has been regarding the costs of the road frontage improvement. He asked how that is different with gift exemptions, and if those improvements occur on gifted lots. Middleton stated the cost is significant. Sometimes the road improvements cost more than the lot or lots being created by the short plat. There is no requirement for road improvements for gift exemptions. McShane asked if there is never any recovery of cost to the County or others who may be paying into a local fee for road improvement. Roy asked if these happen only to the person who has gifted the property, or if those issues have to be disclosed to the person who is buying the property. Middleton stated he couldn't speak to disclosure requirements of real estate law. However, he's dealt with problems in his division from people who have purchased the gifted lot, and the lot is extremely expensive to develop because of site constraints. McShane stated that if an agent is aware of geologic problems on a parcel, they must reveal the problems. Brenner asked if it takes more staff time to go through the process of a short plat and then building on the lots, or going through the process of a gift exemption and then building on those lots. Middleton stated the gift exemptions take more time. Brenner asked if it doesn't balance out at the end. Middleton stated it is easier for the person gifting the lots. However, the code still applies, so they have to discuss and work with each individual person. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 asked if that is balanced by the fact that the staff has to work with a complicated short plat process. Middleton stated the short plat time is not staff time. Short plats require a survey, wells, septic, road improvements, and road into the property. All that takes quite a bit of time. A gift exemption is just written up and is done. Brenner asked if the time a short plat takes to complete is due to the outside work that must be done, and doesn't have to do with staff time. Middleton stated they don't take two years of staff time. The process can take a couple of years. McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Government Affairs Director, read and submitted a letter into the record (on file). The moratorium on gift exemptions is unnecessary. Reinstate the five -year development restriction. The short platting system is broken and should be the County's focus. The proposal was never presented to the Planning Commission and was never discussed in committee. The entire short plat process is time - consuming and expensive. Brenner asked if the time a short plat takes is due to staff or all the other requirements. Dickinson stated it is a combination of different reasons, including regulations. Linda Zander, 803 E. Main, Everson, stated she is a retired farmer. The right to gift property to her family members may be the only way to survive as a viable unit. The findings of fact for eliminating the gift exemptions were written out before this hearing. This legislative body should not take away their right to gift. Since the ordinance is already written, it is a legal question of whether the Council has already made up its mind, before the hearing. That is illegal. Councilmember McShane stated a concern that people might end up with no right of ingress and egress. That is already a legal right. Don't use it as an excuse. Patrick Alesse, Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated he is opposed to the ordinance. If an area that is gifted is inefficient to service with roads, water, schools, and other services, it will cost the taxpayers in that service area more. That is not a gift. That will be a continued expense. Government also regulates private businesses, such as telephone and electricity, in a service area. In many areas, those services are subsidized, originally to help some farmer keep the farm. Determine the true cost of a gift exemption. Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, stated this has been before the Planning Commission before. He asked what has been done to make regulations better for citizens and landowners. They have not done anything. This is a case of "environomics." He is opposed to the ordinance. He asked what problems this has caused. The property owners have to follow all the County standards. Address the problems that exist independently. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, Blaine, stated she is opposed to the ordinance. She was gifted land. She pays taxes on it. Whatcom County is going to far by trying to take that right away. She can understand the five -year development restriction. Don't eliminate the gift exemption. Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated he is not an expert on gift exemptions. However, since there have been 60 gift exemptions applications in four days, this sounds like an emergency. He's heard this process is used to get around subdivision regulations. There is a reason for gift exemptions and exemptions in general. However, there appears to be problems. The proposal is very reasonable. If they announced an intention to study gift exemptions, but didn't have a moratorium on them, there would still be a run on applications. They are not saying gift exemptions are gone forever. They are just saying they want to take a look at this and correct some of the problems with the process. He encouraged the Council to pass the ordinance. Terry Unger, 4059 Y Road, Bellingham, stated he disagreed with Roland Middleton. On short plats, they do all the work on all four lots. Many of the gift deed lots are not always studied because they are not always built upon. This is a poor ordinance. It's clear to all who have worked on the short plat process that amateurs can't afford the short plat process. Predictability of the short plat process is limited. One cannot be assured of getting a short plat before going through all the work the process requires. This takes away the predictability of the amateur or person who is not a professional developer. Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, stated no study is necessary on this issue. A gifted parcel is not vested. From an environmental standpoint, a gift exemption is far superior. Gifted parcels are required to have road access. The fee for a gift exemption is $550 and takes staff an hour or two to review it. The fee for a short plat costs a few thousand dollars in fees and takes staff a couple of years to process. Gift exemptions are superior in terms of costs to the County. The County makes money on gift exemptions, but loses money on short plats. The gift exemption must meet the same requirements as a short plat when the lot is developed. A short plat must build a road for four homes and do all the necessary development. However, gift exemptions may have no impact to the land because they are not developed. When they are developed, they will have to be developed according to the County's standards. Include the five -year restriction to stop any abuse. Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, stated he agreed with Terry Unger regarding how expensive, time - consuming, and unpredictable the short plats are. If they want to remove the abuses of gifted lots, then reinstate the five -year waiting period on sales. There is not much use in repealing the road frontage exemption because Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. no one is using it. The cost of building a road is very expensive. He's not heard very much about abuses of the process. The short plat process is not working very well. Review the system. He suggested having an oversight hearing to allow people to identify the problems, and then establish a working group to make suggested amendments. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated it's amazing how many land use emergencies they have. It indicates they've been doing things poorly previously. It's okay to stop and look at this thing as a whole. However, certain people in the community want to stop everything that's happening. That's not in the best interest of the community. They can do different types of planning to fix things that aren't working. People are coming to Whatcom County. If they don't plan for these people, they are going to have a mess. Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated the five -year sale restriction on gifted lots was eliminated when they adopted the revisions to Title 21 two and a half years ago. They also set in place a number of new requirements for short -plat. Those two actions together set in motion the abuse of the exemption process. Doing away with the gift exemption process will not fix the problem. It will only take away one option. The problem with the short plat process is not with staff and how long it takes staff to look at an application. The problem is with the regulations that were passed by the County Council, including the Health Department regulations and interpretation of policies by the Health Department and Engineering Division. Most people feel that their property could not economically qualify for short platting. Closing the door on exemptions while they look at Title 21 will starve the people in the middle. People have had two and a half years when they could do gift exemptions. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Starkenburg - Kroontje continued to state that there aren't that many more lots out there that can go through the exemption process. If in the rural zone and subject to the agricultural protection overlay (APO), densities often must be given up to go through the gift -plat process. People wait to do anything until the County improves the short plat process. To say that they are going to close the door on everyone in the middle is unfair. At a minimum, go to the original intention of gifting, which is to allow people to do the gifting, but with the five -year restriction. That will relieve the pressure to people who are legitimately attempting to gift. At the same time, ask the Executive to allow staff time to work on the short plat process because it is broken. Aubrey Stargell, Maple Falls, stated lots created by gifting don't bypass review. They still have critical areas and access review. They still have to meet road standards and Health Department standards. All those things are still done either up front in the gift deed process or at the building permit stage. The short plat process takes too long and is too expensive. It's not the job of government to Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. look out for real estate buyers. Anyone who creates and sells an unbuildable lot deserves a lawsuit. Gift deeds are a legitimate and efficient means of dividing land. Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing. McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Crawford asked the difference between emergency, temporary, interim, and moratorium ordinances. He asked if some of them require a super- majority. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, explained the specifics of the procedures that are established in the Whatcom County Charter (on file). Brenner stated any councilmember can bring forward and introduce an ordinance. Until it was introduced, she heard nothing about the proposal. This is a process they go through, whether they like the ordinance or not. She is frustrated by the stand that this is a consumer protection issue. Government cannot protect all people against everything. Government is getting so expensive because it assumes responsibility for everything and then no one can do anything. She does not want people to get taken, but they are responsible to find out problems for themselves. She's heard that it takes a lot of staff time to do short plats. If they weigh the time needed for short plats and building against gift exemption and building, the amount of staff time could conceivably be the same either way. There is a problem with the short plat system. She voted for gift exemptions and for the change to take out the five -year restriction. She apologizes for that. She thought it was a good idea at the time, but people misused it. However, the gift exemption is still important for families. Gift exemptions can't be done in the agricultural zones, so it won't take up a farm. It cannot create a lot that is any denser than the existing zoning of the area. It doesn't create more lots. Both gift exemptions and short plats must meet County standards. The only difference is who is responsible when the house is built. A gift exemption recipient shouldn't complain about paying those costs because they usually pay less for the lot. The five -year clause protects against people circumventing the short plat process. Many are doing gift exemptions to pass something to their children. If the short plat process doesn't take a bunch of time, then she doesn't understand why it's a very long process that doesn't work well. Staff interprets the regulations. Crawford stated he is opposed to the motion. They reached the conclusion that, for the time being, gift exemptions have a purpose in the land use processes. He doesn't think too many councilmembers would second -guess reinstating the five -year restriction. The plea to have staff take a look at this is an issue of funding and time. The Council needs to talk about the platting process to fix something Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. that has been presented tonight as broken. In the meantime, a five -year limitation on gift exemptions is what he approves. Fleetwood asked if the problems would be minimized if they did not delete the gift exemption and reinstated the five -year restriction. Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated the problems would be significantly minimized. In the previous code that included the five -year restriction, the other five acres was for areas that had road frontage. Those issues were primarily addressed. They still had critical area, water, and septic issues. As far as having a gift deed that has a legal access onto the road, the access may go straight up a hill and through a wetland. Those are not reviewed. He doesn't recall having a problem with the five -year restriction. During the five years, someone needs an out from keeping the gift in the family to allow the property to be sold in some way if money is needed. Previously, a person needed to have it comply with another exemption or short platted. Regarding staff time, there is a difference between staff time and process time. The time it takes to move the Mylar around and do the check prints, isn't that great. The process time is significant because they have to schedule a septic designer in that area, get the well done, have it surveyed, build the road, and have everything inspected. The road frontage is a separate issue. The time those things take adds up to the two years. Land use staff time is not a problem. Complying with the regulations through the whole process, not staff time, takes two years. What everyone is saying is true. It's clear that the process is significant and a tremendous amount needs to be done to have a short plat approved. Caskey- Schreiber stated she approves of the motion. It's time to assess the costs of development and put the costs on the source of development. People would be more upset if the County had to raise property taxes to continue to fund the extra services the Planning Department has to provide. Short plats are expensive, and the process needs work. Hopefully the Public Works Department will impose impact traffic fees at some point. Until then, hold back the tide of labor costs. Staff has to break the bad news to people who have purchased unbuildable or difficult to build lots. County staff is trying to solve their problems, and it should be the other way around. Whoever is profiting from the development of the subdivision should subsidize the cost of trying to make that land buildable, not the County taxpayers. She supports the motion. She would like to request the Executive to direct staff to look at improving the short plat process. Brenner asked why the County would have to budget for staff time to do better short platting process if the time needed is the developer's time to go through the process. Someone who testified asked that the County prioritize short plats so the process doesn't take as long. If they are going to free up staff's time to do that, it must take a long time for staff to work on it. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. McShane stated the issue is not so much the staff time to review the short plat as it is the time for the applicant to make sure everything is taken care of. He's always impressed that staff's approval time is shorter than the time he takes to write a report. Brenner stated the time it takes to hire people to do the work has to happen with both processes. The final product has to meet the same standards. Middleton stated the additional time comes from having one staff member speaking with one property owner on a development to look at wetland and do mitigation, and then it's done for the whole short plat. If the twenty acres is divided into four five -acre lots, each five -acre lot owner goes through that same process. It becomes for reviews instead of one. Mr. Unger is correct in that it only happens when they come in for a building permit. When they ask the question of what the time difference is in the end, the amount of review time from the beginning to the end of the building permit is the same, but there are more reviews for exemptions that don't have review up front. Brenner stated it is a balancing act of time and money. If someone gift exempts four lots, some may not be built upon. All the lots in a short plat will be built upon to cover up -front costs. In the grand scheme of things, it may even out. Regarding the issue of raising taxes to fund services that staff provides, people have to pay that anyway. She asked why they would have to raise taxes to do that. There are fees in place already. Don't use the scare tactic of raising taxes if they allow gift exemptions. They are not connected. Fleetwood asked how the Council could reinstate the five -year restriction. Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they have to introduce another ordinance. Doing it tonight will be totally out of the realm of what was announced in the public notice. Grant stated they don't have the five -year restriction in the notice. It is too much of a substantive change, unless the Council adopted an emergency ordinance, which he'd have to write. It would require a super majority of the Council. Fleetwood stated the councilmembers need sufficient information on a subject to make good decisions and respond to critics. He can't say he's given sufficient deliberations on this subject. He agrees with many of the criticisms of the gift exemption, but he prefers to have more time to dive into the complexities of Titles 20 and 21 so he is satisfied about knowing precisely what they are doing. He wants to support the motion, but he doesn't want to see a run on gift exemption applications. McShane stated ordinances often have written findings of fact, which can be amended if they choose. They have to have an ordinance in writing beforehand. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County fees for the planning process are not a true assessment of the costs of the labor involved in the process. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it's a moving target. This year, the fees are covering staff time better than they have in many years. If they hold those fees constant over time, then they won't cover the staff time needed. The supplemental he requested was for the building permit process, which is a different process. Caskey- Schreiber stated the people who come to the department after receiving a gift exemption want a building permit. King County actually bills for every single hour of every planner's day. She asked if the fees truly cover the labor involved in issuing a permit. Middleton stated they do not. The County's fees do not cover 100 percent of the staff's time, although they are heading that way. The staff is reviewing the fees to try and get there. There was a significant increase last year. Fees reimburse the vast majority of the costs. The supplemental request was for building permit fees, and has nothing to do with critical area reviews or any other reviews they've been talking about. Hart stated this year the fees are covering 85 percent of the cost of the Land Use Division. Roy stated land exemptions in 2003 are 71 percent. She asked if that list includes exemptions other than gift exemptions. Middleton stated the list is all - inclusive, but most are gift exemptions. Roy stated Whatcom County is charged with doing land use planning. To have 71 percent come through by exemption seems like a lot. They need to be flexible, but it is a lot. Middleton stated it is a lot, but not all due to the five -year restriction issue. The short plat process must be addressed. It is the only means that people have to subdivide their properties. Roy stated it is clear from testimony is that the intent of the gift exemption is for people to give family members the gift of their property. That's what they want to allow. It's interesting that most of the people testifying against this were talking about the ease and expense of going through the process. Much of the testimony implied that this is an accepted way of getting around the short plat process. Brenner stated that if the fees don't cover the costs, she wants to know why. It's important to have a lot of discussion if they are going to do this at this time of year. Don't make a change now without something else to make it better. They can approve the five -year restriction as an emergency. They can keep the ordinance and approve a five -year restriction clause. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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 she's not sure she would vote for the five -year restriction based on the testimony she's heard. She asked if there is something they can approve until the next meeting. McShane stated that two years ago, the committee went through Title 21 and made a lot of compromises. The Technical Advisory Committee recommended removing gift exemptions entirely. The Planning Commission recommended that they be left in. The Council's committee approved an amendment to remove the five -year restriction. He speculates that the reason was because the Council didn't like the short plat rules, gifting can be done only on five -acre parcels, and it wanted to allow people to avoid the short plat process. The fact is that Title 21 is complicated. This Council can make it a little simpler. There are issues with short platting, particular if doing five -acre parcels. One concerns is the equity of this whole thing. The road frontage issue is stopping people from doing short plats. It's too expensive. People who gifts property can avoid the road frontage issue, which is fundamentally unfair. Someone raised a question about the cost and predictability of getting a short plat, which is a huge issue. If a property owner gifts the land, it passes that problem down to someone else in the future. Somewhere down the road it will be a problem. It may even be a bigger problem. Someone with a gifted lot is not vested under the environmental rules, which are getting tighter and tighter. There are more and more people, and those people are moving into properties that are more difficult to develop. The easy stuff has been done. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) McShane continued to state the issue of buyer beware is philosophical that people will have differences on. They really need to look at the original intention of gift exemptions. He's not interested in trampling on that intention, but it is not what the gifts are being used for, even more than the moratorium was removed. It is an issue of financial planning. That's what people are using it for. In the end, it just passes down a problem. The intent of this temporary amendment is not to permanently always get rid of gift exemptions, but to give it a lot of attention and thought. One action he wants to happen is to review the exemptions in consideration of what the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are, and how it relates to the intent of giving people property rights to gift. He's in favor of gifting as long as it is not abused. Regarding section 2.13 of the ordinance, they are going to find a more equitable way of funding road improvements to roads that are not up to standard. They also need to look at the impacts to Title 21 of section 2.0 of the ordinance. Regarding section 2.D, they need to solidify that policy. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. McShane moved to amend the ordinance to add Section 2.E, "E. The short plat process in creating lots five acres or larger." That's where people make the choice. Brenner stated she supports the amendment, but not the ordinance. There are Whereas statements that are not accurate or are misleading. Roy stated these statements are relevant to the people who are purchasing the gifted property. If family members give land to family members they are not likely going to lie about the issues. She's concerned about the 71 percent of the land exemptions, which are turning around to be sold. Motion to amend carried unanimously. Motion to adopt as amended carried 4 -2 with Crawford and Brenner opposed. 4. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115,000 VOLTS OR LESS, DESIGNED TO CARRY 100 MEGAWATTS OR GREATER LOADS, EXCEPT IN THOSE DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL (AB2003 -196) McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, stated he supported the moratorium. It's needed so they have an opportunity to openly debate the issue. The changes are extremely easy to do. Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated she supported the moratorium. It's the right thing, hurts no one, and provides stability in terms of the impact of industrial systems in areas that are not industrial. Ray Tryzynka, Puget Sound Energy Manager of Government and Community Relations, stated the Utility Planning and Advisory Committee (UPAQ has done a lot of work. The Council needs to concentrate on the issues of public safety and health, which are the reasons for the moratorium. Draft ordinance language that reflects the balance of the interests and concerns that were part of the UPAC's discussions. He provided a chronology of that work (on file). The UPAC June 5, 2002 draft does a good job of balancing the interests and concerns expressed regarding line location and load carrying capacity. He suggested tailoring the language dated March 5, 2003. His primary concerns have to do with providing a reliable, safe, and affordable electric service to the residents of Whatcom County. As they go forward with tailoring the language of the code, they should be able to deal with emergency situations when the load on a line may increase above the threshold that was originally identified. Under certain circumstances, such as an emergency situation or repair work, there may be a temporary time when the Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. loading in a line may go over that threshold. The language he suggests deals with average loading. Regarding the language dated December 10, 2002, he has issues under the obligation to serve. Some of the language would create a situation where they might be restricted from carrying out state or federal mandates to serve. Another concern is in the category of unintended consequences. There are a few potential problematic areas. He proposed a vehicle to consider those unintended consequences as they arise through a meeting with the Council's Public Works and Capital Projects committee. Crawford asked if Mr. Tryzynka and Puget Sound Energy are asking to pursue this critical path rather than do the moratorium. Tryzynka stated the main issue of the moratorium would not come to a head until someone proposes a project. There aren't any imminent projects. If the moratorium were not there, a lot of the issues might be covered under the permitting for major projects. Given the fact that the Council wanted to look closer at the public's concerns, a more productive way to go would be to approve the moratorium, and then intensify the work on providing the Council with a comprehensive code that can be a balance. There is an issue with trying to put forth some intense effort on this. Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She thanked Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber for bringing it forward. Caskey- Schreiber stated that in the next three months, the UPAC is going to meet and will incorporate Mr. Tryzynka's comments. Motion to adopt carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through six and ten through twelve. Brenner withdrew item eleven. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through six, ten, and twelve carried unanimously, 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 AS MATCHING FUNDING FOR THE Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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. COMPLETION OF THE POINT ROBERTS WELLNESS CLINIC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST #5 (AB2003 -199) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WITH SSP- PREFERRED ANIMAL CARE FOR THE TERM OF JULY 1, 2003 TO JUNE 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $994,630 (AB2003 -200) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR GOOSEBERRY POINT SECURITY WITH SECURITY - SPECIALIST PLUS, INC.; CONTRACT TO BE EXTENDED FROM JULY 31, 2003, THROUGH JULY 31, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,692, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $160,832 (AB2003 -201) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A RENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION AND ANNA BETH LEE FOR REAL PROPERTY SITUATED ON THE MAPLE FALLS TO GLACIER TRAIL, GLACIER, WASHINGTON FOR A TERM OF TWENTY (20) YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2003, TO DECEMBER 31, 2023 (AB2003 -202) S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A RENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LOU PIOTROWSKI FOR REAL PROPERTY SITUATED ON THE MAPLE FALLS TO GLACIER TRAIL, GLACIER, WASHINGTON FOR A TERM OF TWENTY (20) YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2002, TO DECEMBER 31, 2022 (AB2003 -203) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION AND KAREN L. MURPHY FOR THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC EQUESTRIAN FACILITY AT SUNSET FARM FOR A TERM OF THREE (3) YEARS BEGINNING MAY 22, 2003, AND ENDING MAY 21, 2006 (AB2003 -204) 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM LAND TRUST DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPED TO IMPLEMENT THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN ACQUISITION PROJECT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF $400,000 OF GRANT AND COUNTY FUNDS TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF THE LOGS RESORT (AB2003 -207A) 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A BID AWARD WITH THE BELLINGHAM HERALD TO BE DESIGNATED AS Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. WHATCOM COUNTY'S OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE BELLINGHAM HERALD (AB2003 -209) 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND JESSICA PAIGE, DBA PAIGE CONSULTING, FOR PRIVATE WELL OWNERS CAUCUS SUPPORT FOR THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 (AB2003 -208) Brenner stated this is a contract for a consulting company to give support to the private well owners caucus for the water resource inventory area (WRIA). It's very important. The private well owners have not been represented. These are individuals, not an organized group. What comes out of this process could dramatically affect their wells. Most people don't have a clue that it's going on. However, the contract doesn't require any specifics. The professional services agreement doesn't say anything. The scope of work isn't specific enough about whom the support will be for. She wants to make sure this person does extensive outreach to the well owners. Clarify the scope of work. She's concerned that private well owners have no representation in this process. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there is a representative for the private well owners. This was a recommendation of that representative. All work for that caucus has to be approved by him in terms of whether the work meets the intent. There is a policy written by Council that specified the expenses that are allowable. He gets a statement from each caucus representative that says they've done the intended work per the guidelines, and that it meets their requirements for their caucus. That's what he relies on to determine which expenses are appropriate. Brenner stated she understood there was a different representative in that role. It's important that they have a process that works, and not just looks good on paper. Get some specifics in the contract to ensure that a good portion of private well owners knows what's going on. Roy asked if they have to amend the contract or if it is good enough for Mr. Roll to say he will make sure that happens. Roll stated that is clearly the goal. There have been mailers, postcards, and events that are aimed at every address they have. The first event brought in over 300 people. If Council wants to amend this, he can't do it. It would have to be renegotiated. To create a mailing list that identifies every single private well owner in the entire WRIA would be outside the current budget. He works through what he does have for information. Brenner asked how much it would cost to put together a list of everyone in the Health Department records. Roll stated he already has that list. It is what they use for the mailers they send out. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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 stated she has a private well, and has not received a mailer. Roll stated she should get a postcard. Brenner stated she has not received a postcard. Roll stated he would add anyone to the list that is not included. Crawford moved to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A MITIGATION GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN ACQUISITION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $999,100 (AB2003 -207) Crawford moved to approve the request. In addition to the recommendation from the committee, a motion was required to authorize the Executive to execute the purchase agreements. The committee approved a separate motion for that. Motion carried unanimously. Crawford moved to authorize the Executive to execute purchase agreements and construction contracts for project implementation in accordance with the grant budget, as long as each individual transaction is within 25% of the amount budgeted and the total expenditures do not exceed the total project amount of $999,100. Motion carried unanimously. 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CLERICAL AND MEETING SUMMARIES SUPPORT FOR WRIA RELATED MEETINGS BETWEEN ANVIL CORPORATION AND WHATCOM COUNTY WATER RESOURCES IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,450, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,070 (AB2003 -205) Crawford moved to approve the request. Councilmember Roy preferred that these come forward without a recommendation from the committee. Mr. Roll stated they need an extension through the end of the year. (Clerk's Note: This item and Consent Agenda item eight were discussed concurrently.) Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Roy stated the reason she wanted this to come before the full Council without a recommendation is because they've had a lot of discussion about the cost of the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process. She was uncomfortable with it being in the consent agenda. Brenner stated everyone is trying to a good job. She doesn't support the request. A number of caucuses feel that this is moving too fast and their concerns haven't been addressed. Apparently, some caucuses are feeling intimidated. She would like to slow down and get those caucuses up to speed so there is a sense of ownership from more of the participants. McShane stated he is sometimes concerned about the enormity of the process, but is not ready to stop it, especially considering what they've invested already. Crawford stated he is concerned that this is a lot of money in this process. They don't agree on where they want this to go. The Council wants to step back on this. However, it is inappropriate to cut off the funding at this point and end it here. Finish the work they are currently doing. There is a need for extra time to wrap up some things going on with the Planning Unit. It's appropriate to offer the support through the end of the year. Caskey- Schreiber stated this item and the next item total $67,000 just to continue with the meetings. She thought this was supposed to slow down. She asked what the facilitations services for Planning Unit and committee members are. They've got 55 billable hours at a rate of $100 per hour. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there was agreement early on to work on the basis of consensus. They need a professional facilitator who is welcomed by the Planning Unit and Initiating Governments. Professional facilitation in any process is costly. It's a very specialized type of skill that costs money. One of the reasons they've gotten this far in the WRIA process is because they have professional facilitators who can bring out the issues and leave apart the positions, so the issues can be weighed and consensus can be reached. In the absence of facilitators, it becomes a problem, given that diversity of groups. Caskey- Schreiber stated it seems like they are not getting that support or consensus from some groups, such as Birch Bay. They might be at a juncture where they need to try a different track. Roll stated he disagrees. This is a venue where they can achieve consensus. People have that opportunity and are encouraged to be in that venue. The groups have worked very hard to achieve consensus at every meeting and work through every issue that they have. That opportunity has been given to every one of those members. They've often taken a month or two to address an individual caucus's need before moving on. Some people feel they want to use other venues for addressing their concerns. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Brenner stated her concern is that caucuses have raised concerns. The County is paying a lot of money for these facilitators. The consensus process lends itself to creating intimidation. It's up to the facilitators to make sure they can overcome that, but it's not happening. She doesn't blame the facilitators. The process is breaking down. She doesn't want to spend more money until the process feels right to the people involved. Roy stated she's heard from one caucus. She's not ready to blame the whole process for the problems going on. She will support this item, but it's important to have this discussion. Crawford asked if it would be appropriate to have a Planning Unit member tell them about the facilitation and staff support. McShane stated he's been on committees where these facilitators worked to help a dysfunctional group. He's had great success with them. Marian Beddill, Environmental Caucus alternate member, stated she has been involved in the process since the very beginning. This is money well spent. If they didn't have professional facilitation, they would be in a very big mess right now. To not continue at this critical juncture of coming to closure, it will be a disaster. She asked the Council to please approve the request. Fleetwood asked what critical juncture they are at now. Beddill stated the early phases defined the problem and data, and created the technical tools. Much of the discussion now is redefining the shape and nature of the continuing water management activity in Whatcom County. They are moving into defining long term adequate water management to meet all the needs. It is a delicate point in the process. The facilitators have done a good job with maintaining consensus in virtually every circumstance. Brenner asked who is the regular Environmental Caucus member. Beddill stated Carl Weimer is the regular representative for the Environmental Caucus. Brenner stated she has spoken to people from four caucuses who contacted her. She's heard there are about problems with getting understandable information from Utah State University. It seems the information was intentionally written only for technical experts. She's hearing that from all of them. Facilitators are doing a good job of facilitating, but it's just not working. She would like to get the concerns back on track before they keep spending more money. Crawford stated he supports the continuation through the end of the year. However, he also warned against how little Council support there would be for the beginning in 2004. He asked if Ms. Beddill believed the facilitators' work will be done at the end of the year. Beddill stated the facilitation is making the management process for a very diverse group with opposing interests work. The Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. facilitation process is making the dialog work. They have no responsibility for the content of the contracts with consultants. That's not their job. Crawford asked if there is a sense that conclusion will be reached at the end of December, as funding for caucuses and facilitators will end. Beddill stated that is everyone's intention. The end is close. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH RESOLUTION SERVICES, LLC, TO PROVIDE FACILITATION SERVICES FOR PLANNING UNIT AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, STAFF TEAM, AND GENERAL PROJECT COORDINATION TO THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT FOR JULY 1, 2003, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,750, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $179,150 (AB2003 -206) (Clerk's Note: See Consent Agenda item seven for discussion of this issue.) Crawford moved to approve the request. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 13. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS) PLAN TO PROVIDE TO BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHEN SPECIFIED IN WHATCOM COUNTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, AND REVISE EXISTING NON - HEALTH DISTRIBUTION FEATURES OF THE RHS PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDANCE ICMA -RC HAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (AB2003 -210) This item was withdrawn by the administration. OTHER ITEMS 1. OVERVIEW OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S PDR PROGRAM PROGRESS ON ROUND 1 APPLICATIONS (AB2003 -198) Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated three farms have been submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), for a total of 210 acres. They will see if they can get matching funds. The appraisals have been done. As a result of the appraisals, they've learned that agricultural land does not have much development value above the value of the agricultural value. That's Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. good news in a way because it indicates that zoning and other attempts to keep agricultural land in an agricultural use have worked. The three recommended properties excellently represent the intent of the purchase of development rights program. They are going to know in a couple of months what the situation is. Washington State only received $1.5 million from the federal government. They thought they were going to get $7 million or $8 million. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIFTH REQUEST (AB2003 -194) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner stated they all didn't vote for retroactive raises for the elected officials. This process moves the money into the fund to pay for it. The rest of the supplemental request is terrific. Staff gave excellent explanations of everything. McShane stated he has a problem with the Prosecutor's request for increasing an employee's time to full time to handle appeals. He talked with the Prosecutor about the issue. Crawford stated Mr. McEachran gave the committee a report on the issue. Mr. McEachran assured the committee that the County gets revenue as a result of the child support enforcement. McShane stated he has no problem with the request for legal help to work on child support enforcement. The money for the additional half -time appellate attorney goes into the general fund as reimbursement to the County for the services the Prosecutor provides. He is concerned with the number of appeals and types of appeals. He will support the request, but only because he can recognize that the Prosecutor has a problem with appeals right now, and needs to address it. He's concerned about the method of funding, when there may be other opportunities. He asked the administration for a copy of all the drug fund expenditures over the last two years. That is a possible source of revenue. He also asked for a list of all the pending appeal cases, and the related type of charges that led to those appeals. That information will be useful for him as they work on next year's budget. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the request for the list of appeal cases may be fairly onerous to provide. For every conviction they get, there is an appeal. The kinds of cases that are appealed are for every kind of conviction. It is routine to fine an appeal. McShane withdrew his request for a list of appeals. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Brenner stated she asked Mr. McEachran if that position would pay for itself. She was told that it would. The money for both positions would be reimbursed to the general fund. Roy stated she asked Mr. McEachran if this is a permanent position, and why it is. There is an increase in cases, but she is uncomfortable adding another position. Whenever there is stress on a part of an organization that has more demand, they ask for more staff. No one asks to give up staff when caseloads go down. The juvenile cases have gone down. Motion to adopt carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A LAND ACQUISITION — PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (AB2003 -211) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved approval. This is the purchase of acreage to the east of the soccer fields on Smith Road. Brenner stated this was presented to the Council in the context that it would allow for more use by the shop crew and for parking on the weekends. She's not comfortable with the language that doesn't require the land to be used for those reasons. The County keeps buying up more property. The Council is told it is for a good reason, but the paperwork doesn't reflect the purpose. She won't support the request without specific wording about the intended use. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. Crawford reported that the Finance Committee also received a presentation of the quarterly report from the Public Facilities District (AB2003 -044). In addition, Mr. Desler gave the committee the amended version of the Economic Development Investment Program. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING SIGNAGE AT THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY DOCKS (AB2003 -213) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee. The discussion regarded speed limit signage on the island. The Lummi Island Transportation Committee will discuss the issue. The County can't pay for any sign other than a speed limit sign. S. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 901002 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SOTO AND SONS CONSTRUCTION LLC, FOR THE WEST SMITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, FERNDALE CITY LIMITS TO NORTHWEST DRIVE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,298,846.28 (AB2003- 190) Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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 approve the resolution. Brenner stated she appreciated that staff gave her some time on this project. She visited the site and had conversations with the engineers. The planning director suggested that she contact someone on the transportation committee to see if they would be interested in looking at it. A transportation committee member looked at the site and had concerns about it. The transportation committee is interested in working to develop a compromise that would serve the needs of what they need to do. They are talking about 50 feet of concrete and asphalt. One of his concerns was that it would entice people to speed. Another concern is environmental. She would like to see a recommendation from the transportation committee. Once this is done, it is forever. It will cost a lot of money. They have to protect the sense of place. McShane apologized to Mr. Rutan for letting the discussion of this issue at the previous Council meeting become contentious. Fleetwood stated he visited the site and listened to Councilmember Brenner's thoughts on the issue. During the last Council meeting, the Council discussed the need to create policy guidelines on this question of what to do regarding sidewalks in the county. On this particular issue, they are deciding whether this was a sufficiently close call to go back to the drawing board. After looking at the site, given the densities that exist and given that state of the roads at either end of this stretch of the road, he believes that all the County is doing is conforming to what already exists. The density is similar to densities in urban areas. He will support the project. Brenner stated it's an extra $60,000. They are putting sidewalks in an area that is not an urban growth area. There are pockets of urbanization there. There are also bigger areas with a rural density. If they are going to spend that kind of money, taking two more weeks to allow someone to come up with a plan, will not make much difference. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 2.54.010 TO REFLECT THE CURRENT OFFICE HOURS OF THE LICENSING DEPARTMENT IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE (AB2003 -195) Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 7. APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY UTILITIES PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, DISTRICT 3 POSITION, APPLICANT: FRED W. SCHUHMACHER (AB2003 -197) Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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. Brenner moved to appoint Fred Schuhmacher. Motion carried unanimously. 8. APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, DISTRICT 2 POSITION, APPLICANTS: JOHN BELISLE, CRAIG DAVIS (AB2003 -159) Caskey- Schreiber moved to appoint John Belisle. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING), CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B) 2. ORDINANCE INCREASING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND (AB2003 -212) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Caskey- Schreiber reported that she misrepresented the facts during the previous Council meeting when they discussed the length of the minutes of a Planning Commission meeting. The minutes she referenced were nine pages total. The portion she was interested in was two and a half pages. She apologized for the misstatement. Caskey- Schreiber also reported that the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) approved the funding mechanism for an upgrade of diesel school buses. Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, 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 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. They've imposed a fee that will create revenue for a rescue tugboat on the Hood Canal, and upgrade of diesel school buses, and to air pollution authorities around the state. Roy stated she visited the oil spill response boats, owned by the local oil companies. She watched how they would respond to an oil spill. It was very interesting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on June 17 , 2003. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 5/20/2003, Page 28