HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works November 5 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
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
November 5, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 1:37 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. PETITION REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ORDERING AN
ELECTION TO DETERMINE FORMATION OF AN IRRIGATION
DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BERTRAND WATERSHED
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (AB2003 -226C)
Crawford moved to recommend review and approval of the resolution as
presented in the County Council packet.
Brenner stated she's heard major concerns from John Steensma and other
citizens. One proposal is to pull water out of an area where Mr. Steensma's water
right is, but the water is low in the summer time. Mr. Steensma is concerned
about losing his water in the summer. Also, he leases property to farm near his
own property, and is told that the district is looking at buying his farming land and
turning it into wetland. That means prime agricultural land won't be farmed. She
asked what happens to the smaller property owners.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Department of
Ecology reviews these concerns about Mr. Steensma's water rights and will
determine those impacts.
Crawford read from section two of the petition. If there are no water rights,
a landowner must acquire water rights through the Department of Ecology in a
manner that does not impair existing water rights. The onus is on the
Department of Ecology.
Grant stated it is in Mr. Steensma's best interest to raise the issue with the
Department of Ecology.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/5/2003, 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.
Crawford stated that based on how the Department of Ecology looks at
these things, the burden of proof of this problem will be on whoever is asking for
the water right to show they are not infringing on Steensma's water right.
Brenner stated she's seen cases where the Department of Ecology has not
done anything about people who sink wells that cause neighbors' wells to go dry.
Grant stated the limitation of the Council now is determining whether the
boundaries of the district are sensible. The wetland issue is not a boundary issue.
That issue is beyond the scope of what the Council should look at.
Brenner stated Ken Bright is concerned about his liability and also about
what could happen to his taxes in the future when this is up and running. She
asked if there is a cap on the amount of tax that can be collected.
Vern Vandegarde, Bertrand Improvement District Project Coordinator, stated
the most that could be collected is $1.00 per acre, unless there is a vote to assess
themselves for a special project.
Brenner asked about the special project assessment vote. Vandegarde
stated the vote is based on two votes per five acres.
Brenner stated that concerns her. Larger property owners will unequally
influence the outcome of the vote.
Grant stated that is beyond the Council's scope.
Brenner asked about personal liability. Vandegarde stated Mr. Bright is
concerned about being sued and losing his retirement. However, there is no
personal liability because it is a municipal corporation, unless the landowners
voted to be personally liable.
Brenner stated Whatcom County employees could be personally sued.
Grant stated that is different.
Vandegarde stated Mr. Bright is worried about an environmental group suing
the improvement district for any reason. Grant stated the participants in the
district could decide to assume personal liability, but that won't happen.
Brenner asked about voting value when voting for commissioners. Grant
stated it's not a concern. If the people want to form their district, that's the issue
for them. Once it's formed, Whatcom County has nothing to do with it.
Brenner stated a super- minority of people could make this decision. Grant
stated that's true, but not one person can exercise more than 49 percent of the
vote. That's the way the State legislature decided to specify how these things are
created.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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 they could change the minimum lot size from 2.5 acres to 5
acres. Grant stated they could do that. That would take the person with the
concern out of it.
Brenner stated her concern is that very small property owners could be hit
up with tax increases without any say about it. Grant stated they have a vote,
but it's not directly proportional. It's proportional to the amount of land per
landowner. The Supreme Court has upheld that this type of vote is permissible
when the burden will come down disproportionately on larger landowners.
Brenner stated she believes in the district, but not in small property owners
having no say in taxation. She would abstain from the vote on this motion until
she has more information about how tax votes would be done.
Motion failed 1 -0 -1 with Brenner abstaining.
Brenner stated the item would go forward to the Council with no
recommendation.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY — 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, referenced his memo dated October 13.
They've developed some language based on concepts that they talked about at the
last meeting.
Amendment one in the memo is in response to a concern about State
education facilities. Office space or storage associated with those facilities should
be allowed in commercial or industrial zones. Amend the definition in Whatcom
County Code (WCC) 20.97.430.
Amendment two in the memo relates to correction facilities in Point Roberts.
The language would allow facilities with ten or fewer beds.
Amendment three relates to notification for rezones. A Growth Management
Hearings Board case from Lewis County spurred this proposed amendment. There
needs to be a notification range around an airport that is wider than 1,000 feet. It
wasn't stated how much wider it had to be. Staff expanded this concept to areas
other than around an airport.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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.
Amendment four is to avoid confusion between essential public facilities as
defined in the Growth Management Act and the conditional use criteria in the
County code that references essential public facilities.
Brenner suggested language "essential necessary public facilities." Aamot
stated that would work.
Correction Facilities
Aamot stated the advisory committee said they can't have large correctional
facilities, but they can have transitional facilities with ten or fewer beds. The State
Department of Corrections was concerned about that. They wanted the County to
provide up to 30 beds in these areas. They cited a Growth Management Hearings
Board case from Tacoma. However, the Whatcom County ordinance is different
because facilities with no bed limits are permitted in a variety of zones. Legal
counsel determined that it's okay to have a bed limit in residential zones because
the County doesn't preclude larger facilities from existing in the county.
Brenner stated the legal counsel also determined that it would be okay for
the County to completely eliminate them from residential zones because the
County allows them in other zones.
Telecommunication Towers
Aamot read his Power Point presentation (on file). The Council has
discretion in this matter. It's not mandatory under the GMA.
Brenner asked if the Council has the discretion to consider
telecommunication towers as not being essential public facilities. Aamot stated it
does.
Brenner asked if the County would have more flexibility on where to site
telecommunication towers if they decided they don't want to consider them an
essential public facility. Aamot stated the advisory committee is saying the towers
are an essential public facility, so the County cannot preclude them from being
built. It's a designation of a certain type of a facility.
Brenner stated that by making that designation, the Council is giving them a
label that forces the County to put them where they might not want to put them.
Aamot stated the State created this designation because local governments were
trying to stop certain types of facilities in their jurisdiction. The idea is to say that
each local government must accommodate certain things of regional or State
importance, even though they may not want to. It's more about giving the
communication towers the status of something they have to allow somewhere in
the county.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/5/2003, 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
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 cellular towers have to be in certain areas to provide service
for that area. She asked if that would be used as a legal argument to site them
somewhere where the County may not want them to be sited, just so they can
provide service for that area. Aamot stated he doesn't know. It may be.
Brenner stated she would like the entire county to have access to cellular
phone service, but there may be places where it just won't happen because the
County doesn't want the towers located there. However, if they become an
essential public facility, the County is precluded from saying no.
Wendy Jones, Chief of Corrections, stated the Council may have the ability
to exclude certain categories of telecommunication towers. Telecommunication
towers are larger towers used by television stations or the repeater stations that
the deputies use. They could exclude cellular towers from being an essential public
facility while recognizing that police repeater towers are an essential public facility.
Aamot stated the U.S. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Local governments shall not prohibit personal wireless service. He
continued to read from the Power Point presentation.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Crawford left the meeting at 2:15 p.m. The
committee quorum was lost. The Power Point presentation continued, and is
recorded on the audiotape recording of the meeting.)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/5/2003, Page 5