HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 23 20021
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
April 23, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Nelson announced that there was discussion with a representative from
the Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office regarding pending litigation
(AB2002 -018) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
The Council provided direction regarding those issues.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
2. PROCLAMATION BY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REGARDING
NATIONAL HOSPITAL WEEK, HONORING ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL
(AB2002 -017)
Pete Kremen, County Executive, read a proclamation honoring St. Joseph
Hospital week into the record. He introduced Nancy Bitting and Terry Brennan, Vice
President of Human Resources.
Nancy Bitting, St. Joseph Hospital Chief Executive Officer, thanked the
Council and the Executive on behalf of the hospital and the hospital employees.
1. UPDATE FROM THE COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
(AB2002 -180)
Marty Snyder, Domestic Violence Commission Chair, thanked the Council and
Executive for their support of the Domestic Violence Commission. It is part of their
mission to work with the community to educate, support, and end violence.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 1
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Several commission members will give presentations.
2
3 Randy Carroll, Outreach and Education Committee Chair, stated the
4 commission was formed in 1999 by a joint ordinance by the County Council and
5 Bellingham City Council. They created and funded the commission. The City and
6 County funded the commission for its basic operating needs. The commission
7 generates other revenues. In 2001, they raised an additional $22,000 for a survey
8 project that would be explained. The commission has also completed a
9 comprehensive domestic violence plan as of June 2000. They set up their work
10 plan, priorities, and deliverables every year. In general, they divide their efforts
11 between education, outreach, system and policy change, and coordination and
12 collaboration. This is a public /private partnership. Some of the commission work
13 and outcomes cannot be measured. The network and education that occurs is
14 invaluable.
15
16 Commission members are volunteers. As a result, they challenge their
17 colleagues and associated agencies to make domestic violence a priority, and to
18 make changes in the way they approach domestic violence a priority.
19
20 Dr. Shannon Meyer, Law and Justice Committee Chair, stated she would talk
21 about the projects the commission had undertaken in 2001. It is a wonderful
22 example of the overarching mission of the commission, which is to raise awareness
23 to mobilize action in the community and to make systemic changes across a variety
24 of domains.
25
26 In 2001, they coordinated Domestic Violence Awareness month. Their
27 primary speaker was the State's Attorney General. They also coordinated a
28 conference regarding the abuse of older and vulnerable adults. Part of the goal, in
29 addition to expanding awareness of this issue, was to mobilize efforts in the
30 community and to have an agency take a lead in addressing this issue, protecting
31 this population, and engendering change.
32
33 They've done work on standardizing evaluations and treatment of men who
34 are mandated through the system. Before, there was a constellation of providers
35 that did what they wanted, assessed in ways that they wanted, and provided
36 treatment in ways they wanted, as long as they conformed to the Revised Code of
37 Washington (RCW). The commission has come up with a set of recommendations
38 for evaluations that are based on indices of re- offense, lethality, and risk. Now,
39 they have a comprehensive package for evaluating men who come through the
40 system. This has been extended to work across the courts. They are coordinating
41 with County administrators, who are developing bench books, so the judges will
42 have information on best practices as reflected throughout the country, which is
43 what they are beginning to implement in Whatcom County. They still have goals
44 they are pursuing in the Law and Justice Subcommittee and in the commission.
45
46 Lastly, they are working collaboratively with the Law and Justice Council,
47 with a grant they secured, to look at judicial response and a coordinated
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
community response to cases of domestic violence. She's been involved in that
effort. It's exciting to have judges, treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, and
people with other backgrounds discuss how they can best respond to this issue in
the community.
Sue Parrott, Domestic Violence Commission Director, stated she would
discuss key activities for 2002, specifically two projects. The Community Survey
Project is a project that the commission started last year as an outcome of the
Comprehensive Plan. One of the things the community and providers told the
commission was that they wanted to learn more about the experiences of victims
and survivors as they thought about disclosing abuse to a provider. The
commission raised money, hired a consultant, and designed a survey that would
solicit information that would tell them who is a victim, the kinds of barriers that
would keep a victim from disclosing or encouraging disclosure to a provider that he
or she is a victim, and whether a Whatcom County provider has ever asked the
person if he or she is a victim of domestic violence. The commission developed the
survey, distributed it at 27 different sites around the county, mostly in health care
offices. There was great support and response. It was offered to women who are
18 years old and over. It was filled out by women who agreed to fill it out. They
will have the findings and an executive summary in a couple of days. She will
provide a copy to the councilmembers when it is available. The commission will
look at the findings and develop a strategy with the community about how to
distribute the information.
They had 1,036 valid survey responses. Of the people who completed the
survey based on the criteria for defining a victim, 41 percent indicated that they
had experienced abuse in an intimate relationship in the last three years. They
can't generalize that 41 percent of the women in Whatcom County have been
abused. An additional 13 percent experienced abuse prior to three years ago, but
weren't currently experiencing abuse. Only 23 percent of the respondents indicated
that they had ever been asked by a provider if they had experienced domestic
violence. That is not a very good statistic.
Regarding the information about barriers, there are four themes for why
people don't feel comfortable disclosing abuse. The first barrier is their internal
beliefs, guilt and shame. The second barrier is a belief that they can manage by
themselves. Domestic violence is not an issue that usually goes away without
intervention. The third barrier is not knowing that what they experience is abuse.
They ranked the abuse by levels. Even people who are experiencing a higher level
of abuse indicated, at the same rate, that they didn't know they were experiencing
abuse. It's a significant finding that people don't understand what they are
experiencing. The fourth barrier was fear of the consequences.
The factors that encourage disclosure included a provider who took the time
to listen and a victim who is simply ready to tell. A provider response is critical in
facilitating disclosure, as well as a person's readiness.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The findings are based on Whatcom County residents. It's imperative that
they continue to educate, discuss the issue, and proactively ask people about it.
Another project the commission is working on in 2002 is called the
Community Safety and Accountability Audit. It is a tool being used across the
country. Whatcom County is the first community in the State of Washington to do
this. It's a tool that will analyze a system as it responds to a domestic violence
incident in terms of victim safety and batterer accountability. They are auditing the
system from the point at which a case enters to the point at which it leaves. The
program will train members of the community to be the audit team, so they have a
local investment. As a result, there will be a benchmark of where the community
is, and where the community needs to improve. They have chosen for the first
audit to focus on the initial criminal justice intervention system, starting with 911,
the Bellingham police, Whatcom County Sheriff, and jail. This will be a feature of
Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.
The commission always welcomes the County Council's input in what it does.
They have limited resources, and want to focus on what is important.
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
McShane stated there is one amendment to the minutes in the packet.
Brenner accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to her motion for
approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR APRIL 2, 2002
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 26, 2002
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Charlene French, 5044 La Bounty Road, Ferndale, stated the odor from
Recomp was overwhelming yesterday morning. She called several agencies about
the odor. A police officer came to her house and agreed the odor was bad. This is
an ongoing problem. The Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) has pages of
complaints from her and from residents in the entire neighborhood. She cannot
use her property or open her windows. She cannot be outside on her four -acre
property because of the smell. She and her husband have to drive to Bellingham to
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
go for a walk. She, her husband, and her neighbors have all been treated for sinus
infections. The odor travels a long way. Recomp has had fines levied against them
that they have not paid. The City of Ferndale hired someone to evaluate the source
of odor from Recomp. Recomp has ignored the report. Her daughter, who is an
ultrasound technician identified the odor as autoclave, not compost. When she has
company, they complain. She can't sell her house to move.
Robert French, 5044 La Bounty Road, Ferndale, stated he has spoken to the
County Council many times about the noise and odor from Recomp. The problem is
growing worse. The most recent problem was blamed by Recomp on a defective
piece of equipment. He doesn't believe that, because he puts up with this every
day. Recomp generates these problems daily. Recomp is permitted to treat
infectious waste in this county. That bothers him because their problems are easily
fixable. Recomp could work with the City of Ferndale to fix the problem. They
could use the recommendations supplied by the consultant for the City of Ferndale.
Recomp has ignored the recommendations. The fines from the Northwest Air
Pollution Authority (NWAPA) total almost $30,000. Recomp is fighting the fines in
court. The citizens in this county can't trust them to operate something that has an
impact on their health. They could fix the small things, show responsibility, so the
citizens would have faith that they would treat the important things like infectious
waste, but Recomp doesn't do that.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if the mushroom composting facility is part of the
problem. Robert French stated that they couldn't find out who owns the place. The
mushrooming and the autoclave are all on the same site. The odors that come
from the site can't be separated.
Brenner agreed that the problem is ongoing. She called and complained
today when she experienced the odor. She doesn't understand how they can keep
polluting with impunity every day. She asked where they go from here.
Nelson stated that was a discussion item in executive session.
Brenner stated she recalled that they are not allowed to be emitting horrific
odors over an area that is miles wide.
odors.
Nelson asked if there are requirements under City of Ferndale on nuisance
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he assumed there is.
Robert French stated the City of Ferndale is apprehensive that, if they pass a
law to deal with this problem, then they would be open to a lawsuit. Every
nuisance that is on the books was passed to address some sort of a problem.
Brenner stated there are nuisance ordinances in the county. She gets a lot
of complaints about odor problems in the county.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
Kate Alexander, 3300 South Bay Drive, spoke on a proposed ordinance to
establish a no -wake area in the South Bay area of Lake Whatcom. The Sheriff will
not enforce anything without the ordinance. Residents are worried about the
erosion of the shoreline, sediment that is stirred up, and danger to people who are
swimming in the area.
Gordon DeBruine, resident, stated he lives not far from the fire station on
South Bay Drive. He has six grandchildren. They are right across from Wildwood,
where there are 30 to 40 boats on the weekends. In addition, it's the southern
public boat launching area. The boat traffic is horrendous on the weekend. It is
dangerous for his grandchildren to use the beach area. There has been
considerable erosion. It's not necessarily the skiers who are the problem. When
there is a family in a boat that pulls an inner tube, an tremendous amount of wake
is produced, even though they are going at a relatively slow speed. He has a 40-
foot dock. Those boats come within ten to 20 feet of the dock. The State law says
a boat is supposed to be 300 feet out from the beach area. He asked the Council to
establish an ordinance to establish a no -wake area in Lake Whatcom. Enforcement
is difficult because there is only one boat on the lake that has to police both Bloedel
Donovan and South Bay. They need some kind of relief from the wake.
Norma Harden, 3242 South Bay Drive, stated she has the same problem as
the previous speaker, only worse because they are not allowed to do anything with
the shoreline. It has receded in some areas by five feet. She planted trees, but
they are falling over. They've battled beavers. The boats are something else.
There is nothing they are able to do with the safety. The boat launch is right there.
It is crowded. The boats circle around on the lake and the wake washes up to five
feet. It's a safety issue with children. She is not able to use her property the way
she would like. She put up a barricade, but it doesn't always stop them. She
would appreciate any help she can get.
Linda Sterling, 486 G Street, Blaine, stated she works for Whatcom County.
Many of her coworkers are here to ask the Council to help employees get a fair
offer from the administration in negotiations. The employees are the heart and
soul of the County. They work hard and provide great customer service to the
public. They need a fair offer on the table.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
Nelson stated the public hearing is open and was continued from the April 9,
2002 Council meeting. The following people spoke:
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
Richard Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated County health
officials estimate the cost of filtration systems in Whatcom County at $4,000. A
professional engineer in Whatcom County says that a cost for a three -lot short plat
system is about $35,000, not including public water system approval. As part of the
ordinance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that the arsenic level
needs to be lowered from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to ten ppb by January 2006.
The BIA agrees. The Council wants to do it now. Even State officials are surprised.
The EPA's standard was never intended for private wells. Some fear that too
much arsenic in the water causes too much cancer. The County's own Health Officer
says it would take 148 years to prevent one case of cancer and 276 years to prevent
one death. Only 13 wells per 100 have an arsenic level of 10 ppb. The APA
Washington State Drinking Water Revolving Loan program has $25 million in low
interest loans for water system projects. None of the funds can be used by private
well owners for arsenic removal. There may not be low interest loan programs
available for private systems for years. Even if someone wants to comply
immediately, the only way to qualify would be to form a special purpose district,
which could take years and cost thousands of dollars. The County Council may be
moving so fast that many private water sources will be prevented to get the financial
assistance available to public systems. This is not about water quality and
protecting the safety of the people of Whatcom County. Their safety is not being
immediately threatened, if at all. It's about limiting development in the rural parts
of the county. Arsenic content in the water just happens to be the recent,
convenient, and appealing vehicle to do so.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Kate Cook, 1212 Nevada Street, stated arsenic is bad. She asked why they
would wait until 2006 to change the level to 10 parts per billion. They have an
opportunity to make a difference now. The money it costs to treat the water now is
far less than the cost to treat cancer, immune disorders, and other problems caused
by low concentrations over long periods of time. Protect the families who live in
houses with private wells.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to adopt the April 9th version of the ordinance.
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, gave a staff report. The April
9th version reflects two changes the Council voted on during the previous session.
One of the changes was to restore the no protest agreement and the requirement to
hook up to public water. The second change was to remove any reference to
seawater from the section that deals with water rights. He submitted an amended
water availability form that reflects the word "well" instead of "spring."
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 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.
1 A question that came up during the last meeting was whether there is
2 anything else they have to do regarding seawater, now that they realize it is
3 different than surface water. He has two suggestions. He submitted a handout of
4 his suggestions (on file). He suggested modifying definition (28), "Surface water
5 means a body of water open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff,
6 excluding seawater. This ' eludes but is et li fflited to ,ter and F ateF "
7
8 The other change is more of a safeguard. Throughout the ordinance, they
9 talk about satisfactory results. Recently, with the changes to the arsenic level, he is
10 concerned about what "satisfactory results" may actually mean. They typically deal
11 with the Washington State Department of Health maximum contaminant levels
12 (MCL). He proposed adding a definition for the term "satisfactory results ",
13 " "Satisfactory results" means the level of any specified contaminant except arsenic,
14 does not exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) listed in WAC 246 - 290 -310,
15 and for arsenic, the level does not exceed 10 parts per billion (10ug /L)."
16 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246- 290 -310 is about public water supplies.
17 The State of Washington lists all the maximum contaminant levels for everything in
18 that section of the WAC.
19
20 There are a number of issues regarding seawater. If they identify it as
21 surface water, it could be confusing. It would require people who are developing
22 water systems using seawater to have to go through the surface water treatment
23 rule. Seawater is clearly exempt from that. This change would make it less
24 confusing for all involved.
25
26 Nelson moved to add a definition, " "Satisfactory results" means the level of
27 any specified contaminant except arsenic, does not exceed the maximum
28 contaminant level (MCL) listed in WAC 246 - 290 -310, and for arsenic, the level does
29 not exceed 10 parts per billion (10ug /L)."
30
31 Crawford stated he is against the motion. He would like to table the motion
32 until they have the discussion regarding arsenic.
33
34 Nelson agreed. If they don't make the changes to the arsenic MCL, this
35 motion won't mean anything.
36
37 Chudek stated that if they keep the arsenic level at that of the State
38 Department of Health, he still would recommend a definition of the term
39 "satisfactory results" with the reference to arsenic removed.
40
41 Nelson withdrew his motion until after the discussion regarding arsenic.
42
43 Crawford moved to modify definition (28) for surface water, "Surface water"
44 means a body of water open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff,
45 excluding seawater. This ineludes but us net ted to ,}e= and - ateF "
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 8
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1
2 Crawford handed out two pages of proposed amendments (on file). They are
3 dealing with four sections. The first section of the ordinance is regarding wells for
4 single - family homes. The second section of the ordinance is regarding wells for two
5 single - family homes. The second page of the handout is the same language, but is
6 for the other two sections, surface water for single - family homes and surface water
7 springs, for two single - family homes. The language is almost identical for all.
8
9 He moved to amend sections 24.11.090(2)(k) and 24.11.100(4)(k):
10 (k) When untreated water sample ... (MCL) eF if the aFsen". level
11 emeeeds 10 paFts peF billien the applicant has:
12 (i) Designed and installed... the MCL
13 . After January 23, 2006,
14 arsenic contamination shall further be reduced to
15 10 parts per billion to correspond to the EPA
16 recommendation for public water systems.
17 However, if the State Department of Health
18 maximum contaminant levels for arsenic is lowered
19 before that date, the State standards shall take
20 precedence.
21 (A) Wells with arsenic levels of between 11
22 parts per billion and the current MCL shall
23 be approved before the January 23, 2006
24 date if the applicant attaches a disclosure
25 form to the property deed requiring the
26 property owner to have designed and
27 installed a treatment system to reduce
28 arsenic contamination to the 10 ppb level
29 or less by the January 23, 2006."
30
31 His amendment includes doing the same thing in sections 24.11.110(4)(k)
32 and 24.11.120(4)(k). The only difference in these sections is that subsections (A)
33 would say "wells or surface water sources" instead of just "wells." Those two
34 sections deal with surface water.
35
36 This amendment is in response to the concerns brought forward to the
37 Building Industry Association (BIA) and others that they exceed the Environmental
38 Protection Agency (EPA) recommendation, which states that public water systems
39 will go to this level on January 23, 2006. The County is exceeding the EPA in the
40 time implementation, not the MCL. The United States Department of Agriculture is
41 in the process of developing a program of financing with no interest loans and
42 possibly grants for small water system owners, which may be extended to private
43 well owners. It is a mechanism by which they can purchase these systems. If the
44 County forces people to implement this now with new construction or anything else
45 that triggers this, they may not allow them to take advantage of those financing
46 options. He was told that a local Department of Ecology (DOE) staff person was
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
surprised the Council was going ahead with this when the scheme for that financing
has not yet been made public.
He is also suggesting that if the State Department of Health adopts the 10
ppb standard before 2006, then Whatcom County will default to that level. The
County goes along with the State's MCL for private wells. In addition, if someone is
between that 10 and 50 ppb standard, he or she can go ahead and get this permit.
However, he or she is going to have to have a treatment system that meets the
standard by January 23, 2006.
Crawford asked who would enforce it in four years, and how much it would
cost to enforce that change in four years.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, stated her one concern
is that the Health Department would have to ensure that these treatment systems
were actually put in place. The leverage to get those installed after the fact would
be minimal. They estimated 26 residences per year that would have to have these
systems installed. Over a four -year period, that is approximately 100 residences.
Nelson asked what they would do if the Council doesn't approve this change
at all. Delahunt stated that if the new standards were put in place for new
construction at this point, then they wouldn't be allowed to get their building permit
until they had the treatment system installed. This only applies to new construction.
Brenner stated it won't be a big hardship to the County to send out a hundred
postcards telling people they have to verify that their systems are set up. She
would like to get a legal opinion on whether the County's leverage is minimal.
Everyone with a well right now who has between 10 and 50 parts per billion of
arsenic isn't subject to the ordinance. They'd be the ones with the long -term
effects. This is just for new construction, and would affect those people with new
homes between now and 2006. It sounds great to say that the County should adopt
this now, but it will cause some families to not be able to build at all. She proposed
an amendment to Crawford's motion to include language at the end of
Councilmember Crawford's proposed subsection (A), "Until the applicant can show
the arsenic level is at or below 10 parts per billion, the applicant must show
evidence that water for drinking is safe, such as bottled water." People should have
the time to finance these systems. They are very expensive. It isn't a hardship to
demand that people use bottled or another source of water.
Nelson stated that if the concern is educating the public, then the Council
should take this whole thing out, and have the requirement that the County will
send out the cards to these people notifying them that they will be required to have
treatment as there is evidence of arsenic levels approaching 10 ppb. This proposed
amendment says that the County will ask the owner to upgrade the well at the time
the new MCL is implemented.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
Crawford stated that is not correct. His motion requires the owner to agree to
do that up front. He is silent on the issue of whether the County would go back in
four years and ask for proof. If a notice were attached to the deed, the owner would
be unable to sell without the upgrade.
Brenner stated the notice on the deed would inform a buyer.
Nelson stated this is just for new construction.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they can draft language to
get where they want to be. He is not comfortable with that aspect of
Councilmember Crawford's motion. It is doable to come up with language that
allows the County some leverage over the homeowner who needs to prove
installation of a treatment system by 2006. He has ideas on how to do that.
Delahunt stated a question is what they do if someone doesn't install a
system, which is likely.
Grant stated another question is how the County gets on the property to find
out if a system has been installed.
Delahunt stated she preferred to require the 10 ppb MCL now. If the Council
doesn't do that, she would rather see just a disclosure on the deed that the well
exceeds 10 ppb. Forget about the treatment system. It would be impossible for the
County to enforce installation of the treatment system.
Crawford did not accept Councilmember Brenner's friendly amendment.
McShane stated he was not sure the Council wants to get into regulating
private wells. There are a lot of contaminants, besides arsenic, that are in wells
currently. There is no enforcement for that. The chemical EDB issue is one of them.
The County doesn't pay attention to what is going on in private wells. He
appreciated Councilmember Crawford's attempt to create a compromise. Set the
MCL at 10 ppb now, because they are going to have to do it anyway. They won't
have to worry anymore about the new wells that go in. There is still an educational
issue for the wells that exist.
Crawford amended his motion to eliminate his proposed subsection (A) in all
four sections of the motion.
Brenner stated she couldn't support the motion that way. It won't be a big
problem to make sure those hundred properties will be in compliance. They can do
it legally and with little impact on the County. At some point, people have to take
responsibility for their own lives. Government can't do it. She appreciated
Councilmember McShane's push to do this, and she wants to support it. However,
she also wants to give people time to finance the change that will come soon. She
preferred to go back to the Councilmember Crawford's original motion for
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
amendment. People need to bring their water test results to the County.
Government is not meant to be easy, but it is meant to be fair to the public.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't support Councilmember Crawford's motion
either way. She grew up on Camano Island. Island County has the highest level of
arsenic in their wells in the entire state. In her family, she and her father have had
cancer. Her father had heart disease. It's hard to prove that's related to arsenic,
but she would hate to have any other family go through what she is going through.
She supports implementing the new MCL right now. It is about education. She
hopes to educate people by setting the standard at 10 ppb. Right now, the federal
government under two presidents felt that the cost of implementing the system
outweigh the health risks.
Brenner stated the federal government has chosen to implement it by 2006.
She will make her own motion to make sure people are using a safe water source
until they can meet the standard. She's trying to make sure people have time to
finance a system.
Nelson asked the number of existing wells across the county that currently
have arsenic levels between ten and 50 ppb. Delahunt stated 13 percent of the new
wells would have an arsenic level above ten ppb. There are 300 existing wells with
arsenic levels above 10 ppb that they know of since 1990. They don't have
information on wells prior to 1990.
McShane stated this ordinance doesn't address those existing wells.
Nelson stated they are adding notification to the deeds and educating the
people that way. People have the ability to make their own choices. The County
can only regulate to a point where the costs become prohibitive.
Roy stated both the Clinton and Bush administrations agree on this. They
have the science. There are people who can't make this choice, including children,
renters, and family members who aren't making this choice.
Crawford amended and restated his entire original amendment.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor.
Crawford moved to amend sections 24.11.090(2), 24.11.100(4),
24.11.110(4), and 24.11.120(4):
(k) When untreated water sample ... (MCL) eF if the Fsen"e level
the applicant has:
(i) Designed and installed... the MCL
After January 23, 2006,
arsenic contamination shall further be reduced to
10 parts per billion to correspond to the EPA
recommendation for public water systems.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
However, if the State Department of Health
maximum contaminant level for arsenic is lowered
before that date, the State standards shall take
precedence.
Fleetwood stated he was initially concerned about the obligation this would
impose on people up front. He responded to the claim that it would take at least
$4,000 to install a system. He also questioned the statistics that indicated there
would be few illnesses over a long period of time. Now, his thinking has evolved. If
they save even one life over the next six generations, for example, then it's worth it.
He will support the standard of 10 ppb.
Brenner stated she wanted to know where the estimate of $4,000 for a
system came from. Local engineers who have installed these systems say it will
cost over $10,000 each. Chudek stated the low range is $2000 and the high end is
$10,000. It depends on how much junk is in the system that has to be taken out
first, before it can get to the arsenic. He was told by the people who sell water
systems to private homeowners that $4,000 is not an unreasonable amount of
money.
Roy asked about maintenance costs.
Crawford stated it is about $150 per year.
Chudek stated it depends on the treatment system that is put in. A number
of different technologies are emerging. If someone has very poor water quality to
start with, it's a nightmare to maintain.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor.
Brenner moved to amend sections 24.11.090(2), 24.11.100(4), 24.11.110(4),
and 24.11.120(4):
(k) When untreated water sample ... (MCL) eF if the arsenic level
exceeds 10 parts per billien the applicant has:
(i) Designed and installed... the MCL or belew 10 parts
per bdiien fer arsenic. After January 23, 2006,
arsenic contamination shall further be reduced to
10 parts per billion to correspond to the EPA
recommendation for public water systems.
However, if the State Department of Health
maximum contaminant levels for arsenic is lowered
before that date, the State standards shall take
precedence.
(A) Wells with arsenic levels of between 11
parts per billion and the current MCL shall
be approved before the January 23, 2006
date if the applicant attaches a disclosure
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 13
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1
form to the property deed requiring the
2
property owner to have designed and
3
installed a treatment system to reduce
4
arsenic contamination to the 10 ppb level
5
or less by the January 23, 2006. Until the
6
applicant can show that the arsenic level is
7
at or below 10 ppb, the applicant must
8
show evidence that water for drinking is
9
safe, such as the use of bottled water."
10
11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
12
13 McShane stated the Council has done a tremendous service to educate the
14 public about arsenic by keeping it on the agenda for so long.
15
16 Motion failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner in favor.
17
18 Brenner moved to amend language regarding the no protest agreement. The
19 committee unanimously voted to use the alternate language provided by the Health
20 Department that will completely notify and protect unsuspecting buyers. For
21 example, section 24.11.130(2)(d)(i -v) would remain as written in the April 9, 2002
22 version of the ordinance, and add subsection (vi), "(vi) When the public system is
23 available, any person obtaining water from contaminated source must provide
24 current test results showing water treatment is adequately maintaining water quality
25 below maximum contaminant levels (MCL). If the quality does not meet the MCL,
26 the applicant is required to hook up to a public system." She doesn't know how
27 anyone who supported bringing the MCL down to 10 ppb with a treatment system
28 could say that someone has to hook up to a public system, even if the expensive
29 private system is working. If the County is going to allow people to use systems to
30 bring their contaminant levels down to the standards that they've designated, then
31 the County needs to not require them to pay twice. She is taking out the entire no
32 protest provision. They would still be required to show that their system is
33 adequately working, otherwise they would be required to hook up.
34
35 Roy stated she thought this only applies to contaminated water sources.
36
37 Brenner stated the definition of contaminated water source doesn't mean
38 someone is drinking contaminated water. It means the source of the water exceeds
39 the level. If someone has a system in place that treats the water and brings the
40 contaminants below the levels, then the water someone is drinking is not
41 contaminated.
42
43 Roy asked how the County checks on this. Delahunt stated the County does
44 not check private supplies. The only thing the County checks is new construction.
45 People bring their testing results in. Throughout history, the Health Department's
46 position has always been that they should not allow people to use a contaminated
47 water source for private supplies. As a compromise, the County has allowed use of
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
a contaminated water source if treatment occurs, and people know up front that an
adequate, uncontaminated sources comes along, they need to hook up. There are
two choices. One choice is to not allow people to use a contaminated water supply
to begin with, or compromise and let them use treatment to bring it down to a
drinkable level, knowing that if a better supply comes along, they will have to hook
up.
Brenner stated there is a third choice. When the public water supply is
available, a person can continue to use their treatment system if he or she can
show, by submitting a current water test, that system maintenance has occurred
and the water is not contaminated. There has to be flexibility for those who know
how to maintain their systems and are doing a good job of it.
Nelson asked if someone is required to hook up to a sewer line when it is
installed, if he or she is currently using a septic system. Delahunt stated that
person is, if the system is failing.
Nelson asked if the system would have to be inspected. Delahunt stated it
would, but the Health Department permits onsite sewage systems. The County has
that jurisdiction. The County doesn't have jurisdiction over private wells. All they
do is look at the adequacy of water.
Nelson asked if the Council could approve jurisdiction. Delahunt stated she
didn't know that they want to do that. There would be fiscal implications.
McShane stated the Council is acting, in this case, as the Board of Health.
This is a compromise to allow people who are in a difficult circumstance to build and
use their property. Councilmember Brenner is trying to create flexibility and avoid
costs to people. It's also creating a disincentive to creating clean water sources for
a developer who might be trying to do a short plat or long subdivision, for example.
Brenner stated that was the argument used with the Birch Bay water system.
They ended up forcing foreclosure on a little old lady and a disabled man. Their
systems were working, but they were being forced to hook up to public water. They
couldn't protest. She agreed that if the treatment systems aren't adequate, they
should hook up to public water. If the treatment system is maintained and they can
show their test results at the time the public system goes through, it shows they are
doing a good job.
Fleetwood asked the cost of hook up. Delahunt stated it depends.
Brenner stated a person is sometimes charged a hookup charge, per foot
frontage, and then a monthly charge. It can be many, many thousands of dollars.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with McShane, Roy, and Caskey- Schreiber
opposed.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated this was in committee for many hours. She thanked Ms.
Delahunt and Mr. Chudek, even though they disagreed on those two things. There
are many things in this ordinance that are important, but got lost in the discussions
because of these two issues. They couldn't have done this without Health
Department staff.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Nelson stated they forgot to make the motions suggested by Mr. Chudek. He
moved to reconsider adopting the ordinance.
Motion to reconsider carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance as amended. He moved to add the
definition of the term "satisfactory results," " "Satisfactory results" means the level of
any specified contaminant except arsenic, does not exceed the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) listed in WAC 246 - 290 -310, and for arsenic, the level does
not exceed 10 parts per billion (10ug /L)."
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through four.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through four carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -38 FOR THE WESTERN AREA CLASS G ASPHALT
PRELEVEL PROJECT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WILDER
CONSTRUCTION, FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $458,310 (AB2002-
185)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -41 FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC MIXES FOR
COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS TO THE APPROPRIATE LOW BIDDER,
BASED ON JOB LOCATION AND DISTANCE FROM PLANT, AND
PRODUCT AVAILABILITY, FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF
APPROXIMATELY $375,000 (AB2002 -186)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -42 FOR THREE REPLACEMENT DUMP TRUCKS TO THE
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, KENWORTH NORTHWEST, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $325,480.35 (AB2002 -187)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A REPLACEMENT MAIL MACHINE FROM
PITNEY BOWES, USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FOR
AN ANNUAL COST OF $9,621.60 AND A TOTAL SIXTY -MONTH COST
OF $48,108 (AB2002 -188)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, REQUEST #4 (AB2002-
175)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NOISE AND ODOR
EMISSIONS AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
(AB2002 -165)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
this item was withdrawn.
3. REQUEST TO AMEND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO EXEMPT
PARCELS WITHIN THE DRAYTON HARBOR STORMWATER SPECIAL
DISTRICT FROM ON -SITE STORMWATER DETENTION AND
INFILTRATION REQUIREMENTS (AB2002 -174)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
to remand back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
recommended not amending Title 20; leaving in Drayton Harbor as a stormwater
special district, just like Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish as soon as the Technical
Advisory Committee came up with its development standards. The Council can't
mess around with the development standards. That is done administratively. The
Planning Commission didn't have those standards for stormwater special districts
for single residential homes. The Planning Commission chose to leave things the
way they are because they couldn't evaluate those standards.
Those standards were given to the Council today. The concern is that in
Drayton Harbor, there are large rural areas. He would have approved the
administration's recommendation, because the zoning in the area would protect the
stormwater in the Drayton Harbor area. There are large tracts of land, so there
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
won't be a lot of stormwater runoff. There were also some efforts to address siting
homes on five -acre parcels away from streams to avoid impacts. In hearing the
dialogue today, it's important to go back to the Planning Commission just to have
more discussion so they all understand what that really means. There was also
some thought on considering the same language that was suggested for Drayton
Harbor for the other districts as well. Zoning can be used as a tool to protect from
stormwater. That might apply in Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish, too. They
maybe need to look at those administrative development standards before they
make that decision.
Nelson offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the Planning
Commission consider exempting those parcels within the Drayton Harbor
stormwater special district, Lake Whatcom watershed, and Lake Samish watershed.
areas.
McShane stated he accepted the friendly amendment to consider all the
Motion carried unanimously.
4. APPOINTMENT TO THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ALTERNATE LIST, APPLICANT HANK ROORDA (AB2002-
178) (COUNCIL ACTING AS FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS)
Crawford moved to appoint Mr. Roorda.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR GREEN -LAND ENTERPRISES, 39
SUDDEN VALLEY DRIVE SE (AB2002 -189)
McShane moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING A WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES REQUEST FOR WRITTEN OPINION ON A
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE NAME OF POST POINT TO POE POINT
(AB2002 -179)
Brenner moved to send a letter proposing to change the name of Post Point
to its original name, Poe Point.
Crawford stated it's supposed to be Poe's Point, not Poe Point.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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
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.
Warren Bergholz, citizen, stated he first brought this up to the Port
Commission 15 years ago. He contacted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), who sent it to the National Board of Names. They referred
it to the State Board of Names, who sent him an application. He filled out the
application and sent them many exhibits and maps on this issue. The Bellingham
Herald ran a feature article on the issue a while back. There have been a number
of supporting letters for this issue, including the Historical Society, Western
Washington University History Department, the Port Commission and Marine
Heritage. Mr. Poe has been lost to history because of the similarity in
pronunciation.
Crawford state the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is asking
the County's opinion on the issue. On the form for the Washington State Board of
Geographic Names, the proposed name is Poe Point, without the 's." He asked if
DNR doesn't have the name correct. Bergholz stated they do not use the
possessive form in their naming of landforms. They suggested as an alternative
that it be Poes Point, without the apostrophe. However, that was not Mr. Poe's
name. Poe Point would be the proper designation.
Brenner stated the area was originally named after this man. He was here in
the 1800's. He was a County commissioner and auditor. He did lots of things in
the county. Somehow, the name of the area was inadvertently changed over the
years. They are restoring the area back to its original name. It is a wonderful
thing. She thanked Mr. Bergholz for bringing it to their attention.
Fleetwood stated he grew up in Fairhaven. He is nostalgic for the name Post
Point. He understands they should correct the name. He asked if Gordon Tweit,
Fairhaven's historian, approves the change. Bergholz stated he does approve.
Nelson restated the motion to approve restoring the name of Post Point to
Poe Point.
Crawford stated he would vote against it. It's clear that the historic name
was Poe's Point, with an apostrophe. He will accept the Department of Commerce's
suggestion to drop the apostrophe to make it consistent with the way they
designate names. All the letters of support are for Poe's Point, and it sounds better
to him.
Roy stated the man's name was Poe, not Poes. If they don't allow
possessive's, then it should be Poe Point. If they can't have an apostrophe, they
should not misspell the man's name. That just makes it worse. She will support
Poe Point.
Brenner stated her motion is to restore the area to the original name,
whatever it is.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Bergholz stated the Board of Geographic Names has accepted that it should
be Poe Point. They can't use the apostrophe, the way it was originally. The guy's
name was Poe, not Poes.
Brenner stated her motion is to restore the area to its original name.
Crawford stated Councilmember Brenner will have to say what that is.
Brenner stated she thought it was Poe Point. She wants the original name.
Nelson restated the motion to support the name change to Poe Point.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Nelson opposed.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Nelson asked if the motion included the added item.
Crawford stated it does.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE REGARDING FERRY MULTI -RIDE CARDS AND
QUARTERLY PASSES (AB2002 -114A)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 11.16.030,
BOATING OPERATIONS AND REGULATIONS (AB2002 -181)
ADDENDUM:
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20 BY
ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND
SITING CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING AS A
CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE ZONE (AB2002 -191)
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.72 — POINT ROBERTS SPECIAL DISTRICT,
TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROJECTS OF THE 2001
POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA PLAN (AB2002 -108)
Nelson stated they need to clarify an ordinance they adopted. The Planning
Department is asking for clarification on whether or not the Council intended to
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
include the administrative approval section regarding recreational vehicles (RV's).
There were many hours of discussion with people.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that when staff wrote the
Point Roberts ordinance recently for the special district, they thought they were
taking out the section the RV ordinance that had sunset. Instead, they took out the
entire section. They weren't supposed to do that. They were only supposed to take
out the part that sunsetted. This ordinance puts the stuff back in that is supposed
to stay in.
Nelson moved to rescind the motion adopting ordinance 2002 -019.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance and to amend the ordinance to replace
section 20.72.135 regarding administrative approval uses back into the ordinance
that was deleted in error.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the amended ordinance carried 6 -0 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber
abstaining.
it.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she would abstain because she was not familiar with
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR
COMPOSTING AND MULCHING FACILITIES; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY (AB2002 -191)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance. This is related to the
Introduction Item that proposes to create new regulations for siting commercial
composting operations. It's going to take two weeks to get these new regulations
in place. She's heard from various sources that a large composting facility is
coming to this area. In lieu of the fact that the County has spent about $100,000
trying to get Recomp to mitigate their odor emissions, an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.
Brenner stated she supports the emergency ordinance. She's heard also
recently that a company wants to come here and do the same thing. Whatcom
County's standards aren't as protective as they should be. She hopes that this will
allow businesses to come here and operate as good neighbors.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated Roland Middleton advised
him that a business is interested in developing a regional composting facility in the
area, and inquired about the process.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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.
He was involved with a discussion with Marilyn Bentley, who also said that
she had several inquiries. There is interest on the horizon. The laxity in the
regulations might be emphasized by the fact that the Northwest Air Pollution
Authority (NWAPA) informed the Council that one way to address the odor issue is
by setback requirements or the use of technological development, such as a bio-
filter. There has been a significant increase in the technological advances for
controlling and mitigating these sort of impacts.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford stated he is concerned that a business comes to town to make an
inquiry, and all of a sudden there is a moratorium. Grant stated that is not the
genesis of this ordinance. There are people who are interested in this, so it is a real
concern. They are not just speculating that there are potential new developments
that could cause environmental impacts.
Crawford asked if it is good timing to clarify an ordinance that reflects the
community's interest, so that expectations and laws are established up front. Grant
stated it is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that NWAPA's biggest problem is controlling odor.
Her perspective comes from the County's negotiations with Recomp and the
difficulty in alleviating the stress that the community members go through as a
result of Recomp's operation. If the County had some kind of regulations from the
beginning, they could have alleviated years of problems they've had with this
company. There is going to be a continued interest in composting in this area
because they are so close to the border, and the Canadians have outlawed it. It's
in the community's best interest to take preventative action to get the businesses
to use best practices so the community can live in peace with this kind of operation.
odors.
Brenner stated there are large operations right now that do not make terrible
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Crawford stated the councilmembers received a memo from Deputy
Administrator Dewey Desler regarding the discussion in Finance Committee today
on revenue sources. Councilmember Roy had asked for more detailed information
on the revenue sources. That is what this information is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) is
still lobbying fines against Recomp. The fines total over $30,000 so far. The fines
increase incrementally each time.
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, 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
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 thanked the councilmembers for putting up with her schedule while
she took the Master Gardener class. She took part in a crane fly investigation to
see if there is a problem with crane flies in the Lake Whatcom watershed. One of
the biggest problems in the watershed is people who spray pesticides for crane
flies. There isn't a crane fly problem. They tested approximately 100 properties,
and found 16 larvae. If they find 25 larvae per lot, then it can become problematic.
In addition, she is working on a post - development soil restoration project.
Development goes in, uses heavy equipment, and scalps or compacts the soil.
There is no requirement to do aeration, tilling, and soil restoration afterwards. A lot
of people find that, a year or so after buying a house, the plants won't grow and
that there is terrible runoff. Up front, it would require some change in practices on
the parts of the contractors. The Building Industry Association (BIA) is interested
in the proposal.
Roy stated she is on the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee. Last week, they went throughout the watershed, and visited almost
every stream that feeds into Dakota, California, and Terrell creeks, which go into
Drayton Harbor. It was fascinating to tour the watershed and see all the activity
that happens along the streams. She urged the councilmembers to go on a similar
tour if they have that opportunity.
Nelson stated he would be gone for military training for two weeks.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 7 , 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 4/23/2002, Page 23