Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 30 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 July 30, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Seth Fleetwood Dan McShane Sharon Roy ANNOUNCEMENTS Nelson announced that there was a presentation of the EMS Strategic Plan by consultants Tri -Data (AB2002 -297) during the Committee of the Whole meeting. SPECIAL PRESENTATION SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY STEVE JILK, PORT OF BELLINGHAM, ON THE GREATER WHATCOM COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) (AB2002 -248 AND AB2002 -248A) Steve Jilk, Port of Bellingham, provided a handout (on file). He thanked the Council for the opportunity to give a presentation. He thanked Executive Kremen for taking the lead on this process; the Council for approving the use of a portion of rural sales tax; Dewey Desler, Hal Hart, and Sylvia Goodwin for their hard work and support; the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Advisory Committee members. These comprehensive economic development strategies focus on creating jobs and building the tax base. During the process of this CEDS development, the advisory committee felt that it was important to have a broader perspective. They collected comments from the World Trade Bank, which developed a program that looks at how economic development is done in the United States. It recommended a format to use internationally. That report set the basis for how they look at economic development in Whatcom County today. Local economic development is a process by which public, business, and non- governmental sector partners work collectively to create better conditions for economic growth and employment. The aim is to improve the quality of life for all Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. in the community. He read from the handouts of the presentation (on file). Dodd Snodgrass, Port of Bellingham, also read from the handouts of the presentation (on file). The CEDS committee met on a monthly basis to evaluate information on the economy, natural resources, and infrastructure in the county. A draft was developed in March. Eight community meetings were held around the county. They developed a vision statement for Greater Whatcom. They want a sustainable economy for future generations. Jilk stated that there was a request to public and private agencies in Whatcom County to submit projects for inclusion in the document because they should be considered for funding and to collectively create a countywide list of infrastructure and program projects. They received 163 projects submitted totaling $534 million. The largest dollar amounts were for streets, roads, and bridges. Whatcom County lead in the amount of projects and estimated costs. There are other significant regional projects, such as the Birch Bay - Blaine wastewater treatment plant for $35 million. That many projects highlight that communities feel a process has started to address some of the needs. Also, it raises the issue that there is a strong local need for infrastructure improvements to maintain and build their economic development program. The next steps include County Council approval so he can send it to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for their consideration and approval. Once that happens, the document will be printed and distributed to the community. A website has been developed. They will begin a series of presentations to the city councils and other agencies in Whatcom County. They hope to work more closely with the County on the WA -CERT coordination process and the other communities on a more coordinated approach to identify funding opportunities for some of these projects. The advisory committee will meet beginning in September to help develop an implementation plan and find ways they can support update and maintenance of the CEDS plan. Nelson thanked Mr. Jilk and Mr. Snodgrass for their presentation on the strategic plan. A resolution is proposed to accept this document. Caskey- Schreiber moved to refer to the Finance Committee for the August 13 agenda. Brenner stated she appreciated this information. She learned a lot. She found quite a few places in the document where the numbers didn't add up. She has a lot of questions about the document. The County would contribute things such as zoning, public works projects, planning, and possibly some infrastructure. She doesn't want the County to commit to funding investments. She doesn't like that term, and asked for more information on the limitations of the County. Also, she has a problem with the Economic Development Council (EDC) being in charge of so many things. She has voted the last few years to not fund the EDC. She hoped that point is negotiable. Jilk stated the 25 action items that lay out Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, Page 2 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 responsibilities are recommendations. If the Council approves the document and 2 passes it on to EDA, it is not a commitment by the Council to take on any of the 3 recommended actions. It simply says that they accept the document as a 4 representation of the process, move it to EDA for consideration, and then 5 implementation will be for the agencies to work together on an implementation 6 plan. 7 8 Caskey- Schreiber stated the presentation was very information. She asked 9 who prioritizes the projects. She thought the EDC was doing some restructuring. 10 ]ilk stated the advisory committee chose not to prioritize neither the 25 action 11 items nor the projects themselves. The advisory committee felt that the individual 12 communities that have completed their comprehensive plan strategies or economic 13 development strategies have evidence of support for their projects. The advisory 14 committee felt uncomfortable doing a prioritization process on behalf of the greater 15 community at this time. For funding purposes, the EDA does not require a 16 prioritization, although it would like to see a prioritization. The advisory committee 17 felt that inclusion of all the projects is a good first step. 18 19 Caskey- Schreiber stated that when the Council receives the WA -CERT 20 applications, it prioritizes the projects. She would hate to be left out of that 21 process totally. Jilk stated the Council cannot be left out of the WA -CERT process. 22 The State legislation requires the County Council to adopt a resolution and have 23 authority to put the final list together. The County Executive has asked the 24 partnership to come forward with ideas on how the partnership staff and members 25 can assist the County in establishing a process to help do that prioritization. He 26 hoped that acceptance of the CEDS document and the concept will indicate a 27 support for that collaborative effort. 28 29 Caskey- Schreiber stated the WA -CERT process would benefit from more 30 advertising and marketing. This process would do that. She restated her concern 31 about the EDC. ]ilk stated he also understands that there is consideration of 32 reorganization of the EDC. Mr. Sexton's leaving the EDC caused the Board of 33 Directors to look at who they are, what they should do, and how they should do it. 34 As part of the process, the advisory committee looked at the economic 35 development program for the county and said that someone needs to play the 36 marketing role, and someone needs to play the business attraction role. Those are 37 key pieces of an overall development plan. As long as there is an EDC intact in the 38 community, and that is typically what EDCs do in a community, then that is the 39 recommendation from the advisory committee. 40 41 Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Jilk would oppose two entities joining to 42 provide that service. Jilk stated the agencies that are looking at this realize there 43 are a limited number of public and private resources available to do what they have 44 to do. 45 46 Nelson asked how the advisory committee members are incorporated into the 47 process. Few advisory committee members reflect the business community. He Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. asked how they include the business community so they have an understanding of those people. Jilk stated they felt that the process deserved an inclusive approach. Most communities have a few people to act as consultants to move a project like this through. The representatives broadened it to include representation from the private sector. They also realized that the more public they make the process, the longer the process would take. He received direction from the partnership to limit the number so it is effective and efficient, but bring in as many different perspectives as possible. When names began to surface as representative industries, such as agriculture, banking, and real estate, they felt it was more appropriate than identifying someone from heavy manufacturing or light manufacturing. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Jilk continued to state that the advisory committee felt the meeting at the Bellingham Cruise Terminal and the eight community meetings were good ways to include other perspectives. This process is not perfect. The one complaint they received at community meetings was that they need to have more of them. They were not well- attended in terms of numbers. However, the single message they kept hearing was that the attendees were glad of the process and wanted to expand the public input process. Brenner stated there is a lot of emphasis with the County partnering with the City of Bellingham. She was surprised that the City of Bellingham is not included as one of the producers of this process. Jilk stated the Port of Bellingham's name is on it because it is financially sponsoring the partnership staff. Mr. Darling is the chair of the partnership. It is really a process that was managed under contract to the County. It is really the County's planning process. Brenner asked why the City of Bellingham was not a part of the partnership. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the City of Bellingham was part of the partnership. The Mayor has been involved in the partnership. The City of Bellingham was included in the advisory committee. Jilk stated the plan itself was completed on the County's behalf. It is considered the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Whatcom County. The reason the partnership is referenced is because it was done through an interlocal agreement between the Port of Bellingham, who finances the operation of the partnership, and Whatcom County. Desler stated Whatcom County is the general purpose local government serving this region. As such, the State economic development apparatus, State legislature, and federal government tend to look at the County as the leader of these kinds of efforts. The County responded with an application saying it would put this plan together to use it as a guide for where they go in the future, including qualifying for federal and State funds. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. Brenner stated growth management has told them that most of the economic development will go in cities, not in the unincorporated county. This is a good document, but she is surprised that the City wasn't an equal partner. Desler stated the County and cities assume that the cities are partners with the County in developing and carrying out this document. Fleetwood asked if Mr. Jilk anticipated that they would pass the resolution at this meeting. Jilk stated that is what he hoped. Based upon the concerns expressed by the councilmembers, he would recommend that those issues be addressed. Accepting the document and moving it on to EDA is not a commitment of the County to carry out anything within the document. He recommended that they consider and accept it for approval. Fleetwood asked if there is any harm that would be done if it wasn't approved at this meeting. Jilk stated there would not be. The only thing that is triggered by the final approval by EDA is EDA's acceptance of applications for projects that are included in the document. Motion to hold in committee carried 4 -2 with Fleetwood and Nelson opposed. MINUTES CONSENT BOARD OF HEALTH FOR JULY 9, 2002 Brenner moved to approve the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Leonard Lindstrom, Bellingham, stated that politicians must listen and do honest homework. Rita Foley, South Lake Whatcom, stated Park Road has become a trail. She is not happy with engineers anyway, but one engineer has handed her a map that upsets her. Her community is tiny and rural. Blue Canyon Road is only ten feet wide. She is the only permanent resident on Blue Canyon Road. Now, the engineers want to put in berms to make her take another route onto Park Road, which is a mess. She told the County Council before that they shouldn't have allowed this project to take place because it would be a mess. Everything has happened that she said would happen, and worse. The road keeps sinking. The workers have to keep digging up the blacktop when it sinks and haul it away. She Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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 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. wants the Council to look at this plan. No one is living there or hardly drives on the road. It is a wonderful place. She doesn't understand what they are trying to do. They've blocked the store with berms. Lois Garlick, 3014 Lynn Street, Bellingham, provided background on the Park General Store at the south end of Lake Whatcom. In 1990, Mr. Van Houten planned to renovate and restore the historic landmark. His dream was to create a place to live and a small wayside restaurant. His offer appeared humble and sincere. Now, they've created a monster. Mr. Van Houten appears to have forgotten the contract he willingly signed and his desire to operate a homey, neighborly restaurant that would perpetuate the historic nature of its location. The County Council has every right to exercise its prerogative and hold the man to his contract. Don't heap another mistake on top of the one they already made by allowing this incompatible business to continue. They are desperately trying to salvage their drinking water reservoir. Keeping a lid on increased usage is one of the most effective tools they have at their disposal. Escalating population is making it obvious that potable drinking water as a saleable item will become more profitable than any tax base could ever be. She submitted information to the councilmembers (on file). Brenner stated Mr. Van Houten's commitment was based on the County building a public park next to it. CONSENT AGENDA McShane reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through eight. Item three, the contract for ferry security, was amended to increase the total by $2,100, for an annual total of $53,620 and a total amended amount of $105,140. Brenner withdrew item four. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three and five through eight carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID NUMBER 02 -60 FOR NINETY PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS FOR A RIVER FLOOD DIVISION PROJECT TO THE COMBINED BID FROM BARKERS CHIPPING /NW CHIPPING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,532 (AB2002 -286) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID NUMBER 02 -64 FOR THE ANNUAL DRYDOCK, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY TO THE LOWEST Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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 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. RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FOSS SHIPYARD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $109,378 (AB2002 -287) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SECURITY SPECIALISTS PLUS, INC. TO PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES AT GOOSEBERRY POINT, IN THE MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $51,520 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT OF $103,040 (AB2002- 288) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GILMORE RESEARCH GROUP TO PROVIDE TELEPHONE SURVEY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,160 (AB2002 -289) Brenner stated the Health Department did a really good job making this presentation, and she is confident in the people from the Health Department. However, she is concerned about spending over $31,000 and doing a telephone survey. There is a much better path to getting that information. She doesn't trust telephone surveys. It is an extreme intrusion into peoples' homes. She's heard a lot of complaints from people about all the telemarketing that is going on. This is not any different. She suggested doing a mass mailing instead of a phone survey. Include a self- addressed, stamped envelope. That would be much cheaper. They can also go to the people who are having problems to find out the causes in the environment. There are already federal and State studies that have been done. Nelson stated the State has a Public Health Improvement Plan. The County Council approved the Whatcom County Public Health Improvement Plan. Many of those statistics demonstrate a difference between what occurs statewide and what occurs locally. Councilmember Brenner's concern is how they get the information, not that they get the information at all. Roy stated she supports the survey. It isn't to get at environmental causes. It's not looking at causes. They are looking for information on the health issues that are out there in Whatcom County. They want to know and compare the issues in Whatcom County against the issues in the state. They need to know where their limited resources should go. The Health Department did a great job of explaining that. Caskey- Schreiber agreed with Councilmember Roy. It's a great way to assess the need. She asked if the Health Department weighted the pros and cons of doing a mass mailing to this age group. The survey research center at Western Washington University is housed in her department. They do this thing all the time and have very effective results. It is fine. Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, stated this is a Center for Disease Control (CDC) survey. It is somewhat modified to meet the local needs. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. It is put together using statistical methodology. In order for them to compare local results with other counties, the state, and other parts of the country, they have to do the survey in exactly the same way. All of the questions have been tested and standardized using the telephone methodology. They have to do it this way. Doing a mailing would provide some information, but they wouldn't be able to compare it nationally and at the state level. They also wouldn't be able to compare it to the results they got eight years ago when they did the baseline for the population. Brenner stated that argument is the kind of argument that will prevent them from becoming more innovative and financially efficient. She doesn't like that argument. If they end up doing it, she is happy that it is the Health Department that is doing it. She has a lot of faith in Regina and Jan. Caskey- Schreiber stated they have to do the survey in the same way, otherwise a national comparison would be invalid. Nelson stated the comparison could be challenged. Brenner stated that if they are going down the wrong road, they have to stop somewhere and turn around. It will be interesting to see how many responses they get and how many people provide answers just to get off the phone instead of providing sincere answers. Delahunt agreed that it is difficult to get people to participate for 20 minutes. Some people will not be happy. They've done this before and they've gotten some negative comments, but a lot of people do participate. Whether or not people tell the truth is taken into account when the survey methodology was created. It is no more likely that anyone locally would tell them the truth than anyone nationally. Motion to approve carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN MAXIMUM ANNUAL AMOUNTS FOR SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT C (AB2002 -290) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE LUMMI NATION INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR THE COAL MINE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,260 (AB2002 -291) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE AN OUTREACH PROJECT REGARDING THE PREVENTION OF SPREAD Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. AND IMPACTS OF AQUATIC INTRODUCED WEEDS ON OUR STREAMS, RIVERS, WETLANDS AND LAKES, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $49,000 (AB2002 -292) S. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 901005 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF SLATER ROAD FROM BNSF RAILROAD TO INTERSTATE 5 IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $422,739 (AB2002 -293) PUBLIC HEARING 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94 -036 TO INCREASE THE EXCISE TAX ON RADIO ACCESS LINES AND TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES FOR COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX IMPOSED (AB2002 -277) Rick Sucee, What -Comm Communication Center Deputy Director of Operations, stated the wire line monthly tax is currently $.50 and the wireless tax is $.25. Whatcom County's 911 excise tax revenue is declining. Last year, it declined by $60,000 just from people disconnecting their wire line phone and connecting to a wireless phone. Enhanced 911 telephone service for Whatcom County is costing more from 1998 to 2001. There was a 248 percent increase in telephone expenses alone for 911 service. There was no increase in the 911 excise tax. Thirty percent of the 911 calls come from a wireless phone. Wireless calls are not enhanced, so they don't have the telephone number and don't know where they are. Therefore, the enhanced 911 system is 30 percent less effective. Enhanced 911 for wireless will most likely be available this year or the beginning of next year. The State legislature has provided wireless companies cost recovery from the counties beginning in 2003 to provide enhanced wireless 911 service. The $.25 they already get from the 911 tax is spent on salaries, equipment, maintenance, training, and other things. They need the additional $.25 to pay the wireless carriers for the enhanced 911 service that they will provide. Most of the companies have already said that $.25 isn't enough to pay their costs. On July 18, the Washington State Military Department told him that the counties that do not implement the $.50 wireless tax will not be eligible for State enhanced 911 assistance. He expects that they will be eligible next year for some type of assistance. He recommended adopting this ordinance because of decreasing tax revenue, to bring parity to the wire line and wireless excise taxes, to provide costs for the 911 enhanced services in Whatcom County, because of increasing expenses, and to avoid losing the State enhanced 911 assistance. Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.22.030 TO REMOVE THE TIME LIMITATION ON THE DURATION OF EXCISE TAX UPON SWITCHED LINES, AND AMENDING WCC 3.22.050 TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES FOR THE COST OF ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE EXCISE TAX UPON SWITCHED ACCESS LINES (AB2002 -278) Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -029 BY CHANGING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF BAKER AND CUSTER 1 PRECINCTS (AB2002 -280) Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. It would be helpful to have a staff report to let people know a little more about this. Roy stated it looks like this is simply to clean up a scrivener error that happened on the one they did pass. Nelson stated there was an error on the legal descriptions of the Baker and Custer 1 precincts. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE CONTINUING THE MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND INTO PARCELS SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE SAMISH WATERSHED (AB2002 -063B) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated this is temporary to extend the current moratorium. The Planning Commission will make a final decision on August 29. The moratorium will expire before the Planning Commission makes a decision. The Council has to look at them with the Comprehensive Plan amendments, which will happen in September. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. Nelson stated this is an extension of the current moratorium. Goodwin stated that is correct. The rezone hearing has already been held. The Planning Commission will make a decision on it on August 29. Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Eric McHenry, 644 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated he is the vice - president of the Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish. They urge the County Council to continue the moratorium. The Planning Department staff submitted a downzone proposal for the Lake Samish watershed. The recommendations are based on established facts concerning environmental constraints, threatened natural resources, existing capital facility limitations, current levels of public services, requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, the County Comprehensive Plan, goals of the Watershed Action Plan, and the will and majority of the Lake Samish residents to protect the natural rural character of the subarea. Based on their investigation of the watershed, they recommend an amendment to the original proposal for larger zoning designations to satisfy the legal requirements of the State and local policy. The issues of concern are: 1. Water quality, impacted from increased development and land clearing; 2. Fecal coliform and turbidity levels in the inflow and outflow of streams, which impact salmonid species from higher stormwater flows and erosions; 3. Algae blooms in the lake caused by runoff of phosphates and nitrates from fertilizers; 4. Increased safety issues due to the traffic volume, which has increased 70 percent over the last decade. The current rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) zone would bring 1,000 new homes, 4,000 more people, and 10,000 more daily car trips. He commends and thanks the County Council for enacting the original emergency moratorium and the regular moratorium of the subdivisions of less than five acres. Continue the moratorium so new subdivisions are not able to get approval before more investigation. Also, there was talk of the County Council driving to Lake Samish to see the area. He urged the councilmembers to do that. Ruth Holbrook, 244 Appaloosa Road, stated she cares about the future of the watershed. The process is still going on. The Planning Commission is currently reviewing what the Planning staff and concerned neighbors provided. Continue the moratorium while the process is going on. Gary Simon, Concerned Neighbors of Lake Samish President, stated a meeting occurred last Thursday night. The Planning Department made a recommendation. Their plan was to rezone from RR2 to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. He thanked the Planning Department staff, including Sylvia Goodwin, Amy Pederson, for their historical research and details in the staff report, hard work, and professionalism. Over 80 people attended the meeting. Of those, 38 people commented. Of those, 34 expressed support of the County staff recommendation. Three people opposed any downzone, and one individual supported the original proposal by his group. His group continues to receive letters and phone calls of support from Lake Samish residents and others in Whatcom County. For the first time, people are feeling hopeful and empowered that they can make a difference in their community. They feel that the Whatcom County government is listening. He thanked this Council for its proactive and visionary actions. He urged the Council to extend the moratorium on Lake Samish. Sue Parrot, 121 Bear Creek Lane, stated she asked the Council to extend the moratorium on Lake Samish. She spoke before the Planning Commission. She did some research on the Growth Management Act (GMA). There is some important information for them to look at. Extend the moratorium so they can complete the process and so the Council and Planning Commission can review the information. There was a mistake made in the past and they need to correct it for the future. Steven Harper, 121 Bear Creek Lane, stated he cares about the environment and the health and welfare of the people that live at Lake Whatcom. He thanked the Council for the original moratorium from February. He urged the Council to extend this moratorium so the process can be worked through. The Planning Department recommendation is consistent with the GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, and the moratorium that is in place. Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner stated she wants to take a field trip out there with all the councilmembers where they can hear the pros and cons about the different areas. Goodwin stated she would put that trip together. They have to advertise it as a public meeting and not speak on the bus. Members of the public could join them off the bus. Brenner asked that she be informed when the Planning Commission plans field trips. She would like to attend. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to hear from a representative from the group while on the field trip. Goodwin stated they might also have to have a property rights person or a large property owner to attend to be fair. Caskey- Schreiber agreed. Brenner stated she is not interested in having a debate on the trip. She is just interested in hearing from staff about the contentious areas. One gentleman Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. testified that some areas may not need to be downzoned, and other areas that may need to be downzoned dramatically. She wants to hear from the staff first. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, AMENDMENT NO. 8 (AB2002 -281) McShane reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved approval of the substitute ordinance. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Brenner stated she was not comfortable with the two percent cut across the board. Some departments ought to cut more and some need more money. It punishes people who may be working the hardest. It rewards the ones who are not doing as much. She also has a problem with funding a substance abuse specialist. Now is the time to contract out for that service. Don't wait for budget time. She won't support the budget amendment. Caskey- Schreiber stated she disagreed with Councilmember Brenner. This budget is a good first step. Down the road, they might want to look at different departments. Right now, this is a fair, aggressive first step. Roy stated it is important to look at priorities. They are going to have to make some difficult decisions, but this is not the right format or time to do that. She will support the motion. Motion to adopt carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. McShane reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved approval of the request authorization for the Executive to enter into a contract between the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office and the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development — Multi- Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force Program Contract, to provide for the operation of the Northwest Regional Drug Task Force in the funded contract amount of $118,056 (AB2002 -267). Brenner stated she will vote against the motion. She was pleased with the presentation, but it was not very clear about what is going on and how it is being funded. Furthermore, she is philosophically opposed to spending this kind of money on this "war on drugs." During the presentation, it was said that this is not a "war on drugs" and the phrase was coined by the media. However, she's heard two presidents and the U.S. Attorney General call it that. It is an abysmal failure. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. However, they keep saying that with more money, they will win the war. They are doing it in the wrong way. If they think that people who drink and drive have an illness and should be treated, then it is the same with people who are doing other substances. They keep making political decisions about what substances they can abuse and what ones they can't. This whole thing has gotten out of hand. They are not going to change the philosophical discussion locally, but everyone knows that the programs are not working and they keep funding them. They never have enough money for things like treatment and programs that give people help. An argument was made that the drug task force is dealing with the drug dealers, not the abusers. She doesn't agree with that. Most of the people who are locked up in the jails for drugs are for drug use, not drug dealing. An argument is that drug users cost the health services, but so do legal drug users, who are not being locked up in jail. The whole thing is hypocritical. She's tired of spending huge amounts of money on this. McShane stated he preferred to look carefully at this program and their entire approach during the budget process. His question is whether this is good for the community overall. They are reaching measurable outcomes, but the question is what they are measuring. All they are measuring is the number of people who are arrested, put into jail, or sent to an enforced treatment program. He questions whether that is good for the community overall when there are also impacts to the jail and the defense attorneys. He will support the contract. However, he questions this program. Accepting federal dollars may be tilting them in a direction that may not be good for the community overall. He needs more information before he can accept what comes forward in the budget this next cycle. Nelson stated the war on drugs is a broad approach. Much of the war on diseases is spent over many years on treatment, counseling, working with patients, and other aspects of the disease state. This is one aspect of controlling an impact to society, taxes, revenues, and resources in the community. They can't ignore one part of it, because it will impact the whole. Roy agreed with Councilmember Nelson. She is uncomfortable because she doesn't know what the proportions are in Whatcom County. She hoped to have an evaluation of the system and get some data by budget time. They've said they are focusing on the dealers. She would like information supporting that comment. She would like to know how many arrests they are making and how many go through the system. This is an areas where they need a lot more information and to look at the entire picture. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are organizing better information to the Council on the performance of the law and justice system. Information should come forward before the budget process. Caskey- Schreiber stated this grant only requires one dollar for every three federal dollars. However, the County is spending six dollars for every one federal dollar. It seems like it is off balance. It is strange that they are funding a Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. Bellingham Police Officer. She would like to make sure it is worth everything they are pouring into it and that they address the ripple effect of this task force on the jail and the public defender system. They need to weigh the entire cost. She will support the contract, but will look for good information and alternatives in the future. Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 2.78 MODIFYING THE MEMBERSHIP MAKEUP OF THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2002 -279) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and moved approval. It allows the small cities and the City of Bellingham to have an elected official or designated representative on the committee. They've had a problem in the past getting the small cities and City of Bellingham to attend and have a quorum. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE SECTION 3.05.010, TORT AND DAMAGE CLAIMS (AB2002 -251) Nelson explained this is a housekeeping process to have the Council Clerk accept tort claims for the County. He moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (AB2002 -295) McShane moved to confirm the approval of Barrett and Zoske. Caskey- Schreiber stated Melanie Barrett lists as a reference Jan Greco, who works for Security Specialists Plus (SSP). That seems questionable. She prefers not to have someone affiliated with SSP. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated Ms. Barrett is not affiliated with SSP. There are several members of the committee that he will appoint and that have been recommended by the Humane Society as well. This person is with the border collie rescue association. She has no affiliation with SSP. The reason Ms. Barrett knows Jan Greco is through her work and the nature of her job. Caskey- Schreiber asked if this person is to represent the animal rescue group and not one of the three citizen representatives. Kremen stated that is correct. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ADVISORY BOARD (AB2002- 296) Brenner moved to confirm the Executive's appointments. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Fleetwood moved to accept the Introduction Items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.83.070, LOT CONSOLIDATION (AB2002 -282) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 6.04, ANIMAL CONTROL (AB2002 -285) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2002 -298) OTHER BUSINESS Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated there will be a resolution in the next packet on the salmon net pen issue. Councilmember McShane combined the proposed resolutions from the Marine Resources Committee and the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. Councilmembers Fleetwood and Brenner made suggested changes. The committee recommends approval with changes to the full Council. Roy stated the Natural Resources Committee recommends to the full Council that Planning staff go forward with developing an open space acquisition program coordination proposal (AB2002 -294). Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee about the ongoing stench from Recomp. The County signed a consent decree with Recomp. She understood that, under the consent decree, Recomp is still responsible for not increasing, but reducing, the stench coming from the facility. The County is trapped in a consent decree that looks like it was written by Recomp. It doesn't give the County any wiggle room to change anything. They don't have to reduce their stench. They can increase it. People living in that area have had to Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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. leave their homes. They can't breathe. Councilmembers and staff have smelled it. It is unbearable. This issue is about harm to people in the community. The County has locked itself in for two years. The County hasn't any legal right to lock itself into an agreement that harms people. She wanted to recommend that the Council's attorney take this to court. It doesn't meet the intent of what the consent decree was supposed to do. The County cannot legally bind people to put up with this for two years. Nelson stated Recomp cannot violate public safety and health ordinances. Brenner stated they are violating the nuisance ordinance right now. Regina Delahunt testified that Recomp is currently creating a nuisance. Nelson asked how Recomp can violate a County ordinance through a consent decree. He asked why the County would give away the public's rights. Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is a provision in the consent decree relating to the County's prerogative to file further criminal or civil actions. He recalled that the County can't file any criminal or civil actions unless Recomp violates the terms of the decree. As he understands the situation now is that Recomp is not violating the terms of the decree. Part of the decree is that Recomp is obligated to follow an interim plan of operation that was set up as a component of the decree. They have been following their new processes, which are spelled out in the plan of operation. Nelson asked if the plan of operation was approved by the Health Department. Grant stated he believed it was. Nelson asked if Recomp is violating the interim plan of operation. Brenner stated they are not violating the consent decree. They are violating the nuisance ordinance. Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, stated Recomp is complying with the terms of the consent decree. However, it still smells. Nelson asked if what Recomp is allowed to do now is above and beyond the scope of the County laws. When the Health Department worked with Recomp on the interim plan of operation, Recomp would still have to comply with a plan that would meet the County code. Delahunt stated they don't have any health regulations that Recomp is violating. Recomp is violating air pollution rules. Northwest Air Pollution Authority is not a party to the consent decree. They are continuing to enforce the air quality rules that Recomp is violating. A nuisance ordinance is not a health code. Nelson stated the Northwest Air Pollution Authority is a State code. Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, 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 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 they are violating the County's nuisance code, too. Grant stated that is debatable. Brenner moved to engage in a court challenge to see if the consent decree is a legal document. Nelson asked Councilmember Brenner to get the information first, and then they can have a discussion in executive session. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS There were no other reports. OTHER BUSINESS Brenner moved to go into executive session to discuss Recomp. Motion failed 3 -3 with Caskey- Schreiber, Roy, and McShane opposed. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on September 10 , 2002. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 7/30/2002, Page 18