HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works December 9 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
December 9, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Seth Fleetwood
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL=
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003 -075B)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, submitted a handout of his Power Point
presentation (on file). The facilities they are talking about today house or treat
people with problems that may or may not be self- imposed. Regardless, the
advisory committee's point of view is that these are people with special needs. The
committee looked at those needs when determining appropriate zoning districts and
areas. He read from the presentation. Both the Growth Management Act (GMA)
and the Federal Fair Housing Act require that residences for these handicapped
people can't be treated differently than housing for anyone else.
Nelson stated the residences must be treated the same as a family home. A
family home doesn't have to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). He asked if these homes don't have to be ADA compliant. Aamot stated he
didn't know the answer to that question.
Wendy Jones, Chief of Corrections, said the ADA regulations would still apply
for residential treatment. The advisory committee dealt with the question of
whether or not they would be allowed in a particular zone. The Fair Housing Act
prohibits the County from not allowing a small group home in a residential area just
because the residents are unrelated. The focus is on zoning, not ADA issues.
Nelson stated the Planning Commission language recommendation should be
for similar residential zones for other people, not structures. Jones stated the
language is regarding similarly sized structures. There may be some differences on
the face of the structures for mental health and substance abuse. They are
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
recognizing the difference between a group home that would hold six people, for
example, and a residential treatment center that holds 60 people. There needs to
be different zoning requirements.
Aamot referenced page 54 of the advisory committee recommendations that
allows as a permitted use boarding homes that are similar in size, facilities, and
occupancy to other residential structures permitted in the zoning district. If the
zone allows apartments, for example, the zone would also have to allow similar
sized mental health or substance abuse facilities.
Aamot continued to read the Power Point presentation regarding facilities
that are larger than residential uses.
Nelson asked who is responsible for the residents of a facility.
Elizabeth McNagny, Department of Social and Health Services, stated it
depends upon the type of facility. Adult family homes, which are the smallest
homes, house up to six people. They are often run by the live -in homeowners.
Larger facilities have professional staff that don't live in the home. There is always
staff who are responsible. The ratios of staff to resident are set in the contract
based on the types of problems the residents in the facility have. Small homes are
contracted through the State. They're adult homes. The State would be
responsible for the homes.
Brenner stated people with substance abuse problems are more likely to
create risks in a neighborhood. If they're ejected from the facility, they're still in
the neighborhood. It creates an extra risk in the neighborhood. She agrees that
substance abuse is probably an illness at some level, but it does create a higher
risk than someone who doesn't have a substance abuse problem. She asked what
kind of protection exists for the neighborhood, especially if it's a larger facility.
Jones stated that if a resident returns to a larger facility intoxicated or under the
influence of drugs, a case manager will be contacted. The person may be taken to
crisis respite. They aren't just thrown out of the house. Treatment centers have
case plans that anticipate that this may occur.
Brenner asked if the County could require a conditional use permit in any
zone. Aamot stated the larger facilities are required to have a conditional use
permit in certain zones, and prohibited in the rest of the zones.
Nelson asked if the committee worked with the City of Bellingham on this
issue. City zonings don't allow a lot of this. Aamot stated the City was invited to
these meetings. They came to a few. He doesn't think the City is too far in its
essential public facility planning.
Nelson stated most of these facilities will be in the urban or urban growth
areas. The County should work with the City. Aamot stated County staff has been
sending the different drafts to the City planning department.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Aamot continued to state that in 2001, the County Council reformed the
agricultural zone and took out a lot of non - agricultural related items, including
health care. The advisory committee indicated that these types of operations have
been on farms historically. They may be therapeutic. That is the reason for the
recommendation.
Nelson stated he supports the recommendation. Skagit County has such a
facility that has worked well.
Aamot continued to read his Power Point presentation on substance abuse
and mental health crisis facilities.
Brenner stated the language should state that these types of facilities shall
be located near medical providers. She asked if they could only locate these
facilities in general commercial or light industrial zones. She has a problem with
crisis facilities in a residential area, especially if someone is homicidal. These are
not residential group home settings. This is crisis management of dangerous
people. They don't belong in residential neighborhoods. Aamot stated the County
just needs to allow them somewhere.
Nelson stated one way to help reduce the stigma for individuals is giving
them stability. One of the treatment regimens is getting them into areas of
stability.
Brenner stated she agrees, but mentally ill people who are stabilized are
taking their medication and substance abusers who are stabilized are off the
substance they abuse. Crisis management is not for those who are stabilized.
]ones stated the primary crisis treatment places in Whatcom County now are
within the City of Bellingham. Crisis respite care, social detoxification, and the
recovery house are located in the middle of residential areas. The conditional use
permit allows the community to work with the provider to address all the issues.
Experience has shown that people in crisis who are too out of control won't go to
the crisis treatment facility. They will go to the hospital or jail.
Brenner asked how many years those facilities have been in place. ]ones
stated the detox center has been at the south campus for as long as she's been
around. It's at the hospital, but it's in the middle of a residential area. Crisis
respite has existed for eight or nine years.
Brenner asked if there have been any incidents. ]ones stated there probably
have been some, but the Sheriff's Office has not booked anyone from crisis respite.
She doesn't know of any complaints in the immediate area.
Nelson stated the issue is not to forbid these facilities, but to set up the
conditional use process so there is a clear understanding of what the facility is for.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Brenner stated the conditional use process can't deny an applicant, but only
place conditions on the request. There are places where the facility should be
denied outright. The language says a crisis management facility could have public
safety implications. They are already saying there is an increased risk with crisis
facilities.
Jane Relin, Whatcom Counseling and Psychiatric Clinic, stated there is not
any violence at these kinds of facilities. The crisis respite facilities, by definition,
allow people in who sign a no harm contract. If the individual is dangerous, the
person needs to be in a secured setting. These are not secured settings. Someone
who has not gone through treatment may self -refer themselves to the facility, but it
doesn't happen currently at the crisis respite center. It will be much more likely
with the triage program as they envision it. If they are going to do a full -blown
triage center, people who are unstable will come and go from the facility.
Nelson stated the term "crisis facility" is not a clear definition. A triage
center is a different animal. A crisis residential service itself should not be a threat
to the surrounding community.
Brenner stated a triage -type of facility should be much more carefully located
than a residential treatment facility.
Aamot stated they could define crisis facilities better. He will create a
definition. The Council will have to let him know what zones they should be in.
Nelson stated the general opinion is to not allow them in residential areas,
but only more controlled zones.
Aamot continued to read from his Power Point presentation regarding secure
community transition facilities for sex offenders.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. Councilmember Nelson left the
meeting at 1:45 p.m.)
McNagny stated that these facilities are only for former prisoners who were
committed to McNeil Island after their prison term. These sex offenders, when
released from prison, are determined to have a mental abnormality or personality
disorder that makes them likely to re- offend. The McNeil Island facility was
originally set up as a way to indefinitely lock up these people. The federal court
said it was unconstitutional, and the state had to provide treatment. If the offender
participated in treatment and shows a court that he is safe in the community, they
have to give the offender that opportunity.
Brenner stated level three sex offenders are designated at that level because
they aren't safe in the community. They're likely to re- offend. McNagny stated the
recidivism rate can be lowered, but not eliminated, through treatment.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Brenner stated everything she's read says the recovery rate among sex
offenders is extremely low. There's no statistic showing there's any significant
positive outcome from treatment. McNagny stated the treatment program they use
has been shown to reduce recidivism rates. That's why there's so much security
around this program. They are required by State and federal law to establish the
step -down program. If the State doesn't establish these step -down programs, the
result is the $8 million in fines and the closing of the McNeil Island system. They
do not go out into the community and say that these people are completely safe.
That's why there's so much security. However, if they don't do it, the court will
shut down the entire program. They cannot even see in the foreseeable future
when they would come to Whatcom County, unless the law changes. Whatcom
County is not within the six counties that the State is required to look at. The
County is required to plan for it, but it won't happen immediately.
Aamot continued to read from his Power Point presentation. The proposed
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan policies are largely based upon the State
requirements for siting these facilities.
Brenner stated she has a problem locating such a facility in a rural, rural
residential, or anywhere that's away from the core area. They shouldn't be allowed
outside of short -term planning areas at all.
Aamot finished reading his Power Point presentation.
Brenner stated this item would be held in committee to work through any
amendments.
Crawford stated the State legislature now has the ability to site and permit
methadone treatment clinics. The Substance Abuse Advisory Board has developed
some guidelines. He asked if the essential public facilities portion of the
Comprehensive Plan is the vehicle by which the Council should address the issue if
a private entity wants to set up a regional clinic. Jones stated since it would be a
private facility, and this issue is for essential public facilities. It might not be
considered an essential public facility.
McNagny stated most communities consider the methadone treatment
centers as essential public facilities because they meet the basic definition, which is
a facility that is difficult to site and that serves a public need. An essential public
facility can be privately operated. There will soon be two permitted methadone
clinics in Snohomish County. A third is going through court review. There has not
been an application from Whatcom County, although some interest has been
expressed from a Whatcom County tribe.
Crawford asked how the State permitting process has gone for the
Snohomish County facilities. McNagny stated two have gone smoothly, and one
has not. There was a proposal for the City of Lynnwood. The provider proposed a
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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
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.
clinic before the State Washington Administrative Code (WAC) was approved. The
City opposed the site the provider chose. In the WAC's, which are now approved,
the State made it clear that the provider has to meet the local zoning requirement
before going to the State for a permit.
Crawford asked if Whatcom County should specifically address methadone
treatment clinics in the zoning regulations. This is a new thing. Some day,
someone will want to do this in Whatcom County. The community will have to deal
with it. If the clinic isn't in Bellingham, it will end up in rural Whatcom County.
McNagny stated the State views it as an essential public facility. It is not a
residential clinic.
Aamot asked if it could be included in the category of crisis facility.
Crawford stated this is a notice that they need to pursue this issue in the
future. Whatcom County is going to end up with a proposal some day. They will be
better off planning ahead.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION DECLARING FORMATION OF THE POINT ROBERTS PARK
AND RECREATION SERVICE AREA (AB2002 -351D)
Brenner stated she's been told that the Port of Bellingham is backing off now
that the district is formed. It was clear when the Council approved the district that
the County would not take on any additional responsibilities other than allowing the
district to be formed. She'd like to know if there is an issue with the Port not being
as committed as it was before.
Terrie LaPorte, Point Roberts Chamber of Commerce President and Pier
Project Coordinator, stated she was told it's time to find out who is responsible.
The Auditor explained to her that the County Council does have the authority to
rule on this special service area. She wants to find out what everyone's
responsibility is, and how the Council wants the Chamber to proceed.
Brenner stated she's not comfortable moving forward with a vote until she
knows what they can and can't do legally. She doesn't want to commit the County
to doing more than what it's already done.
Crawford stated the next step is a formality to declare the formation of the
service area. How the service area is administered is a separate issue.
Brenner stated she heard the County will be responsible for implementing
certain things. She's not going to commit to that.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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
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.
Dodd Snodgrass, Port of Bellingham Economic Development Specialist,
stated the role of the Port in this project has been to provide technical assistance to
the Point Roberts Economic Development Association and the Chamber of
Commerce, which acquired a grant to do the feasibility work. The Port contracted
with the Chamber to engage an engineering firm to complete permit evaluations.
Brenner read from previous meeting minutes when Steve ]ilk told the
Council that the Port will support the community in finding funding. That's doing
more than providing technical assistance. The Chamber can't move forward until it
finds out whether or not it will be allowed to do this project. Mr. ]ilk stated it was
assumed that the Port would take that on. The Port has been debating this issue
for 14 months. The Port Commissioners have said not to move forward until the
community of Point Roberts is willing to operate and maintain the pier. The
Chamber couldn't do that until the Port knows that this is what the people of Point
Roberts want. The resolution to approve the vote for the district specifically said
that Whatcom County does not assume responsibility for future funding of the pier.
Make sure that the County isn't being committed to doing anything more than
setting up the district. She understood that the Port would assist the Chamber with
funding.
Snodgrass stated the community received a Forest Service grant that would
allow them to do some engineering and permit application. The Port has been
contractually engaged through this point. The issue now is the governance of the
pier. The Port had agreed to put its name on a permit application. Beyond that,
the Port doesn't intend to own or manage the pier. The Port's role is to facilitate
and work with the community. Creating the special area provides a mechanism for
governance, which is a challenge in the Point Roberts community because it's not
incorporated. More people are going to have to be at the table to make this work.
Creating a special area would provide for a governance ability for the pier.
Crawford stated it seems that Councilmember Brenner's concern is that there
is some added cost to the County that it didn't anticipate.
Brenner stated she's also concerned about administration, which has a cost
to it.
Crawford stated nothing's really changed. They've successfully taken a step
farther in the process. The Port's intention is to continue to work on helping to find
funding sources and facilitate planning meetings. Snodgrass stated that's clear.
The Port doesn't assume ownership of the project.
Brenner asked to what the Council is financially committing the County if the
Council establishes the service area.
Randy Watts, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the question is who would
monitor the project at the time of construction to ensure that the work is being
done in a timely fashion and within budget.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Snodgrass stated it's not the Port's intention to oversee construction.
Watts stated his understanding is that the County anticipated coming into
the project to take over at the time of maintenance, after the pier is constructed.
Brenner stated the Council asked those questions already. She understood
that the district would be set up and make sure the pier is constructed. The Council
did not want to be involved in any construction, which would cost money. Watts
stated the Port is thinking that it's done as soon as they get the dollars to construct
the pier. The County is thinking that it won't take over until after the pier is
constructed. Someone needs to bridge the gap between receiving the money and
during construction.
Crawford stated the ballot item says that the service area will provide
financing for park facilities, improvements, or services. He understood that this
ballot measure did not propose any financing. It just established the service area.
Jim Darling wrote that another agency needed to assume the lead role for the
project. He believes that the special district would need to go to the voters for
additional revenue. He asked if the special area is an entity that could enter into
contracts. Watts stated the purpose for the special area is to create an entity that
can contract.
Crawford asked who will run the district that has just been formed. Watts
stated the County Council is the ex officio warden of the district.
Brenner asked if that means that the County Council or County has to
oversee contracts to get the pier built.
Crawford stated the Council would probably appoint an advisory board for
the district.
Watts stated the special use district indicates that the legislative authority is
the governance of the district. He understood from the notes that the district was
set up to take over during the time of maintenance, not during the time of
construction. They need to clearly understand who will construct the facility for
which they need the funds. The Port would have more expertise than a citizen
group to run a construction project.
Brenner asked if the Port can assume the role of pier construction. Watts
stated it can.
Crawford stated the Port runs Port facilities. He asked what's different
between this facility and a facility run by the Port.
Brenner stated the Port doesn't own the land.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
Snodgrass stated the Port has a master plan for all facilities. They're Port
assets. They are budgeted for in the capital plan. They're different from a
structure that is sited elsewhere in the county. The Port became involved because
of its staffing support to the community, its expertise in dealing with permitting
agencies, and to advocate the project for funding.
Brenner asked where they go from here, to allow it to proceed without taking
on an obligation they don't want. Watts stated the Council needs to make a firm
statement that it will come into the process at the point of maintenance.
Brenner asked the mechanism to set that up. She asked who determines
who is in charge of building the pier. LaPorte stated that now the special district is
formed, the Council has been given some power.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner stated it's been made clear that the Council did not want to be
involved in building the pier. Wording was included so no one would think
construction would be the County's responsibility.
Crawford stated he wants to support the construction of the pier. Since this
was approved by a super- majority, he will do whatever he can to help facilitate
development of the pier. He is reluctant to commit County funds or long -term
maintenance. He moved to recommend approving the resolution. He asked why
some voter's were opposed.
LaPorte stated a minority of people don't want anyone to discover Point
Roberts. Business members realize the area is economically depressed and they
need economic vitalization.
Brenner stated this is a special district. If the County ends up being in
charge of administering it, funds will have to come out of the district. She talked to
one person who was concerned about the potential taxation issue. If the County
takes this on, it can't use general funds to do anything with it. The County may
have to hire or use staff to administer it, which will have to paid for through the
district. She doesn't know what the County's charge is at this time. She won't
support the motion until she gets some answers about what the County will be
responsible for. She asked if this is time critical to move forward now.
Watts stated they are probably trying to move forward with permits. The
people they are talking to are asking about the long -term status of the dock. The
Port won't be involved long -term.
Brenner asked how they can move forward with permits.
Snodgrass stated the Port has agreed to submit the permits in the Port's
name. They have a letter from the County permitting department saying that, at
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
some point, the permitting requestor can be transferred to another body. The Port
didn't want to commit to a long -term role by submitting the permits. On the other
hand, the Port wants to make sure the project moves forward and they are able to
move forward with a secured funding grant.
Brenner stated the Port could take charge until it's built, then the County will
take over. That's not long -term. That's what she thought the understanding was.
She assumed the Port would be instrumental in the creation of the pier, and that
the County would administrate after construction.
LaPorte asked if the next step could be for a councilmember to work together
with others agencies and people involved so they are all on the same page.
Crawford stated he will work with the other people and agencies. LaPorte
stated they could form a subcommittee that keeps Whatcom County informed of
what they're doing. The Port of Bellingham is under contract with the Chamber of
Commerce. Their phase I contract ended with the submission of the permits. The
Chamber has $2,700 of grant money and the balance of the $7,000 that is required
to get to this process. They were told, according to the Revised Code of
Washington, that the formation of the district relinquishes the Chamber's authority.
They have to have a working plan so everyone knows what its responsibilities are.
Crawford stated he would be willing to assist in any way.
Brenner stated she supports the idea. The Port should be in charge of
construction of the pier. The County should be in charge of maintaining it. She
asked if the County is obligating itself to building a pier if the Council approves this
item. Watts stated it's not clear where the funds will come from or who will be in
charge of the construction project. The service area, as a taxing authority, can
raise money. The question is what the public was told the function of the service
area would be. He asked if the public was told that this service area would raise
the money to build the pier, or that the service area would raise the money to
maintain the pier. LaPorte stated the public was told that the district would not pay
for construction. Once they secured grant funds to construct the pier, they would
go to the voters to ask for a levy to pay for maintenance.
Brenner stated the County is not obligating itself by going ahead with this
request. She understood that first the funds had to be found, and it wasn't going
to come from County dollars. Then, a taxation of the people in the service area for
maintenance would be done. She asked if the County is obligating itself to
construct the pier by approving this item. Watts stated it doesn't sound like they're
anticipating that will happen. The question is who will be in charge of the project.
Brenner asked why the Port wouldn't be in charge if the money is found from
grants. Snodgrass stated that might be a possibility. There's still the overall
governance of the process. Some funds require a general government and others
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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.
require a special purpose, such as the Port. A subcommittee will flesh out these
details.
Fleetwood asked what would happen if there is a process by which the
County can undo some glaring hole in the organization. Watts stated the question
is whether they can dissolve the service area. They can.
Brenner stated that if they can't find enough money to build the pier, the
Council could dissolve the service area. She asked how long it would take for the
district to find the money. Watts stated there's nothing in the resolution that
establishes levies or collects money for maintenance. They've got a service area.
The Treasurer is authorized to issue warrants, but can't do that until money comes
in. They are just setting up that mechanism. This resolution sets up a mechanism
that will allow them to take control and perform maintenance, which is what the
public voted for. This resolution doesn't say the County will construct the dock.
Brenner asked who is in charge of collecting the money for construction of
the pier. LaPorte stated the Pier Committee is in charge. The Port needs to
recognize that it isn't taking on the entire project, but is working with the Point
Roberts Chamber of Commerce.
Watts stated there can be a facility funded by public funds and grants that is
turned over to the service area. The service area can be in charge of maintenance.
Snodgrass ask if maintenance and ownership are the same by definition.
Watts stated they are. The ownership will be the service area or some kind
of public ownership in the long -term.
LaPorte stated that if the service district is the entity, then it would own that
pier.
Brenner stated she understands that it can set up its own board and be in
charge at some point. She asked if the County can set it up that way.
Irene Waters, Point Roberts Parks and Recreation District, stated this is not
too different than what they set up for the Parks and Recreation District many
years ago. All this will do is create an entity to manage the pier once it's built. The
service district will be able to levy funds to maintain the pier. That was clearly
stated when they held the public hearings. No money will be asked for until the
pier is built.
Brenner stated the Council is the board of this service district. She asked if
the Council can set up a board to be in charge. Waters stated that's what they had
to do for the Parks and Recreation District. They have to have elected
commissioners.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, 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
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.
Watts stated the resolution they're approving says that the Whatcom County
Council will compose the governing body of the service area. Right now, the
Council becomes the board. It doesn't mean the Council can't create another
board. He would have to check the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Brenner stated she would like that answer, but she is comfortable now with
moving ahead.
LaPorte asked to include language that the Council will appoint a board so it
would be in charge of administration.
Crawford stated they need to approve the resolution. The subcommittee
ought to be informal for the time being. Based on the need for supervision, the
Council may want to appoint some sort of advisory committee.
Motion to approve the resolution carried 2 -0 with Nelson absent.
Watts stated RCW 36.68.400 is clear that this service area is a corporate
entity with the ability to contract and tax. The members of the County legislative
authority, acting ex officio and independently, shall compose the governing body of
any park and recreation service area created within the county.
Brenner stated there are park and recreation areas that have their own
governing board. Watts stated that's a park district. One of the differences
between a district and a service area might be just that.
Brenner asked if the Council can set it up as a district or if the Council can
create a board.
Crawford stated he predicts the Council would set up an advisory board, but
the Council would vote on all the issues based on the advisory board
recommendations.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/9/2003, Page 13