HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil December 11 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 December 11, 2001
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
7 Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Dan McShane None
11 Marlene Dawson
12 Connie Hoag
13 Barbara Brenner
14 Sam Crawford
15 Robert Imhof
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Nelson introduced the councilmembers- elect. He presented certificates of
20 recognition to the outgoing councilmembers.
21
22 Pete Kremen, County Executive, thanked the outgoing members and
23 personally recognized his appreciation for their service. It has been a pleasure
24 working with Councilmember Dawson. She has always been distinguished and
25 tactful. She is a true gentle lady.
26
27 The four years he worked with Councilmember Hoag have been very
28 memorable. There has been no other councilmember who is more dedicated and
29 true to her convictions.
30
31 He is really going to miss Councilmember Imhof. Neither the public nor
32 media have ever really understood him. The public and the media are not
33 cognizant of his understanding of government and its responsibilities and
34 obligations. In the six years that he has been County Executive, he's seen Mr.
35 Imhof grow immensely. This Council will be challenged to find his knowledge and
36 expertise in the area of transportation. He thanked Mr. Imhof for his twelve years
37 of service to Whatcom County.
38
39 Nelson announced that the following items were discussed in executive
40 session, during three Committee of the Whole meetings held earlier in the day:
41
42 • Discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding
43 potential litigation (AB2001 -018)
44 • Discussion regarding collective bargaining agreement negotiations
45 (AB2001 -390)
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 1
1 • Discussion regarding the proposed 2002 Unrepresented Employee
2 Salary Resolution (AB2001- 427)
3 • Discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding
4 two cases of pending litigation (AB2001 -018)
5 • Discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor David Grant regarding
6 three cases of pending litigation (AB2001 -018)
7
8
9 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
10
11 MARK CAREY, BRANCH CHIEF OF FEMA'S COMMUNITY MITIGATION
12 PROGRAM BRANCH ON WHATCOM COUNTY'S INCREASED
13 PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS)
14 (AB2001 -017)
15
16 Mark Carey, FEMA's Community Mitigation Program Branch Chief, spoke
17 regarding flood plain management. Whatcom County is enrolled in the voluntary
18 community rating system. The community rating system awards communities that
19 voluntarily take steps to reduce their risk of flooding and increase the effectiveness
20 of flood protection, above and beyond the minimal standards of the national flood
21 insurance program. Whatcom County was recently rated by an independent flood
22 auditing firm, a private contractor to FEMA, and was granted points in such
23 activities as flood mapping, floodplain regulations, flood damage reduction, flood
24 preparedness, and public awareness. Whatcom County is known as some of the
25 brightest and best in flood plain management, particularly Paula Cooper and the
26 flood staff. The new Whatcom County Planning Department director is a friend of
27 his.
28
29 The work that Whatcom County is doing on its Nooksack River study has
30 gone beyond the call of duty in terms of the amount of resources and work they've
31 put into it. FEMA just entered into a cooperative funding agreement with Whatcom
32 County to study Sandy Point for coastal floodplain management. Lastly, Whatcom
33 County was also selected as a pilot county for FEMA and a grant was awarded to
34 run a flood hazard loss reduction model. There are 515 national flood insurance
35 policies in unincorporated Whatcom County. They will receive a 15 percent
36 discount, which is a savings of $49 per policy and $25,473 overall in the county for
37 flood insurance premiums. He presented a plaque to County Executive Pete
38 Kremen and to the County Council.
39
40 Kremen recognized Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Public Works
41 Administration, and Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director.
42
43
44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
45
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 2
1 REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2001, COMMITTEE
2 OF THE WHOLE FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2001; WATER RESOURCES WORK
3 SESSION FOR NOVEMBER 20, 2001
4
5 Dawson moved to approve the minutes as amended in the two handouts.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8
9
10 OPEN SESSION
11
12 The following people spoke:
13
14 Ben Hinkle, 2582 Northshore Road, read a written statement into the record.
15 Last month, he asked the Council to consider adopting an ordinance declaring
16 Whatcom a United Nations Free Zone. He was told it was out of the Council's
17 jurisdiction, and it was a federal issue. It is a County issue. The purpose of
18 government is to protect the people. Whatcom County citizens, who elected the
19 councilmembers to protect them, will be adversely affected by oppressive world
20 government. The final vote must come from congress, however congress has been
21 neutralized by partisan politics to the point where the members of congress have
22 lost sight of their oath of office. He provided a large volume of documents to show
23 the move for international communism. Under the guise of the United Nations,
24 global government is making its move to subjugate all nations at the beginning of
25 the new millennium. He highlighted pertinent points in the materials he submitted.
26 The totalitarian government has been a dream of tyrants throughout history. He
27 provided each councilmember a copy of their earth charter. In their own words, the
28 six pages tell of the utopia they envision for the world. One of the main architects
29 for this earth charter is Mikhail Gorbachev. The United Nations' charter for global
30 democracy will bring an end to all those things they hold dear here in America. The
31 Constitution will be overruled, superceded, and emasculated by the United Nations'
32 charter. He questioned whether the councilmembers are ready to honor their oaths
33 to defend the United States' Constitution.
34
35 Tim Mehrer, 3 Strawberry Point, asked the audience members who are
36 concerned about the ban on motor boats on Lake Whatcom to stand. A couple of
37 weeks ago, Dutch Harbor Road was spewing mud into the lake due to a County
38 crew that was cleaning. The time period they are talking about for the de-
39 oxygenation of the lake seems to coincide with the high water level of the lake.
40 He's called several times, and they can't lower it. They are eroding the banks all
41 the way around the lake, and nobody seems to care. Now, Georgia Pacific (GP) is
42 not taking water from the lake. They could lower the level of the lake, and they
43 would be better off. Boats aren't the problem.
44
45 Betsy Brinson, 1811 C Street, Bellingham, stated the lake has always been a
46 commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational body of water. It has not
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 3
1 always been the source of drinking water for the City of Bellingham. If they don't
2 think the water of the lake is potable for the constituents, then they are not going
3 to backup the development and uses that already exists. The ban on two -cycle
4 engines and the moratorium on development do not address the real problems with
5 the water, if there are any problems. She would argue that there are any problems
6 with the water quality. The studies that have been done show that there is not a
7 problem at this point in time. If there is a problem, then the problem is the heavy
8 metals that are naturally occurring or from old dumpsites, not boaters and
9 developers. If they want to clean up the lake, then look for the real problem. That
10 is a very expensive proposition. Boats are visible and easy to identify, but they are
11 not the real problem. Also, one of the complaints she hears is that the hydrocarbon
12 level goes up in the summertime. She questioned the amount of asphalt that the
13 County road department put down in the summer. This summer, there was an
14 ambitious program of repaving a lot of the Geneva area. A year ago, they put
15 down gravel and oil over the Lake Whatcom Boulevard. There is also an issue with
16 Dutch Road. Put the Lake Louise interceptor through and get the traffic off the
17 lake. Help Water District 10 get their interceptor in place. Look at cleaning up the
18 old dumpsites. If those don't address the problem, then look for another source of
19 water.
20
21 Virginia Maas, 3933 Silver Beach Avenue, stated she would address the jet
22 ski issue. She brought a bottle of water from Lake Whatcom and a bottle of
23 gasoline mixed with two -cycle engine oil. She mixed the two, and then asked who
24 would be willing to drink the mixture. The boaters and jet skiers may speak of their
25 right to recreational boating. They also have a responsibility and a right to act as a
26 steward to the waterways and the land that they all use. Automobile emission
27 standards have been set to improve air quality, and it has made a difference. It is
28 now time to apply standards to control the pollutants to their waterways. She
29 questioned why they need to wait until there is a crisis level in the water before
30 they apply healthy practices. It is time to make a difference, before they have to
31 spend millions more dollars to clean up their waterways.
32
33 Tom Schreiber, 6879 Raspberry Drive, Everson, stated he would address the
34 proposed amendment to change the Home Rule Charter regarding elections. He is
35 against the revision of the charter. The charter was designed to balance the voice
36 of districts through the means of a first say primary election, with the legitimacy of
37 office that only countywide general elections can bestow. Currently, the County
38 Council is represented by members not just from Bellingham, but also from Lynden
39 and Ferndale. Next month, they bring in voices from Everson and Birch Bay. This
40 is balanced and fair. The issues that are before the Council affect the county as a
41 whole, not just one district or the other. Taxes are paid by all county residents.
42 Comprehensive development plans are countywide. Salmon protection
43 encompasses each and every stream. Farmland protection helps every farmer.
44 Pollution respects no boundaries. The issues that come before the Council truly do
45 affect everyone countywide. A district -only plan is a recipe for disaster. A
46 collection of seven members belonging to different narrow interests would lead to
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 4
rancor, continual dissention, and pork barreling. Decisions reached would only be
as a result of compromise based upon favor - trading. The Bellingham Herald
recently editorialized about this issue, and touched on the subject of democracy. It
said, "The principle of representation as a fundamental component of democracy, is
violated when the County Council does not receive its legitimacy from the vote of
the entire electorate."
Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, asked the Council to not approve the
Sudden Valley urban growth area (UGA) Comprehensive Plan amendment. Have a
public hearing. It is important.
Bonnie Ebenal, 150 Northshore Drive, stated she moved to the watershed in
August. She has not received information from anyone about what her
responsibilities are by living in the watershed. It would be much better for the City
and the County to inform people living in the watershed what their responsibilities
are, rather than taking away their privileges. Study the lake all year at all levels by
an unbiased group. Send a letter to people living in the watershed and have
meetings to let people know what they should do when living in the watershed.
They can get further by having more education and studies.
Leonard Lindstrom, Bellingham, stated people should put God in their lives.
Drug addicts are entitled to have their fun, but not at other people's expense. Only
fools burn flags and play the blame game.
Paul Rosetter, 3686 South Bay Drive, stated he lives on the lake, and has a
dock. He shares the concerns about Lake Whatcom's water quality. They are
conscientious about lake- friendly living. Those people who do not live on the lake
and who keep their boats trailered can more easily choose another lake to enjoy
their boat. However, those of them who have their own boats tied to their docks or
are on boatlifts are tied to this lake. They would experience a great hardship if
their boats were banned from their own lake. Relying upon this lake access, he
invested in a boatlift so he could have his own boat at his dock. It would be cruel
to not be able to use their boat on their own lake. It would be silly to trailer their
boat to another lake. It would be a waste of fuel and add to congestion on the
roads and on other lakes. He could change to a four - stroke engine, but he is
retired and living on a pension. Buying another engine or boat would be a
hardship. His boat is one of the few extravagances in his life. Allow him to enjoy
this singular source of pleasure while he is able to enjoy it. If the County required
him to pay thousands of dollars for another engine to enjoy boating, then the
County should reimburse him. Banning two - stroke engines won't solve the problem
anyway. Concerns over the issues of contamination will continue. Removing all
development from the watershed is the only way to avoid lake contamination, and
they won't do that. Not having the privilege of boating would reduce his property
value. He suggested allowing tax credits to lakefront owners who buy four - stroke
engines would be a positive, cooperative approach. Another option would be to
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 5
1 register two -cycle engines already owned by lakefront property owners, or issue
2 exemption permits for them or at least grant them a 20 -year amortization period.
3
4 Hoag stated the substitute ordinance deals only with personal watercraft, not
5 boats.
6
7 Chris Spens, 1111 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he is a city planner and
8 looks at the drinking water intake every single day. His background has been
9 watershed science for more than 20 years and land use for 15 years. He has also
10 been a boater for about 35 years. There is a joint interjurisdictional work program
11 for the lake. One of the program tasks deals with recreation. What they jointly
12 adopted regarding recreation says that they are going to compile, evaluate, and
13 recommend a strategy to reduce potential impacts of motorized watercraft on the
14 lake. Coincidentally, he's been asked to present information, lead the discussion,
15 and consider and develop recommendations with the citizen advisory body to be
16 appointed by the County Executive, the Mayor of Bellingham, and the Water District
17 10 manager. That is a good forum to take up some of these issues.
18
19 The next element is about discharges of unburned fuel from various engines.
20 There is water sampling data. On August 29, 2000, at the surface above the
21 intake, they detected benzene. It was for .22 parts per billion (ppb). The State
22 reporting level for water quality management is .5 ppb. What has been measured
23 is less than one -half the reporting level. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
24 drinking water, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard, is 5 ppb or
25 more than 20 times greater than the highest benzene detect above the water
26 intake. The ambient air quality says that the ambient concentration of benzene in
27 the area is over 1 parts per million, 1,000 times greater than what they found in
28 the water.
29
30 Lastly, the City, County, and State Department of Ecology completed a
31 study, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Cooperative Drinking Water Protection Project.
32 In their conclusions is a list of recommendations. These recommendations focus on
33 identifying the source of pentachlorophenol in the Cable Street drain and taking
34 steps to reduce further contamination of Lake Whatcom sediments via the Park
35 Place and Cable Street drainages. This is a discharge site with science - applied,
36 monitoring results, detection of elements of concern, and a recommendation to
37 address those elements. They completed a $750,000 road widening project for
38 Austin Street. To this day, there is still no stormwater treatment for that system,
39 which eventually discharges to Cable Street.
40
41 For the summer on the weekends, there were approximately 2,000 boat
42 launchings on Saturdays and Sundays at Bloedel- Donovan Park. On Lake Whatcom
43 Boulevard, 1,000 feet from the water intake, there are 5,400 average daily vehicle
44 trips every day of the year. The contaminants in the Cable Street drain match
45 vehicle contaminants.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 6
1 He hoped the Council would allow this process and program to evaluate these
2 impacts. He also hoped they would lead by example in addressing these
3 recommendations.
4
5 Douglas Shepherd, 2720 Willow Lane, stated he's lived at Lake Whatcom for
6 over ten years. They are talking about banning boats, but what they are actually
7 doing is banning people from a lifetime of activity that is very enjoyable, based
8 upon fears. He's told that studies suggest that the main source of pollution in the
9 watershed is pet waste. He doesn't like pets, but wouldn't suggest that they ban
10 pets from the watershed. He suspected that a main source of pollution is the golf
11 course at Sudden Valley, however he wouldn't suggest that they get rid of the golf
12 course. He is frustrated by the article in The Bellingham Herald. He trusted that
13 the Council would do what is responsible and appropriate, and not take away a
14 tremendous source of pleasure and pride for a great deal of people in Whatcom
15 County.
16
17 Tom Fryer, 1714 Euclid Avenue, stated the use of boats on the lake is mostly
18 in the summer months. Any possible negative impact is diminished. Balance that
19 against the negative economic impact and the quality of life impact that any ban on
20 motorboats would bring.
21
22 Lloyd Austin, 1838 Lakeside, stated he has lived on the lake for 57 years.
23 Many years ago, they kept people from swimming in the lake. The main thing they
24 should take care of is getting rid of the geese.
25
26 Howard Mills, 2176 Dellesta Drive, stated he has lived on the lake all of his
27 life. He is concerned about water quality. If he thought he was endangering the
28 water quality of the lake by using his outboard motor jet ski or anything else, he
29 would remove it immediately. The resolution is to ban simplistic two -cycle engines.
30
31 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
32
33 Mills continued to state that the resolution is very vague. He questioned how
34 they will enforce it, and who would determine what a simple two - stroke engine is.
35 Many people around the county have put a lot of time and energy into buying jet
36 skis and boats. Now, they won't be able to use them. The resolution would ban
37 every motor, except one, that has been produced from 1930 to the present. They
38 are circumventing the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, and their
39 recommendation to put out good legislation. If they can prove that jet skis would
40 help, he would support it. Don't penalize him when he doesn't have other choices.
41 Hold back on this resolution.
42
43 Wayne Weed, 3009 Vining Street, stated he has been in the two -cycle
44 industry for 25 years. He discussed his background. The two -cycle outboard
45 motors and the two -cycle personal watercraft are not the polluters of the lake. The
46 technology behind these engines are so sophisticated today, that it behooves the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 7
1 manufacturers to make them burn cleanly and provide more economy for the
2 operators. Consider the science and technology of these engines.
3
4 Gary Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated he's owned property on the lake
5 for 34 years. The water is much cleaner today than it was many years ago. They
6 can look into the water and see three to four feet, and up to fifteen feet in places.
7 When he bought the property, it was rare to see a boat on the lake. There might
8 be one boat every three or four days. Boat usage has gone up a lot, so that must
9 not be the problem. One of the issues is sewer. The number of boat launchings in
10 the winter is insignificant.
11
12 A document from the County Council cites Lake Tahoe and methyl tertiary
13 butyl ether (MTBE) fuel as being the culprit behind this ban. MTBE fuel is not used
14 in Washington State. Another issue is the economic impact on people who have
15 boats. There are other strategies to use, such as having a committee study this.
16 There is an issue with benzene, but it is lighter than water and it will only be found
17 on the surface.
18
19 Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley resident, stated Lake Louise Road flooded
20 today. The fact that Lake Whatcom is the water supply for half the county, beyond
21 Bellingham. Drawing water from Lake Whatcom is their savior. It keeps them from
22 sprawl over density. The Sudden Valley Community has contributed a lot of time,
23 energy, and money. He thanked the County Council and County staff for what
24 they've done. They all have to make sacrifices. Two - stroke engines may
25 eventually be a sacrifice. They need to consider a moratorium on building at least
26 until they get the stormwater situation in Geneva fixed.
27
28 Ed Brinson, 7 Strawberry Point, stated the clarity of the lake is markedly
29 better now than it was in the past. One report from Entranco says that the water
30 quality is pretty good. The science used to justify removing the two -cycle engines
31 is not there. In 1994, the EPA looked at trying to control marine engines. They
32 reviewed the science, and could not find any reason to ban engines for water
33 quality issues. Please reconsider.
34
35 Jan Adams, 1709 - 4th Street, Bellingham, stated she grew up on Lake
36 Whatcom. Lake Whatcom has always been a source of drinking water, at least for
37 the people living on it. Times have changed. The population has increased.
38 Development and logging have occurred. There is increased motorized use on the
39 water. There is also increased human and animal use of the lake. There is
40 increased pavement of and to properties. All of these things degrade the lake.
41 Lake Padden was the water source, and it had to be closed as a source of water.
42 The City switched to Lake Whatcom. Since then, the lake has degraded. Robin
43 Matthews has done studies of the lake each year with her students at Western
44 Washington University. Ms. Matthews has said that the lake is degrading. If they
45 allow it, the degradation will cost the citizens of Whatcom County a great deal of
46 money. Pollution is expensive. It is not a cost - effective measure. A cost - effective
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 8
1 measure is keeping a body of water, land, and a person clean. If they allow the
2 lake to degrade and die, there are no other sources of drinking water. They can't
3 afford to import water. It costs to develop a cleaning method to take the place of
4 the method they've already paid for.
5
6 Chris Dillard, 2015 Old Fairhaven Parkway, stated the Council should look
7 beyond the financial interest of the people who are testifying, and consider the
8 health and well being of those who couldn't come to testify, including children.
9
10 Bill Black, 2751 Dakin Street, Bellingham, stated he has seen the changes in
11 the lake. Someone wrote The Bellingham Herald and suggested that they need to
12 find another source for potable water. He questioned where else they are going to
13 get 20 million gallons of drinking water each day. Until they figure that out, Lake
14 Whatcom is their only identified source of drinking water. He's been a commercial
15 fisherman for 31 years. He's been around boats for a long time, and doesn't want
16 boats on his drinking water source. Pollution is inevitable when there is petroleum
17 around water. All motorized watercraft should be banned from Lake Whatcom.
18
19 Dick Montag, 1833 Northshore Road, stated his soft drink company required
20 that they take water samples before and after it was treated at their plant. The
21 water they had before treatment was always rated in the upper five percentile of
22 the country in terms of water quality. There was never any questionable water
23 coming into the plant. People forget that they are drawing water from 30 feet. At
24 Strawberry Point, the depth is 300 feet. They could move the depth of the draw
25 lower or to another basin if there is a problem. He has never seen a report showing
26 that the water quality going into their treatment facility is below the standard
27 required by the federal government. The water goes into a treatment facility before
28 it becomes drinking water for the citizens. There are several treatment processes.
29 He is concerned about eliminating personal watercraft without any proof that it is
30 causing as much of a problem as the cars driving down the road.
31
32 Tom Hovde, 1123 Dellesta Drive, stated he uses watercraft and sails a Hobie
33 Cat on the lake. He feels safe having motorized boats because if his boat tips over
34 there is someone to rescue him. Also, the lake is big, and storms can come up
35 quickly. If there are non - motorized watercraft on the lake, then they are in
36 extreme danger. The majority of the water comes from the Nooksack River, down
37 a channel. He suggested that they could possibly draw the water from the
38 Nooksack River.
39
40 Mark Geri, 305 Willow Court North, stated he doesn't drink nearly as much
41 water after hearing about all the stuff that is going into the water. His school
42 teaches water improvement and safety. If they have all kinds of chemicals going
43 into our lake, it's not safe to drink. The clarity of the water does not mean that it is
44 clean or safe to drink.
45
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 9
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, asked about Lake Samish and
whether a ban is for Lake Samish next. The only place in Whatcom County that is
not a recognized watershed is Lummi Island. They are micromanaging. He
questioned what they would do about farmers' intrusion into the Nooksack
Watershed, and what they would do in the Lake Samish watershed and the Baker
Creek watershed. There is no stopping. A reasonable amount of protection has
been done. The claim that this is the only drinking water supply bothers him. They
have a wonderful water reservoir in Whatcom County called Baker Lake. It is fully
protected. There are no houses on it. They also have the possibilities of
desalination. There are many options. He is a member of the Lake Whatcom
Citizen Advisory Committee, the Lake Samish Citizen Advisory Committee, and the
Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum, and an active citizen who has participated in
hundreds or thousands of hours in Lake Whatcom management planning, guideline,
and the transfer of development rights meetings. He is a State licensed water
distribution specialist.
Ty Soth, 1105 - 13" Street, Bellingham, stated he likes to swim and boat on
Lake Whatcom. He drinks the water, and it doesn't bother him. Don't ban the
boats.
Dawson moved to reschedule the resolution to the beginning of the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mary Green, ER &R Manager, stated one of the Public Works Department
trucks has been entered into the Lynden lighted parade this year. They put their
own time and money into the lights. They won first place for organization. She
thanked the Council for its support.
OTHER ITEMS
16. RESOLUTION TO JOIN WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO BAN 2-
CYCLE ENGINES FROM LAKE WHATCOM (AB2001 -402)
Hoag moved to approve the substitute resolution. The substitute resolution
is to join with the City of Bellingham to consider a ban of simple two -cycle personal
watercraft from Lake Whatcom. There is added language on personal watercraft in
the resolution. In reviewing the literature, the personal watercraft has a much
higher impact. One study showed that personal watercraft, which is simple two -
cycle personal watercraft, contributed to 80 percent of the pollution while
represented only one -third of the watercraft. She is not interested in getting into
the issue of whether or not boats should be allowed on Lake Whatcom. That is an
issue that needs to be studied in much greater detail. There is also another study
that shows that typical personal watercraft annually discharges nine times the
hydrocarbon pollution as a typical two - stroke outboard. There is a big difference
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 10
1 between what a two - stroke boat puts out and a two - stroke personal watercraft.
2 That is why she narrowed the scope of the resolution.
3
4 Some of the comments were well received. In the lakes and reservoirs that
5 were studied, they found that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations
6 were at levels dangerous to human health where humans are drinking the water or
7 consuming the fish from these waters. The resolution is to try to remove the most
8 egregious cause.
9
10 A number of times, people mentioned that there are cars that drive nearby,
11 and there is runoff. The studies sought to differentiate between what was coming
12 in from runoff and what was not. If MTBE is used in fuel, they can also look at the
13 amount of pollution that is going into the lake, because the MTBE is a part of what
14 is coming out. It is a marker. The study on the MTBE in Lake Donner showed that
15 it went from a very low value of .1 micrograms per liter when there wasn't boats on
16 the lake, up to 12 micrograms per liter right after the Fourth of July weekend. This
17 was likely a result of increased fuel exhaust from two - stroke engine watercraft,
18 since rainfall and urban runoff was negligible at this time, and since stream flow
19 was nearing its seasonal minimum. They have isolated the causes of this stuff. On
20 Lake Tahoe, the study dealt with PAH's. A 1997 study of pollutants in Lake Tahoe
21 found a good correlation between peak boating activity and lake PAH
22 concentrations. Those are some of the reasons she brought this forward. It is
23 based on health and safety. It is not saying that it is the cause of pollution in Lake
24 Whatcom or that this is the solution for Lake Whatcom. This has been identified as
25 a problem. These are particularly egregious. She wants to get these out of the
26 picture. She likes to jet ski, but she had no idea about the pollution. If she
27 thought that riding that jet ski meant that someone else's health would be
28 impaired, she would never do it.
29
30 Brenner asked Chris Spens about whether there is any significant pollution
31 from the tests that the City of Bellingham has done. The numbers were extremely
32 low compared to the detectable standards for benzene. Spens stated he was
33 offering numbers, not an opinion.
34
35 Brenner moved to amend the title of the resolution, "...to consi eF a ban of
36 determine whether simple two -cycle personal watercraft fFenq create any significant
37 pollution in Lake Whatcom." That is where they have to start. The information she
38 read is not clear. Don't talk about a ban until they get some comprehensive
39 information. She would rather have it be scientists who gather that information
40 and talk to them, rather than trying to translate that scientific information herself.
41 They've already got a process in order that Chris Spens spoke about. Follow
42 through with this and other concerns on the lake instead of considering a ban
43 without having scientific information.
44
45 (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 11
1 Nelson stated they are already in the process of determining whether simple
2 two -cycle personal watercrafts create any significant pollution in Lake Whatcom.
3 Instead, just vote against the motion.
4
5 Imhof stated that when they look at the levels of pollutants directly over the
6 intake, they are extremely low and almost nonexistent. One person testified that if
7 they don't protect the lake, it will die. However, as soon as a lake is made, it
8 begins to die. The biological action of a lake eventually kills a lake. They are
9 looking at the facts here. They do not bear out a moratorium of watercraft on the
10 lake. There are not a lot of boats on the lake during the summer.
11
12 Dawson stated she understood that this is a very controversial issue. She is
13 not a scientist. For five years, she's heard people say that the watercrafts are
14 harming the lake. She asked the people on the joint committee to bring
15 information forward to look at. It never happened. It seemed like an appropriate
16 thing to do to get this thing going so they would have some information and could
17 have some scientific criteria to push this thing forward. Because this is so
18 controversial, she would wait on this.
19
20 McShane stated Ms. Dawson just expressed some of the frustration regarding
21 Lake Whatcom from all sides of the issue. He sometimes thinks that the joint task
22 force is a monster that they don't get to control very much. There has been much
23 frustration. They do need to get some information on this. One concern he heard
24 from city councilmembers is that they need to look at banning jet skis on the lake.
25 That might be easier because they are noisy. One city councilmember expressed
26 the same frustration. He is relieved to hear Mr. Spens say that the committee is
27 going to look at this. It's the first he's heard that. It will have to be looked at
28 extremely carefully. One thing that is significant that they will need to think about
29 is where jet skis will go if they are banned from Lake Whatcom.
30
31 Hoag stated benzene evaporates, so they are not likely to find it in the water.
32 The fact that it wasn't found in the water doesn't say anything about whether they
33 are having trouble with PAH's or any of the other things that do stay in the water.
34 There have been a lot of comments about finding a different source of water, and
35 that may be a prudent thing to do. Until they have that in hand, it is just a
36 diversion tactic to protect what they have.
37
38 Motion to approve the substitute resolution failed 6 -1 with Hoag in favor.
39
40 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break.)
41
42
43 PUBLIC HEARING
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 12
1 1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2002 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLANT AND
2 FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
3 FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AB2001 -394)
4
5 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this is the annual program that
6 is required by the Growth Management Act. It indicates the projected capital
7 improvement program for the next six years. For 2002, the administration
8 anticipates that either grant funds or funds that are already budgeted will support
9 the items in the program. The Finance and Administrative Committee has reviewed
10 the program.
11
12 Nelson opened the public hearing and hearing no one, closed the public
13 hearing.
14
15 Imhof moved approval.
16
17 Motion to approve the resolution approved unanimously.
18
19 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34
20 FERRY RATES, CHAPTER 10.36 VEHICULAR FERRY PASSES (AB2001-
21 395)
22
23 Nelson stated the public hearing for this item and the next item would be
24 held at the same time since they are related. The Council will vote and discuss the
25 issues separately.
26
27 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
28
29 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, gave a staff report and
30 referred the councilmembers to his memo dated December 7, 2001 with a
31 substitute for Exhibit A. Historically, the fare box recovery has been anywhere
32 between 50 and 65 percent of the operating cost of the boat. The late 1980's was
33 the last time there was a significant fare increase. There hasn't been any
34 substantial change in the policies for the rate structure since January 1990. This
35 proposed rate increase addresses the normal increasing costs of the operation of
36 the boat. At the same time, they are reaching capacity on the boat. The historical
37 growth in use allowed them to cover the increasing cost. They don't have the same
38 type of excess capacity remaining anymore to do that and to cover costs.
39
40 Regarding the increase, there are a couple of significant items. Those items
41 include the settlement of the ferry crew labor agreement and an increase in the
42 rent paid to the County fleet operations for the boat. Fleet operations pay for the
43 actual maintenance and operation of the boat, then they pay rent. In the last
44 couple of years, the rent has been less than the actual cost. That is why they are
45 raising the rent, which began this calendar year.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 13
Another issue is of the cost of security at the parking facility at Gooseberry.
The rate proposal has three basic guidelines in addition to covering the cost of
increased operation. He held the cost of pedestrian use to the same cost that it is
today. He proposes rates that are whole dollars, so the crew doesn't have to
handle coins. He went to a rate that ensured they would cover at least 55 percent
of operation costs, and enough additional money to set aside for other service
enhancement expenditures. Those expenditures will be determined over time.
Crawford stated the phone calls he's received on this issue have regarded the
last paragraph on page four of four of the memo. He asked what happens to any
excess fare revenue. Monsen stated that any revenue generated above 55 percent
of operating costs is simply applied to the cost of operating the boat, and reduces
the amount of subsidy that the County road fund puts into the operating cost. The
language in the paragraph says that, when they collect the fares, they will cover 55
percent of the operating cost, and any excess revenues from fares is set aside for
ferry service enhancement.
Brenner stated that is because they are not going to know if they have
excess money until this is in place. Monsen stated he can't say what the amount of
excess money will be until they have done this activity for a year. He estimates
that it will be about $35,000 to $40,000 that will be set aside for future service
enhancements.
Crawford asked how that is accounted for. He questioned whether the
County Council would see, during the budget process each year, how much revenue
is collected, whether it is the portion that goes to 55 percent of the operating cost,
a specific break down of the excess revenues over 55 percent, where the excess
revenue is, and what the County is doing with the excess revenues. Monsen stated
they will see that information each year. He is obligated to report to the County
Council annually about the cost of operation, revenue sources, and other
information. This will be another line that specifically identifies how much money is
there. The money resides in that line until the County Council decides to spend it.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Charles Antholt, 2265 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated the proposed rates
are timely and appropriate. The real increases are negligible when they take
inflation into account. This is an opportunity to change peoples' behavior with
respect to the use of the ferry. Space on the ferry is the most limiting factor. He
made several recommendations. The most use of the ferry comes from vehicles
under 8,000 pounds, with one driver. The proposed rate increase is not likely to
alter behavior very much. He recommended a rate increase to $6 to encourage
more use of the park and ride. Concomitant to that is secure, safe parking on the
Gooseberry Point side. The proposed increase for a driver and vehicle weighing
between 36,000 and 50,000 pounds is a 15 percent increase. All the other
increases are 33 percent. In terms of equity, increase the rate for that category to
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 14
$35 per crossing or $350 for ten trips. Regarding the surcharge for vehicles with
trailers, double the surcharge are over -width vehicles and trailers because they
take up double the space. He is ambivalent about whether or not they should
charge for parking at Gooseberry Point. By reducing pressure on the ferry,
everyone benefits. Initially, it may make sense to subsidize the parking at
Gooseberry Point to encourage more walk -on traffic.
Bud Jewell, 3805 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated he helped establish
the current rates in 1986. This is the first proposed rate increase since 1987. He
proposed three rate changes, including the $1 increase for a car and driver, and
setting the 25 -ride punch card charge at $85 instead of $92. One reason for the
rate increase is the pay for parking and security at Gooseberry Point for those
people who cross as pedestrians and leave a car at Gooseberry Point. This takes
pressure off the waiting lines and reduces the income to the ferry. The County is
proposing approximately $64,000 to pay for parking and security. These funds
would be generated not by those using the service, but by all other drivers. This
will cost approximately $2,500 annually for each of the 25 to 30 people who now
decide to walk across.
He proposed that the current quarterly pass be retained at $205 instead of
the current rate. That would take into account the increased rates for the vehicles.
Also, continue the senior discount rate for all seniors, and discontinue the current
qualifying condition of a low income. The current system is being abused and pits
neighbor against neighbor. There are people on the island who are millionaires,
and received the low- income discount. The County didn't ask the questions it
should have asked. In addition, collect the fee when leaving Lummi Island instead
of Gooseberry Point. The frequent southerly storms causes fee collection in heavy
spray and green water. He thanked Jeff Monsen for his patience while he allowed
questions.
Clay Wray, 122 Beach Ave, Lummi Island, stated the operating costs
increased 21 percent from 2000 to 2001. The revenue coming in was something
like 33 percent. For a short period of time, there was a surplus. The surplus
should go to ferry services enhancement, not other capital improvements. He
questioned why the quarterly passes are being eliminated.
David Puckering, 2515 Taft Road, Lummi Island, stated he doesn't believe
that the proposed fare increases are fair and equitable. Thirty -three percent of the
increased cost of operating the ferry applies to people who walk on the ferry, and
park their car on the other side. These are people who can afford multiple cars or
who don't have young children to shuttle back and forth. It singles out and benefits
a small portion of the population. Those people should pay for a parking permit to
park on Gooseberry Point. A fee of $2 per day would diffuse the cost of those
services. The largest vehicles have the smallest percentage increase in fare. The
largest vehicles stress the ramps more than any other vehicle, require more fuel
and engine maintenance just to load and unload the boat. They do more damage.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 15
That is not right. Also, a 16 -foot trailer is the size of a small car, so it should pay
the rate of a car. There is a 250 percent fare increase for a 16 -foot trailer, and only
a 150 percent fare increase for a 16- to 30 -foot trailer, and a 100 percent fare
increase for a 30 -foot or larger trailer. The brunt of the increase is on the smallest
vehicle instead of being spread equally among all the people who are using the
ferry. Also, the bicycle fares should be decreased, not increased. They have the
lowest impact on the ferry. They take no space away from a car or anyone else.
They are cleaner on the environment, and help the ferry last longer.
Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, stated in 1982 a consent
decree regarding a lease. The entire county benefited from the lawsuit settlement.
The entire county should bear the burden of the lease payments, and not just
Lummi Island. If the service costs more, then they have to charge more for the
service. He is concerned about where the money will go. The rate increase per car
to pay for parking and security are unfair. They won't work. Secured parking is a
service. They should charge for that service. Some people may go to town once
per week. If there is secured parking, it may become a long -term parking lot for a
lot of people. He suggested a parking fee to control how long a car can park in the
secure parking area. Currently, there is a 24 -hour parking limit on Lummi Island.
There is no limit on the mainland side. They need to charge for that service, and
enforce it. Also, if they are trying to get people out of vehicles and begin
carpooling, have a fee for parking and charge a per -car fee so they can get more
people into carpooling. Have a per -car fee instead of a fee for a car and each
person in it.
John Archer, 1180 Beach Avenue, Lummi Island, stated a rate increase is
inevitable. He disagrees with eliminating the quarterly pass. It is very useful. The
commuter pass allows unlimited trips for a car and driver. The loss of it, to some
people at some income levels, may be insignificant. For people who have children
with activities in the mainland schools or are holding down two jobs, it would be a
significant change in the housing expense. The ferry cost is a housing expense.
The current ordinance does not allow the quarterly pass to be pro -rated in any way.
The effect is that the people who could benefit from having one have to time a
windfall to occur with the beginning of the new quarter to gain the full benefit. In
his experience, that has happened twice. He suggested they allow pro- rating of a
quarterly pass. Make a commensurate increase in the quarterly pass, but don't
eliminate it entirely. The ferry service should be included as part of the regular
road maintenance budget. The funds should be distributed as they would for any
other roadway. It is part of the transportation infrastructure.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Monsen stated this item talks about the ferry rates and ferry passes. It is
the policy statements about ferry operations. The next item, the amendment to the
Unified Fee Schedule, actually changes the rates.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 16
Brenner moved to refer to committee. Some interesting ideas came up, but
they don't have time to determine how much the ideas will cost.
Crawford spoke against the motion to refer to committee. He is prepared to
vote on the ordinance. They've gotten a lot of feedback. He didn't hear anything
tonight that they haven't already heard in writing or from phone calls. He's talked
with a lot of Lummi Island residents. He's been to a number of meetings regarding
this. Right now, they are below the 55 percent they need to collect. It's time to
move forward. They have Lummi Island community support on this.
Brenner withdrew her motion to refer to committee.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented by staff with suggested
amendments in the memo dated December 7, 2001.
Hoag asked the reasoning for not having the cement truck increase
commensurate with the other increases. Monsen stated the large truck category is
the one category that has had a rate increase of $10 since the last general rate
increase. He built that $10 into the regular rate, plus some growth.
Hoag questioned whether that increase would be the same percentage that
they are applying to other vehicles now. Monsen stated it would go from $16 to
$30. It is about a 95 percent increase.
Dawson questioned whether they discussed encouraging shared riding in a
vehicle that goes onto the ferry. Monsen stated it was not discussed. The concept
is intriguing, and he would want to look at it carefully. He hoped they wouldn't get
into a situation that those who are walk -on passengers would get in someone's car
so they no longer have to pay.
Crawford stated the incentive is that the extra person will not bring their car.
Imhof stated the extra person only pays $1.
Monsen stated it is a concept worth looking at.
Brenner asked about the comment that people misuse the senior discount.
Monsen stated a senior must provide evidence of eligibility to his accounting staff.
The ferry crew does not do that. If they can present information that the assessor
would use, his department will use that same information. Then, his department
creates a list of those who are eligible so the ferry crew knows those eligible seniors
by name and can apply the correct fare.
Brenner asked how that could be misused. Monsen stated that under the tax
code, there are any number of things one can do.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 17
1 Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 498E, item L, "Senior citizen
2 as referred to herein are residents of Lummi Island, 65 years or older and other
3 persons at or below the poverty level, with a gross family income...."
4
5 Dawson asked how they would prove that they are at that level.
6
7 Brenner stated they would have to bring in proof, such as an income tax
8 statement.
9
10 Imhof stated that is a process they go through at the Assessor's Office. He
11 questioned who would determine and administer whether someone is at or below
12 the poverty level.
13
14 Brenner stated showing a tax return should work. The administration would
15 have to figure out who the ferry passenger would bring that information to at the
16 County. She wants to make sure they are not going to make it impossible for
17 someone who is already living there just because he or she is having hard times.
18
19 Nelson suggested that the person seeking a discount go through an appeal
20 mechanism.
21
22 Brenner stated that wording doesn't have to be in the ordinance. She would
23 leave the details up to the administration.
24
25 Monsen questioned what the special rate for low income would be.
26
27 Brenner stated it would be the same special rate as the senior who gets a
28 deferral. One special rate for all who qualify will be fine. Monsen stated he is not
29 sure right now how they would do that.
30
31 Hoag stated Councilmember Brenner's language would allow anyone, not just
32 residents, to qualify for a discount if they meet the low- income level.
33
34 Brenner stated she wanted the discount to apply to residents of the island
35 only.
36
37 Crawford stated they don't discount people's road taxes or property taxes,
38 other than the exemption granted through the Assessor's Office, which is already
39 included. The County has provided a mechanism that is working, in spite of the
40 testimony that one person gave. The intent and will of the County Council is to side
41 with the person who is telling the truth and not abusing the system. The current
42 language is very satisfactory.
43
44 Brenner stated there is a difference between the people who use the County
45 roads and the people who live on Lummi Island. Lummi Island residents don't have
46 any other choice of how they get home. The County has to look at that. Not that
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 18
1 many people will use a discount. If there is a genuine financial hardship, then give
2 people the ability to get a discount rate. They can't compare that to other parts of
3 the county.
4
5 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
6
7 Hoag moved to amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396) to
8 change bicycle fee to $1.00. The current fee is $.50 for the bicycle and $1 for the
9 person. The proposal is to increase the total to $2 so they can handle whole
10 dollars. However, people who use the bicycles are the best for the ferry. They
11 don't take up extra space. They should not have to pay more than a walk -on
12 passenger because they don't take up extra space. They also don't create an
13 impact on the system anywhere.
14
15 Imhof stated the bike does take up extra space.
16
17 Brenner stated she would support the motion. The bike takes up space, but
18 not space that would otherwise be used by a car. It is important to encourage
19 people to drive less and use other modes of transportation.
20
21 Imhof stated that if they use that logic, then they should allow the walk -on
22 passengers to ride for free because they don't take up space that would be used for
23 cars either.
24
25 Hoag stated her proposal is to make the fee the same as that of the walk -on
26 passenger.
27
28 Crawford stated he and his family took their bicycles to Lummi Island over
29 the summer. In his experience, the crew spent more time dealing with him and his
30 family with their bicycles than they did with the cars. There are issues regarding
31 the cost of the bike. He supported the staff's recommendation on the rate increase,
32 and will not support the motion.
33
34 Brenner stated she and her husband take their bikes on the ferry almost
35 every summer. They get in and out of there much quicker than anyone else.
36
37 McShane stated that if they use the argument of how much space is taken
38 up, and they charge that much for bikes, cars would have to be charged a lot more.
39 An encouraging argument would be to go with the $1 fee. He supported the
40 motion.
41
42 Nelson restated the motion to amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule
43 (AB2001 -396) to reduce the fare for a bicycle and rider from $2 to $1. He
44 questioned whether that would require a change in any of the other rates. Monsen
45 stated it would not.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 19
1 Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Dawson, and Imhof opposed.
2
3 Hoag moved amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396) to
4 increase item 13, "Vehicle W /Driver under 8,001 lbs., to $5 instead of $4.
5
6 Brenner stated that until they have an adequate transportation system, they
7 should not punish people who can't afford to have a car on both Lummi Island and
8 Gooseberry Point. She would not support the motion.
9
10 Hoag stated people who testified recommended an increase.
11
12 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
13
14 Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
15
16 Hoag moved to retain the quarterly pass at a rate of $205 in the 2002
17 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396).
18
19 Brenner stated they are trying to make sure that there is a cost that is paid
20 for. They are not trying to encourage people to use the ferry more. The quarterly
21 pass will encourage people to use the ferry more, and not less. They are doing this
22 for the public benefit of the county. That is one of the perks that will have to go to
23 raise the rates.
24
25 Hoag stated she is concerned about what this will do to families who have
26 kids on the mainland. Families on Lummi Island have to get kids to and from
27 school, practices, and other things. Increasing the fare makes up for it.
28
29 Brenner stated some people are not going to be able to afford a quarterly
30 pass, but still have to get their kids to and from places. Councilmember Hoag
31 wanted to raise that rate. They still have to keep an eye on what they are trying to
32 accomplish. They are trying to have users pay for the use. Councilmember Hoag
33 didn't support a discount for who don't have any money, but she supports a
34 discount for people who make more trips.
35
36 Monsen stated $208 for a quarter equates to four full fare trips per week.
37 Anything beyond that would be free. Paying for five full trips per week would cost
38 $260.
39
40 Hoag stated fee for the vehicle with driver will not apply to a typical island
41 resident, because they will buy multi -ride coupons. It applies to the people who
42 decide to visit the island. That is one of the reasons why that fare needs to be
43 increased.
44
45 Motion failed 1 -5 with Hoag in favor and Imhof absent.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 20
1 (Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting at 9 :38 p.m.)
2
3 Hoag moved to amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396) to
4 increase the fare for item 13, Vehicle W /Driver under 8,001 lbs., to $6 during
5 morning (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and evening (4 p.m. to 7 p.m.) rush hours only. The
6 charge would be $4 for the rest of the time. That would help with congestion and
7 to defer the need to build a bigger ferry as much as possible. It would encourage
8 people who visit the island to not come during the rush hours. This would not
9 affect those who have multi -use coupons.
10
11 Brenner stated she supported the motion, because people can choose to wait
12 until after rush hour. It's similar to what the electric company is doing by charging
13 more for electrical use during certain hours.
14
15 Motion failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Brenner in favor and Imhof absent.
16
17 Hoag moved to amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396) to
18 increase the fee for item 22, Vehicle W /Driver 36,001- 50,000 lbs., to $37. Increase
19 item 23 accordingly.
20
21 Motion failed 2 -4 with Brenner and Hoag in favor and Imhof absent.
22
23 Hoag asked the reasoning for the differences in increase percentages for the
24 three trailer categories. Monsen stated when they deal with vehicles consuming
25 more than a single lane, it is mostly due to the trailer that is being pulled and how
26 experienced the individual is in pulling a trailer into a narrow lane. The rates that
27 are proposed presume that one is consuming more than one lane. It deals with the
28 concept of a surcharge without having to apply a surcharge, which is complicated
29 for the crew to do.
30
31 Hoag stated a trailer that is less than 16 feet would take up one car length.
32 A trailer that is 16 feet to 30 feet long could take up three car lengths. A trailer
33 more than 30 feet in length takes up even more. She questioned why they would
34 not charge for the number of cars that are being displaced. Monsen stated the
35 proposed rate was based on a discussion of how trailers are handled and how they
36 affect traffic on and off the boat. This was the only category that fell out of
37 something resembling a percentage.
38
39 Hoag moved to amend the 2002 Unified Fee Schedule (AB2001 -396) to
40 increase item 25, Trailer 16 -30 feet, to $12 instead of $10.
41
42 Motion failed 3 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson in favor and Imhof
43 absent.
44
45 Dawson asked about the discussions regarding secured parking at
46 Gooseberry Point. Monsen stated there is a proposal on the table with the Lummi
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 21
1 Tribe. He believes there is agreement on the proposal. They are having a difficult
2 time getting a final response. It has been at least a month that he's been waiting
3 for a final response on whether they can move a final deal forward for review.
4
5 Motion to adopt the amended ordinance amending WCC 10.34 and 10.36
6 (AB2001 -395) carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
7
8 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2001-
9 396)
10
11 Nelson moved to amend the ordinance with the substitute Exhibit A as
12 presented by staff in the memo dated December 7, 2001 by decreasing the fee for
13 a bicycle with rider from $2 to $1, as approved during discussion of the previous
14 item.
15
16 Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
17
18 Hoag thanked those citizens who sent letters on this issue. They were
19 informative, polite, and made discreet suggestions for changes.
20
21 Brenner thanked the County staff.
22
23 Motion to adopt the substitute ordinance as amended carried 6 -0 with Imhof
24 absent.
25
26 4. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
27 REQUEST #06 -01 (AB2001 -381A)
28
29 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
30 hearing.
31
32 Dawson moved to approve.
33
34 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
35
36 S. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
37 NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND INTO PARCELS
38 SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM
39 WATERSHED (AB2001 -377A)
40
41 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
42
43 Craig Magnussen, 1611 Euclid Avenue, Bellingham, stated he is a Seattle
44 land use attorney. His parents own three acres on Lake Whatcom that is subject to
45 further division into smaller lots. He is opposed to the moratorium. It is
46 inappropriate and beyond the statutory purpose of using a moratorium. This is the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 22
kind of land use planning that should take place over time, with an opportunity for
study. A 100 -year old case involved the use of Lake Whatcom as the water supply
by the Bellingham Bay Water Company, which was then sold to New Whatcom, the
city that preceded Bellingham. The ruling in the case stands today. He read from
the State Supreme Court's decision. The city, as a corporation, may own land on
the banks, and thus make it a riparian owner. This does not make each citizen a
riparian owner. The corporation is not taking water for its own domestic purposes.
It is not an individual, it has no natural wants, it is not taking for its own use, but to
supply a multitude of individuals that it takes to sell. The ruling stands for the
public's right to the land, which is the right to not have a moratorium imposed on
construction based upon the city's use of the water without there being fair
compensation for that limitation. Good planning needs to take place. An
emergency moratorium is not the way to accomplish good planning.
Jack Petrie, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, stated he is opposed to the
moratorium. This is not to do good land use planning or environmental
preservation. Moratoriums are a special police power that the County Council has.
They are to be used in emergency situations to solve emergency problems where a
time delay would cause irreparable damage to the public. There is no emergency
here. The lake water, by the studies that the County funded, is among the best in
the state. The City of Bellingham has issued a number of documents pointing out
that the water is the best in the state. It has been for decades. Even if there were
some perceived problems with development, it will be the best for decades.
Secondly, there is no emergency here. The Herald called it a rush on development,
and then pointed out that 33 people submitted an application at a time when the
entire future development of the lake is threatened. No one believes that this
moratorium will last for just 180 days. It is permanent. Anyone who believes that
the necessary studies will be done in 180 days is out of their gourd. The fact is that
a number of things need to be studied that haven't been discussed. The biggest
impact on the lake is the City of Bellingham's water intake through the creek.
There are all kinds of issues that need to be studied. This is frivolous. He
encouraged the Council to vote against the moratorium. Doing it this way harms
other things, including predictability in government, that are more precious than
anything that can be solved by this moratorium.
Roger Almskaar, 3610 Meridian, Bellingham, stated he submitted a copy of a
proposed amendment. There are five reasons why this proposal to allow a limited
amount of clustered lots smaller than five acres during the moratorium period is a
good idea. As a professional in the field, he agreed with Jack Petrie that there isn't
the scientific data to support an emergency. During the election campaign, people
talked about uncontrolled development in the watershed. However, trying to do
something in the watershed would demonstrate how controlled someone is by
several County departments, State agencies, and, in some cases, the federal
government. There is no such thing as uncontrolled development anymore.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 23
First, this proposal would have limited application. It only applies to short -
plats. Long -plats are already required to be clustered in the watershed. That is
part of the water resource ordinance. There is a relationship between prohibiting
any lots smaller than five acres during this six -month period, and the fact that Title
20 already says that all long -plats have to be clustered. There may be a virtual ban
on long -plats during this period.
Second, this measure would give landowners a reasonable choice during the
six months. Sometimes a conventional five -acre development is the wrong thing to
do on a certain piece of land.
Third, cluster lot designs are normally more environmentally friendly than
regular cookie - cutter lots, with less adverse impacts. The driveways will be much
shorter. There will be less excavation for utilities.
Fourth, existing rules and procedures already protect lake water quality in
many ways. They've already adopted many rules and regulations on this in the last
couple of years.
Finally, the Growth Management Hearings Board has cited five -acre
development as urban sprawl. The moratorium allows urban sprawl as a temporary
solution. He suggested that the Council allow some flexibility for landowners. His
proposal would not allow any more lots during the period than the moratorium
would allow.
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, Bellingham, stated he is a Lake
Whatcom Citizen Advisory Member, Lake Samish Citizen Advisory Member, Lake
Whatcom Forestry Forum member, and an active citizen that has participated in
hundreds or thousands of hours on Lake Whatcom management planning,
guidelines, and transfer of development right meetings. He is a State licensed
water distribution specialist. He owns several hundred acres in the county. He is
absolutely opposed to the moratorium. There is no clear science that he's found to
support the claims of any threat to the lake, especially not an immediate threat.
He sees evidence that the lake is improving since the 1950's and 1960's. A study
of fecal coliform and other pollutants countywide would show that the entire county
is in a watershed and experiences similar or higher levels. However, they are only
studying the Lake Whatcom watershed. They are drafting regulations faster than
they can have a chance to see their benefits or detriments. They just completed a
lake overlay zone to deal with construction and impervious surfaces. It had a great
impact to landowners and people who are concerned for the lake. That regulation
does not seem to swing the pendulum too far in either direction. The transfer of
development rights program is a failure as it is written. They need to slow down
and let their previous actions be built upon and improved to make this a better
place. There is no emergency. There is a public perception caused by The
Bellingham Herald and extreme environmentalist who are paid to alarm people as
their job. Some people are attempting to regulate Lake Whatcom for their ideas
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 24
1 and purposes, not for all users and purposes. It is no less selfish than what
2 landowner, developer, or builder desires. They are talking about regulating
3 undeveloped, vacant land right now and imposing a moratorium on developers who
4 haven't done anything on this watershed. That is who they are going to affect.
5 This proposal does nothing to the existing houses that the proponents say are
6 ruining the lake. The Home Rule Charter says that no regulation or ordinance shall
7 be generated without consideration and provision for compensation to those unduly
8 burdened.
9
10 Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated there is a lack of knowledge
11 going on here. He has a Ph.D. in chemistry. He grew up in this area. His father
12 has owned property on Lake Whatcom since 1967. The dock they had is still there.
13 They used to be able to see many fish if they looked down off the dock. Those fish
14 are gone. That tells them something. There are other studies that need to be
15 done. The TMDL study is one of them. It will give them information that will be
16 useful in planning. It would be good to have a moratorium in place at least until
17 the study is done. Many people have said that there is a joint management
18 committee. That committee obviously hasn't done anything. Something has to be
19 done. The moratorium is a good thing.
20
21 Andrew Beck, 2275 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated the previous speaker
22 was using a scare tactic. The fish are not gone. He caught fish in Lake Whatcom
23 just last year. He questioned the motives of the authors of some of the studies that
24 have been presented. Before the County Council considers those testimonies and
25 studies as factual evidence, they need to review or look at the background of the
26 individuals who did the study. If they are an environmentalist, and members of an
27 environmental extremist organization, they have a motive. Consider that
28 information when they look at those studies. They need unbiased studies.
29
30 Another reason he is against the moratorium is because the city, the county,
31 and the nation are in a recession. To stop construction, which has historically
32 pulled them out of recessions, would be an unwise decision at this point in time.
33 Do studies, review them, but don't act hastily by imposing a moratorium and
34 shutting down more industry in this county. They've lost enough jobs as it stands.
35
36 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, read the names of the owners of large
37 parcels who will benefit financially by subdividing their land in the Lake Whatcom
38 watershed. Sixty -five thousand residents who drink the water, the fish, and the
39 wildlife will benefit by a whole, adequate, justified, and reasoned consideration of
40 development of the lake. Protect Lake Whatcom.
41
42 Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, Bellingham, endorsed the moratorium.
43 The Council should do three things. First, approve the temporary moratorium.
44 There is no one contending that urbanization in the watershed does anything but
45 jeopardize their source of drinking water.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 25
Second, follow the temporary on subdivisions with a building moratorium.
The existing number of subdivided lots in Geneva and in Sudden Valley that will be
served by the new extension of the sewer line by Water District 10 will more than
double the urbanization in the watershed. That is just the existing building sites
that won't require subdivision.
Third, deny and discourage pending subdivision applications until the
adequate analysis of the lake's flows, residency rate, and ability to handle pollution
has been property evaluated. Recently, they've lost the influence of the middle fork
of the Nooksack River because of the Endangered Species Act. Those diversions
have been virtually eliminated by the City of Bellingham. Additionally, they've
recently lost the outflow of Georgia- Pacific. Millions of gallons per day are now not
being taken out. As a consequence, the dynamics of the lake have been affected.
They do not understand the dynamics of the lake. They do not understand what its
capacity is. They all know that urbanization hurts the water supply.
There is a misunderstanding prevalent among the audience. Even if they
freeze the current status of the development around the lake, the health of the lake
will remain static. It won't. Everyone who has studied the lake that the
degradation would continue even if they impose a moratorium. They don't know
where it will end up. There is not a more important duty of a public elected official
than to protect the health of the citizens. If they do not impose this moratorium,
they will make a gamble of their health. Don't make a bet that they can't afford to
lose. Be courageous.
Jim Trowbridge, 1853 Academy Road, spoke about Marian Beddill's
testimony. He recently picked up the Whatcom Watch to read. Ms. Beddill was
reading from the Whatcom Watch. She skipped many people. He is not on the list,
and he's owned 15 acres in the watershed for over 25 years. She is an example of
an environmental hobbyist. It is fun for her to testify at hearing after hearing. She
has nothing at risk. The scientific evidence is still out on the quality of the water of
Lake Whatcom. As an environmental hobbyist, this is great fun. There is no
financial risk. He's owned the property for 25 years and paid taxes on it. He
expects to be able to divide his property to give to his children some day. Consider
that this is premature. If they insist on a moratorium, allow subdividing down to
two acres or short plats. Some people are being held hostage by environmental
hobbyists, including The Bellingham Herald.
Jerry Curtis, 935 Lakeview, stated he is opposed to the moratorium. He has
a vested short plat. He won't gain or lose anything by the moratorium. The
Trillium property is zoned forestry. That is not going to change. With the current
climate, that will not change to residential zoning. It will stay forestry property.
The five -acre threshold is arbitrary. He questioned where the facts are that five
acres is acceptable and anything less than that is not. His smallest lot is 2.53
acres. These things should be considered on their merits.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 26
Ken Wilcox, 3900 Fraser Street, Bellingham, stated he lives right on the
watershed boundary. He supports the moratorium. They need to protect the lake.
If Ms. Beddill is a hobbyist, she is an amazing model for those who are trying to do
good work on the environment in Whatcom County.
Some folks seem to have a hard time relating to what the emergency is. He
referenced the City of Everett's drinking water supply in Spada Lake in Snohomish
County.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Wilcox continued to state that they have gone all out to protect their
watershed. People are allowed to access the area during the Spring and Summer,
but are not allowed to spend the night. They can't use live bait while fishing in the
lake. They can't take a motorized boat in the lake. They can paddle in the lake,
but not swim in the lake. There is not an emergency at Spada Lake. They were
looking ahead at some point in the past and decided they don't want an emergency
down the road. That is what they are talking about in Lake Whatcom. They want
to avert an emergency situation. Tens of thousands of people depend on the water
to be clean, pure, and good for their health. Everyone has to go all out to protect
their water. They can't treat it as a radical environmental issue or an anti - growth
issue. That is not what it's about. It's about protecting the public's health by
keeping the water clean for the current and future generations.
Tom Hovde, 2143 Dellesta Drive, stated the fish are disappearing from the
lake because the Nooksack River is sterilizing Lake Whatcom. The fish are dying
because there is no food in the lake. That is caused by the super clean water
coming in from the Nooksack River. Bass have been put into the lake to get rid of
the peamouth chubs. He used to be able to catch those chubs all the time. They
are not in the lake anymore, but there is bass in the lake. The bass are probably
eating the Kokanee or silver, which are the same fish, and the cutthroat. The
cutthroat that are being caught in the lake today are very skinny and look
malnutritioned.
Joan Casey, 1015 W. Toledo, Bellingham, stated public health and safety is
the County Council's most important function. Put the moratorium in place. Use
the moratorium to determine the highest and best use of the land surrounding the
reservoir, which is the drinking water for more than 87,000 people.
Steve Cudmore, 3110 Northshore Road, Bellingham, stated he put in a last -
minute short plat application. His lawyer notified him of the proposed moratorium.
This surprise moratorium taxes the County staff even more. It also creates
tremendous burdens on individuals like him who are trying to divide property and
create additional funds needed to pay for short - plats. The County staff is doing an
excellent job in protecting the Lake Whatcom watershed. There are many
roadblocks in the county. The County workers are doing an excellent job at
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 27
controlling it already. Financially, it impacts a lot of people who are looking at this
as a retirement location. This surprise moratorium creates a difficulty and a
tremendous load of work for him and people like him, and also for the County staff.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Nelson stated the moratorium was not a surprise, because it came up a
month ago. If they want to postpone the vote, they could postpone it even further
because three new councilmembers have been elected based upon, in part, their
support of a moratorium. The public has been made aware that a moratorium has
been in the mind of individuals in this community for quite some time. He put this
forward, and he shares the public's concern. It is a difficult situation. There are
issues regarding accurate information. He's argued that they do need accurate
information. They can't discern what the total maximum daily loads (TMDL's) are
until they know what is going in and where the sources are so the State and County
can work together to address the pollutant loads. He questioned how they have a
baseline if they don't have standards to protect the lake, so they know they are at
an equilibrium. If they continue with development as it is, they are going to have
changes in what goes into that pollutant load. One hundred eight days will not
impact or change anything. He is concerned that it be kept a limited moratorium
while they develop the standards that will protect the water quality. They need to
begin looking at good land use plans. A moratorium needs to have a reason, and
the reason needs to be so they can put into place the standards that will protect
water quality now and into the future. The councilmembers have looked into not
only maintaining where they are, but increasing and improving the water quality by
requiring retrofitting of older development. That is a significant issue that they
need to look at. He moved to adopt the interim moratorium to develop the
standards and best management practices.
There are three major elements that they are going to look at:
• Developing best management practices for single - family residences to
protect against potential pollutant loading,
• Developing the standards for subdivision best management practice and
the standards for stormwater management, roads, and designs that go
into those subdivisions, and
• Developing the stormwater fund program to address retrofitting and to
look at other types of stormwater management in the watershed that will
address stormwater runoff from urban development.
Brenner stated she believed a moratorium should be in place just until they
can develop the standards to do the 110 percent, which will require and encourage
developers to work with the County to reduce pollution in the lake, rather than
remain at a level of no net increase. They need to work with everyone. She won't
support continuing a moratorium until every single study that can be done, is done.
She supports a six -month moratorium. In six months, they can come up with
standards for the developers to use to create a net reduction in pollution. The
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 28
1 administration believes that they can do it. So does the building industry. No one
2 on the Council is interested in a long -term moratorium. They want to make the
3 moratorium as brief as possible. They are not trying to prevent people from using
4 their property. Those standards should be in place, and it can be done in six
5 months. She moved to amend number three on Council packet page 513,
6 "Development of a Stormwater Fund Program to include the requirement that new
7 development effectively reduces the net pollutant produced by the project to a
8 negative 10 percent to provide lake water quality protection t-e at 110 percent."
9
10 Nelson stated there are two goals. One is that best management practices
11 and development standards can be engineered so a certain percentage of the
12 pollutant load can be reduced. The object is to create a funding mechanism to
13 retrofit existing problems or create a fund regarding road construction or other
14 County storm detention facilities to protect water quality.
15
16 Hoag stated she supported the motion. She is concerned about how they are
17 going to measure the 110 percent. She's heard promises about how development
18 can be done without certain things, but she hasn't seen any proof of it. The
19 moratorium should be in place until there is proof. The important part of
20 Councilmember Brenner's motion is getting rid of the word "fund." It suggests that
21 the County receives a payoff from someone who wants to build in the watershed.
22 The motion includes a requirement for a developer to actually do this. That is an
23 important distinction.
24
25 Nelson stated no single entity would be able to reduce to 110 percent on one
26 single property.
27
28 Hoag stated the motion would require a developer to net a 110 percent
29 reduction so they would have to go to someone else and fix a problem. She didn't
30 like the idea of putting money in a pot.
31
32 Brenner stated that is not the intent of her amendment. She talked to
33 County staff and people in the building industry. Everyone believes that it is doable
34 to retrofit other properties. The cost of property in the watershed is going up, and
35 the less it is developed, the more valuable each property becomes. The costs are
36 going to be passed on to whomever, but the property value is there. The
37 developers she talked to asked for standards to meet. This is a way for them to
38 reduce pollution instead of being considered the bad guys who create pollution.
39 The pollution that is there is created by existing development. Whatever they do,
40 the pain has to be shared by everyone.
41
42 Dawson questioned whether the intent of number three is to develop a
43 retrofitting program.
44
45 Nelson stated he wanted to leave available the options in the development of
46 the program while they have the moratorium on, so the Council can be assured that
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 29
1 they can meet the 110 percent. Many options can be used. That can be done
2 different ways.
3
4 McShane suggested re- wording the motion "Development of a Stormwater
5 Fund Program to provide lake water quality protection such that additional
6 development will provide an overall net improvement of t-e 110 percent."
7
8 Brenner accepted the suggested language and amended her motion. She
9 brought this up at the water resource meeting last month. She asked to give that
10 as an incentive so people could develop their properties. During the meeting, their
11 legal counsel said the County can't do that because they can't make people do
12 things off their property. She doesn't want to make anyone do anything. However,
13 if people are interested in being part of the solution, this provides an option for
14 them while the County continues to do studies. If people want to develop their
15 properties, they have options to do it. Staff said they could do it if they lower the
16 priority of other things. If the Council feel this is important enough to approve a
17 moratorium, it is important enough to make it the highest priority in the County.
18
19 Crawford questioned whether the administration and staff agree that this can
20 be done in six months.
21
22 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that if that is the will of the Council,
23 the administration will honor that request. They will make it the top priority. Staff
24 estimates that this endeavor can be achieved within six months, but it is not a
25 guarantee.
26
27 Crawford asked what they gain by doing a moratorium rather than
28 requesting that the standards be developed without a moratorium.
29
30 Brenner stated it gives the County the time to develop standards so
31 developers can create a net reduction in pollution, rather than anything else, that
32 will help reduce pollution in the watershed. Otherwise, the developers don't know
33 what those standards are and will operate with different standards.
34
35 Hoag stated the current motion to amend includes the word "fund," which is
36 not appropriate. Also, the wording makes it unclear about whether or not any new
37 development would be required to improve the quality of the entire lake 110
38 percent. It seems to imply that if someone wants to put a development on Lake
39 Whatcom, they have to improve the quality of the lake by 110 percent.
40
41 Nelson stated the improvement is on the development only.
42
43 Brenner amended her motion to amend by returning to her original language
44 to amend number three on Council packet page 513, "Development ef a
45 Stormwater Fund Program to include the requirement that new development
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 30
1 effectively reduces the net pollutant produced by the project to a negative 10
2 percent to provide lake water quality protection to at 110 percent."
3
4 Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
5
6 Brenner stated they want to encourage people to cluster wherever possible
7 because it creates fewer impacts. They should encourage people to cluster. She
8 assumed the moratorium allowed that. She moved to amend the ordinance to
9 include the language, "...provided that an application may create new lots smaller
10 than five acres through the cluster lot provisions in the County code, as long as the
11 total number of lots does not exceed the number that would be allowed if all lots
12 were five acres in area."
13
14 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that as the ordinance is
15 written, the cluster subdivisions wouldn't be exempt because the lots would be
16 smaller than five acres. Also, they need to have a better stormwater system and
17 better development standards for a cluster subdivision and small lots. The intent is
18 correct that they wouldn't want those small lots, even if the density is less than one
19 per five acres. Once there are small lots with no onsite stormwater or up -to -date
20 stormwater standards, they may not want half -acre lots with high impervious
21 surfaces.
22
23 Brenner questioned whether there are standards in place for cluster
24 development to create stormwater management. Goodwin stated they have cluster
25 standards, but they do not have a stormwater program that meets the new State
26 Department of Ecology (DOE) manual because they haven't had a chance to adopt
27 it yet.
28
29 Brenner withdrew her motion.
30
31 Hoag stated some public water supplies use surface water for drinking water.
32 When they treat the water with chlorine, they end up with carcinogenic byproducts
33 called trihalomethanes. The amount produced correlates directly with the amount
34 of organic matter in the water. That is one of the biggest issues with allowing more
35 development before they've properly addressed the issues. Residential
36 development is notorious for increasing the amount of organic matter in the lake.
37 By increasing the amount of organic matter, they are increasing the amount of
38 carcinogens that people are exposed to.
39
40 One study she cited earlier was a study of six surface water reservoirs. It
41 was a monitoring program that was done by the metropolitan water district of
42 Southern California, which is hardly an environmental extremist organization.
43 These days, Paul Revere might be called an alarmist.
44
45 Dawson stated she supported the motion. The Council gave direction quite
46 some time ago to the Technical Advisory Committee to develop some standards.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 31
1 Those have been slow coming back to the Council. This puts the Technical Advisory
2 Committee on alert that this needs to be done. Some people talked about the
3 financial risk. This is the time of year when people aren't building. They can begin
4 getting their plans together and organizing for June, when this will be lifted. There
5 won't be a financial problem for people. She thanked Councilmember Nelson for
6 taking the lead on this.
7
8 Nelson moved to amend to add a fourth statement, "BE IT FURTHER
9 ORDAINED that they create techniques as needed to prepare plans, specifications,
10 financing, and construction of surface water utility treatment facilities to be
11 available for existing and future development within the Lake Whatcom watershed
12 and for the benefit of all residents and property owners within Whatcom County."
13 It must be clearly understood that they are looking at existing properties. They
14 have plans and specifications. The Planning Department and Engineering Division
15 could work together so that single family residences, which also have impacts to
16 water quality issues, have plans and specifications. He questioned whether Mr.
17 Hart and Mr. Monsen are comfortable with the current language so they understand
18 it deals with existing residences.
19
20 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, and Hal Hart, Planning and Development
21 Services Director, indicated that they understood.
22
23 Nelson withdrew his motion.
24
25 Brenner stated she would make that motion if Councilmember Nelson didn't.
26
27 Nelson moved the motion he just withdrew, to amend to add a fourth
28 statement, "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that they create techniques as needed to
29 prepare plans, specifications, financing, and construction of surface water utility
30 treatment facilities to be available for existing and future development within the
31 Lake Whatcom watershed and for the benefit of all residents and property owners
32 within Whatcom County."
33
34 Brenner stated they need to make sure that people understand that they are
35 going to require retrofitting. She asked to include the word "requirement"
36 somewhere.
37
38 Nelson stated it is already addressed. Any new permit will require it. They
39 are looking at what future development can impose, but also to fix past
40 development. At the same time, they need to find out how to help people with
41 single family residences meet this.
42
43 Hoag asked how that would work on the ground. She questioned whether
44 they would require utilities to be created and funded, or if they are just saying that
45 they will look at techniques that might accomplish this.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 32
1 Nelson stated it gives a full spectrum of options.
2
3 McShane stated it gets to a critical issue, which is predictability. There are
4 potentially huge costs for existing and future homeowners who get stuck with
5 having to take care of a stormwater problem after the fact. It would be very
6 expensive. This will specify what they need to do and get an idea what those costs
7 are.
8
9 Brenner stated they should create a tiered fee schedule according to amount
10 of contribution to pollution in the lake. Create a fee district so that fees can be
11 established. People who are in the watershed or benefit the most from the
12 watershed should share according to some kind of fee schedule. It doesn't need to
13 be looked at during the moratorium phase.
14
15 Nelson stated this would do that.
16
17 Hoag stated the TMDL study should be accomplished before the moratorium
18 ends.
19
20 Dawson stated the Clean Water Act is driving all of this.
21
22 Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
23
24 Crawford stated he understood that, up to the time the Executive proposed
25 the moratorium, six new lots were applied for to be created in 2001. Since the
26 moratorium was proposed, 33 lots have been applied for. He questioned what a
27 moratorium does, versus giving the administration this policy direction without a
28 moratorium.
29
30 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the only
31 number he is certain of are is that they've created 75 new lots since this
32 moratorium was introduced. There are 13 short - plats, 3 long- plats, and more are
33 expected in the next few days.
34
35 McShane stated he distributed recent photographs taken in the watershed.
36 Some looked pretty bad. Others didn't. There were several pictures of ponds.
37 Those are stormwater ponds that don't have any stormwater runoff into them yet
38 because there is no impervious surface. The ponds are full of groundwater. Those
39 ponds are not going to be effective for treating stormwater runoff because they are
40 already filled to the brim with intercepted groundwater. How they handle
41 stormwater is a significant issue. People don't lay out their plats in a way that will
42 address good stormwater management. The rush is on, and they need to have
43 that.
44
45 Crawford stated his concerns include protecting the lake. They had a four -
46 week period for people to become aware of this. This is not a surprise. One person
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 33
1 said he has ten acres that he wants to subdivide into two five -acre lots. The
2 language in the ordinance specifies lots smaller than five acres. However, the
3 person really has a nominal ten acres. That will create two nominal five -acre lots.
4 He questioned whether this person would be able to create the two lots, since he
5 only has a nominal ten acres.
6
7 Goodwin stated that they would do an administrative interpretation and say
8 that a nominal five acres counts as five acres. Council could add the word
9 "nominal" to make it clear.
10
11 Crawford moved to amend language on page two of the ordinance,
12 "...subdivisions or short plat of land into parcels smaller than five nominal acres in
13 the Lake Whatcom watershed..."
14
15 Hoag asked what the smallest a nominal five -acre parcel could be. Goodwin
16 stated she did not know. It's going to be a fraction of an acre less than five, but
17 she didn't know how much. Normally, the lot would have started out as ten acres,
18 and a road right -of -way shaved off a portion of the parcel, or maybe the section
19 wasn't surveyed accurately.
20
21 Hoag asked if there is a definition on the books for "nominal five acres."
22 Goodwin stated she believes there is one in the code.
23
24 Motion carried 5 -0 with Hoag abstaining and Imhof absent.
25
26 Crawford stated there was testimony regarding whether or not people who
27 have waited to develop should pay for the sins of those who are there. If people
28 are currently not doing the right things to protect the lake, other people don't think
29 that they should have to pay.
30
31 Brenner stated they don't have to. Have interim development standards that
32 they know are not going to create a problem. The people who really want to go
33 ahead and develop can do it if they are willing to. No one should have to pay for
34 the past sins of someone else. People should have some way to develop during the
35 time they are trying to figure out what the standards are. If they can do it with a
36 net reduction, then the developer can go ahead and develop, and the watershed
37 becomes improved a bit.
38
39 Crawford questioned whether the ten percent improvement would be a
40 temporary thing.
41
42 Brenner stated that when they get things done, the existing development
43 should pay for its own retrofitting.
44
45 Crawford stated he thought they were asking staff to develop a permanent
46 program.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 34
1
2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
3
4 Brenner stated it is clear that no developer can guarantee that they will
5 create no net pollution. Therefore, most of them will want to do the net reduction
6 to cover that gray area.
7
8 Crawford asked the fairness in having developers who have waited to
9 develop their property foot the bill for a permanent situation.
10
11 Nelson stated standards change all the time. He built his house to a different
12 standard than someone who built a house 30 years ago. This addresses the issues
13 that they know urban development runoff creates in the watershed. They also
14 recognize that anyone doing a remodel will contribute in fixing some of these
15 problems. The people in the watershed will become responsible for helping to
16 maintain water quality in that watershed.
17
18 Crawford stated he wished they could simultaneously propose upgrading of
19 stormwater to today's standards in the existing development.
20
21 Brenner stated that is in there.
22
23 Crawford asked what kind of a problem that clustering, as brought up by
24 Roger Almskaar, creates. Goodwin stated the only problem is that, if there is a
25 five -acre lot with one house in the middle, there is plenty of land around it to deal
26 with onsite stormwater. Once they start creating smaller lots, there is more of a
27 need for a good, regional stormwater system. Their standards need to be
28 improved.
29
30 Crawford asked if there is a different standard today for a number of houses
31 grouped together, which creates a greater concentration of stormwater runoff in
32 one place, than there is for a single house. He questioned whether there is already
33 a higher level of treatment required, or if the same treatment is required for
34 clustering as is required for one house. Goodwin stated there is a higher level of
35 stormwater treatment required for a subdivision than for a single house. However,
36 the County's subdivision regulations could be better than they are now. That is
37 what they can do during the moratorium so they don't have new plats coming in
38 vested under the old standards, and have them treat to a lower standard. Once
39 they adopt the new standards, they will be better.
40
41 Motion to adopt the amended ordinance carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
42
43 Kremen thanked the Council for adopting the moratorium. This Council has
44 taken a lot of hits in the past for not providing leadership. Although he is not
45 ecstatic about moratoriums, it is the right thing to do.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 35
1 Since the request for an emergency ordinance was made, there have been
2 75 new lots requested. Half of them were requested today. He is very concerned
3 about that. The purpose of the moratorium is to try to find out how much more
4 development can be in the watershed without degrading the lake to a level that is
5 unacceptable. A reconsideration of a measure that would prevent a further rush at
6 the Planning and Development Services Department would be prudent, but he
7 doesn't want to diminish the action they've taken tonight.
8
9 Brenner moved to adopt an ordinance imposing an emergency
10 moratorium on the acceptance of new applications for subdivision of land
11 into parcels smaller than five acres within the Lake Whatcom watershed
12 (AB2001 -377B) if the administration says it will have the work done in six
13 months. People need to feel confident that the County is not playing games. This
14 is the highest priority. The new councilmembers should not extend the
15 moratorium. Kremen stated this administration will do everything in its power with
16 the resources it has to provide the most information it can provide. At the end of
17 six months, whatever that information is, the Council will decide whether or not
18 they need more time. The administration's goal is to provide as much information
19 that is pertinent and helpful in ascertaining whether or not they can move on. He
20 hopes they can.
21
22 Brenner stated all she wants to have in six months is development standards
23 that will create the net reduction. Kremen stated that will be accomplished.
24
25 Hoag stated that if there is sufficient reason to put a moratorium in place, it
26 doesn't make sense to say that it should only last for six months. If there is
27 sufficient reason to put the moratorium in place, then they should keep it in place
28 until they have the information they need to proceed. She didn't support bringing
29 forward the emergency moratorium while saying that they have to make sure
30 everything else is done in six months. They don't know where they are going to be
31 in six months.
32
33 Brenner stated that isn't what she said.
34
35 McShane stated Mr. Kremen addressed the issue thoroughly.
36
37 Kremen stated the ordinance they just passed does not become effective for
38 ten days.
39
40 Nelson moved to adopt an emergency moratorium, with an amendment to
41 adopt it for ten days instead of 60 days, because they have had a rush on
42 subdivision applications.
43
44 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the moratorium statute
45 requires that there be a public hearing on the emergency ordinance within 60 days.
46 The safest course of action is to schedule the public hearing. They can put the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 36
1 language in the ordinance about it expiring in ten days, but they still have to have a
2 hearing.
3
4 Dawson stated she is not comfortable supporting the emergency ordinance.
5 Preventing a rush of applications is not a criterion that should go into adopting an
6 emergency ordinance.
7
8 McShane stated there is a problem with the number of applications that are
9 coming in. They have a recognized situation in which the stormwater development
10 standards are not adequate in a lake setting. Most stormwater designs are for
11 preventing erosion and flooding problems on streams. They are not dealing with
12 that. They are dealing with a drinking water source. The stormwater ponds are not
13 even being used yet, and they are filled to the brim with water. They won't work.
14 They are letting people subdivide their land. People will buy those properties in the
15 future, and they will get saddled with trying to figure out how to deal with the
16 stormwater problem because the lots weren't divided in the proper way. That is
17 what he deals with on a regular basis as a consultant. It is the most depressing
18 thing. People should think about these things beforehand. There is a problem here
19 that has reached the point of an emergency.
20
21 Hoag stated that if they had passed Executive Kremen's emergency
22 moratorium, they would not have this land rush. Now they've had a land rush of
23 people submitting applications today, yet others who submit tomorrow are not
24 okay. She feels very badly for those people. She agrees that there are not
25 adequate stormwater regulations in place, so she will support the motion.
26
27 Crawford stated the moratorium they just passed would not take effect for
28 ten days. The people who have submitted completed applications as of today are
29 vested. The Council is taking an action that is meant as a stopgap measure for the
30 next ten days. He is fine with that. People have had plenty of warning.
31
32 Motion to adopt the emergency moratorium carried 5 -1 with Dawson
33 opposed and Imhof absent.
34
35 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
36 PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
37 (AB2001 -310A)
38
39 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
40
41 Robin Dexter, 3726 Broad Street, stated this ordinance is far from sufficient.
42 It will not get them where they need to be regarding the Endangered Species Act
43 (ESA). These goals and policies do not go far enough. The ESA is a blunt
44 instrument. He opposed language changes in policies 2M -1 and 2M -2. Do not
45 delete the language "fish and wildlife." They need to do something before things
46 become listed. Regarding policy 2M -5, things need to be required when plats are
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 37
designed and also when they are developed and maintained. Policies shouldn't be
fuzzy. Policies 4L -1 and 4L -3 should say "shall" instead of "should." There are
many more examples. They can take a more forceful approach with very little
investment of staff time.
Ron Roosma, 4977 Wall Road, stated the concern regarding gravel pits was
that the river can re- channel through the pit. That was the only concern. There
are four pits in the flood plain now. It would be nice to have language that says
gravel pits should not be in the flood plain, if there is a potential for the river to be
diverted. The language now bans them outright.
Hoag asked how they would determine whether or not there is potential.
Roosma stated they would have to look at the topography.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
McShane moved to amend policy 8S -6 to add language, "Allow river bar
scalping unless the applicant can demonstrate that it will not except WheFe it WeUld
adversely affect spawning or critical habitat areas."
Brenner stated it does not make sense.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Motion to adopt carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a short break.)
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through thirteen, fifteen through
eighteen, twenty through twenty -two, and twenty -four through twenty- eight. The
cleaning referenced in item six includes brick sealing in addition to steam cleaning
of the courthouse.
Brenner withdrew items nine, eleven, and twelve.
Hoag withdrew item eight.
Motion to approve the following items carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent: 1 - 7,
10, 13, 15 - 18, and 20 - 28.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 38
1
1.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
2
120 TO THE ONLY BIDDER, EBENAL GENERAL INC., TO INSTALL
3
PROXIMITY LOCKS AT CENTRAL SHOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,896
4
(AB2001 -403)
5
6
2.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
7
131 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, BLYTHE PLUMBING AND
8
HEATING, FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE GAS BOILER AT
9
NORTHWEST ANNEX, IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,578.78 (AB2001 -404)
10
11
3.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
12
132 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, EBENAL GENERAL INC.,
13
FOR REPAIRS TO THE SUPERIOR COURTROOM HVAC SYSTEM, IN THE
14
AMOUNT OF $72,293 (AB2001 -405)
15
16
4.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
17
133 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, DALE'S ELECTRIC, FOR
18
THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS GENERATOR IN
19
THE AMOUNT OF $75,596.90 (AB2001 -406)
20
21
S.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
22
134 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, AQUATIGHT
23
ENVIRONMENTS, FOR THE RESURFACING OF THE SALLYPORT
24
DRIVEWAY AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF
25
$52,637.94 (AB2001 -407)
26
27
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
28
136 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, PICTURE PERFECT
29
PAINTING, FOR THE STEAM CLEANING OF THE COURTHOUSE
30
EXTERIOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,488.19 (AB2001 -408)
31
32
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
33
141 TO THE ONLY BIDDER, SOTO & SONS CONSTRUCTION, FOR THE
34
REPLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOTTIE
35
STREET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,746.83 (AB2001 -409)
36
37
8.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE SOLE
38
SOURCE PURCHASE OF CARPET FROM DUPONT FLOORING SYSTEMS,
39
FOR REPLACEMENT CARPET AND INSTALLATION FOR VARIOUS
40
AREAS WITHIN THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,350
41
(AB2001 -410)
42
43
Nelson moved approval.
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 39
1 Hoag asked to defer item eight for at least one year because the County is
2 tight with money and having trouble covering employee salaries. Carpeting can
3 wait a year or so.
4
5 Crawford stated he attended a tour of facilities a month or two ago. He
6 recommends that all councilmembers take a tour because there are significant
7 maintenance issues. Some of them are in these Consent Agenda items. The carpet
8 is very badly in need of replacement. It is rippled to the point where the County
9 has a liability hazard. People can trip over it. It is only nine years old. This item is
10 for a special type of carpeting that has an 18 -year guarantee. There is a special
11 method of installation. The County is doing a good job planning for the future on
12 this.
13
14 Hoag stated the rippled carpet is not even the carpet that is being replaced.
15
16 Brenner stated they can take the ripples out. She liked the idea of not
17 spending this money right now on carpeting.
18
19 Dawson stated she's seen some of this carpet. She agrees with the motion.
20 The public's first impression of a carpet that needs to be replaced is that the County
21 is not taking care of business. It is important to give a good first impression.
22
23 Motion to approve item eight carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed and
24 Imhof absent.
25
26 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
27 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BEK ENGINEERING
28 AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. FOR EXCAVATION OF CONTAMINATED
29 SOIL AND GROUND WATER MONITORING AT THE NORTHWEST
30 ANNEX AND SAR FACILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,500 (AB2001-
31 411)
32
33 Brenner questioned whether a request for proposals (RFP) was done for this
34 item and items eleven and twelve.
35
36 Mike Russell, Facilities Management Supervisor, stated this is an ongoing
37 problem at the Northwest Annex. There are gasoline tanks in the ground. The
38 tanks were removed. This has been an ongoing problem with the State Department
39 of Ecology (DOE). They still have not gotten rid of the gasoline. The same
40 company is carrying on the project. It is an extension of the existing agreement.
41 They are trying to meet the needs of DOE.
42
43 (Clerk's Note: See item twelve for motion and vote of approval of this item.)
44
45 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
46 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BOSMAN FUELS, INC.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 40
1 OF LYNDEN TO CONTINUE SERVICE FOR THE CARD LOCK FUELING
2 SYSTEM LOCATED AT CENTRAL SHOP AND VARIOUS LOCATIONS
3 (AB2001 -412)
4
5 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
7 RESOLUTION SERVICES, LLC FOR A MONETARY INCREASE AND TERM
8 EXTENSION OF FACILITATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE
9 WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT PLANNING UNIT, IN THE
10 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $85,560, WITH A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
11 AMOUNT OF $134,980 (AB2001 -413)
12
13 Brenner questioned why the County did not do a request for proposals (RFP)
14 for this service.
15
16 Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated there was a selection process
17 when the County chose these contractors originally. This is an extension
18
19 (Clerk's Note: See item twelve for motion and vote of approval of this item.)
20
21 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
22 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST
23 HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR PHASE ONE OF A BANK
24 STABILIZATION PROJECT ON THE NOOKSACK RIVER NEAR RITTER
25 ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,517.95 (AB2001 -414)
26
27 Brenner questioned whether there was a request for proposal (RFP).
28
29 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there was an RFP.
30
31 Brenner questioned whether the County has the option to extend RFP's once
32 they are awarded. Desler stated the County does, if it is written into the original
33 RFP.
34
35 Nelson moved to approve Consent Agenda items 9, 11, and 12.
36
37 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
38
39 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
40 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
41 CITY OF EVERSON FOR THE LEASE OF SPACE FOR STORAGE OF SNOW
42 REMOVAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT
43 OF $15,750 (AB2001 -415)
44
45 14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
46 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WA
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 41
1 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT OF 75%
2 OF THE COUNTY'S COSTS OF A LOW COST RIPARIAN RESTORATION
3 PROGRAM, IN THE COUNTY'S SHARE AMOUNT OF $83,333 (AB2001-
4 416)
5
6 Crawford stated this item was amended to allow the Executive to make minor
7 modifications to the scope of work to address concerns expressed by the State
8 Department of Ecology (DOE) when those concerns are expressed. He so moved.
9
10 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
11
12 15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
13 FCAAP GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
14 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER
15 HYDRAULIC MODELING, IN THE COUNTY'S SHARE AMOUNT OF
16 $64,650 (AB2001 -417)
17
18 16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
19 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUN
20 COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY HOME FOR
21 ADULTS RECOVERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS (AB2001 -418)
22
23 17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN A
24 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
25 WHATCOM COUNTY AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, TO
26 PROVIDE CAUCUS SUPPORT IN THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED
27 MANAGEMENT PROJECT FOR 2002 IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,500
28 (AB2001 -419)
29
30 18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
31 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BENEFITPORT
32 ADMINISTRATORS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DIRECT
33 REIMBURSEMENT DENTAL PLAN, IN AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
34 $18,306 (AB2001 -420)
35
36 19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
37 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC
38 COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR
39 YOUTH DETAINED IN THE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER AND ON
40 SUPERVISION IN THE COMMUNITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,500
41 (AB2001 -421)
42
43 Crawford stated item nineteen was withdrawn from the agenda by the
44 Executive, and will be discussed at a later date.
45
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 42
1 20. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
3 SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — NUTRITION
4 EDUCATION, TO PROVIDE GRANT FUNDING FOR NUTRITION
5 EDUCATION TO FOOD STAMP ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AT THE
6 BELLINGHAM FOOD BANK, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $21,196
7 (AB2001 -422)
8
9 21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
10 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
11 HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
12 SERVICES — CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, TO PROVIDE FUNDING
13 FOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING HOME VISIT SERVICES TO FAMILIES
14 WITH BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN AT RISK FOR CHILD ABUSE
15 AND NEGLECT, IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $37,405 FOR A TOTAL
16 AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $145,613 (AB2001 -423)
17
18 22. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
19 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
20 HUMAN SERVICES AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
21 ECOLOGY, TO PROVIDE 100% REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS
22 ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTIGATING SITES BELIEVED TO BE
23 RELEASING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, IN THE GRANT AMOUNT OF
24 $128,000 (AB2001 -424)
25
26 23. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PROVIDE
27 MATCHING FUNDS FOR PHASE I OF THE IMPROVED "WAYFINDING"
28 SYSTEM FOR CITY CENTER AND THE WATERFRONT AREA, IN THE
29 AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2001 -425)
30
31 Crawford stated this Item was not approved, and comes forward with no
32 recommendation. He moved to approve.
33
34 Dawson stated the funds will come out of the Convention and Visitor's
35 Bureau funding. She is comfortable with that. Normally, the City of Bellingham
36 should pay for its own signs, and the County can pay for specific signs to County
37 buildings.
38
39 Crawford stated these were funds that the County committed to in its budget
40 some time ago. They are just getting around to spending the funds now.
41
42 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
43
44 24. RESOLUTION APPROVING, AS PLANNING JURISDICTION SOLELY FOR
45 THE PURPOSES OF RCW 39.84.060, THE ISSUANCE OF NONRECOURSE
46 REVENUE BONDS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 43
1 OF THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WILL BE
2 USED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE
3 COUNTY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY (AB2001 -426)
4
5 25. RESOLUTION SETTING NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY
6 TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST 07 -01 (AB2001 -428)
7
8 26. RESOLUTION SETTING NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY
9 TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST 08 -01 (AB2001 -429)
10
11 27. RESOLUTION SETTING NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY
12 TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST 09 -01 (AB2001 -430)
13
14 28. APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
15 COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
16 ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM
17 UGA FOR APPROXIMATELY 53 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF MERIDIAN
18 STREET, VAN WYCK ROAD, AND HORTON ROAD (AB2001 -438)
19
20
21 OTHER ITEMS
22
23 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 12
24 (AB2001 -397)
25
26 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
27 and moved approval.
28
29 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
30
31 2. RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATE AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON
32 SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 05 -01
33 (AB2001 -380)
34
35 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
36 and stated the committee amended the resolution to require the property owner to
37 pay the cost of the survey and lot line adjustment. In addition, the County will
38 create a restrictive covenant that the owner can only use the property for a drain
39 field.
40
41 Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
42
43 Motion to approve amended resolution carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
44
45 3. REPORT ON DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LAND OCCUPIED BY THE
46 GOOSEBERRY POINT FERRY DOCK (AB2001 -437)
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 44
1
2 Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
3 stated this was held in committee.
4
5 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
6 CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
7 WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
8 PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
9 SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
10
11 Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
12 stated this item was held in committee.
13
14 S. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
15 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY JONES
16 ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF PETE GUNDERSON FOR " "TOAD CREEK
17 ESTATES" (AB2001 -398)
18
19 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
20 to approve.
21
22 Hoag stated the applicant turned in proof that the City of Bellingham will
23 provide services. Also, this is not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
24
25 Motion to approve carried 6 -0, with Imhof absent.
26
27 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
28 NEGOTIATIONS (AB2001 -018)
29
30 See "Announcements."
31
32 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED 2002 UNREPRESENTED
33 EMPLOYEE SALARY RESOLUTION (AB2001- 427)
34
35 Crawford moved to keep the County councilmember salaries the same as the
36 2001 salary until an agreement is reached regarding any wage adjustments for the
37 other unrepresented employees.
38
39 Motion to amend carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
40
41 Crawford moved to approve the resolution as amended.
42
43 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
44
45 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2000 -014 TO EXTEND THE
46 PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA FOR THE DRAYTON
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 45
1 HARBOR AREA OF THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA FOR AN
2 ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 99 -071
3 (AB2001 -373)
4
5 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
6
7 McShane stated this came out of committee two weeks ago. The committee
8 voted against approving the extension. It was held in Council because of the lack
9 of councilmembers who were present.
10
11 Motion to adopt carried 4 -2 with McShane and Hoag opposed and Imhof
12 absent.
13
14 9. YEAR END APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN
15 PREPARATION FOR THE YEAR 2002 (AB2001 -313)
16
17 Nelson moved to hold the appointments until next year to allow the new
18 councilmembers to have a choice in the selection of councilmembers. Schedule on
19 the first meeting in January, 2002.
20
21 Motion carried 6 -2 with Imhof absent.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
24
25 10. APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON THE COUNTYWIDE FLOOD
26 CONTROL ZONE AND SUB -ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
27 SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IMPACTED CITIES, AND ALTERNATES (COUNCIL
28 ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF
29 SUPERVISORS) (AB2001 -313A)
30
31 Hoag moved to approve all the applications by acclamation.
32
33 McShane stated it is fantastic that Ron Bronsema is serving again.
34
35 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
36
37 11. ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHATCOM
38 COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE,
39 REGARDING ELECTION BY DISTRICT (AB2001 -399)
40
41 Crawford moved to adopt.
42
43 Hoag stated this is not a good idea. In this time of a lack of money, they are
44 putting an additional burden on the County to pay for that ballot measure. There is
45 no reason to do it. It is not a good idea. Don't just put it out there because there
46 is a cost associated with that.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 46
1
2 Brenner stated that argument irritates her. It is very important, if you
3 believe in something, to do it as a ballot measure. The cost is minimal.
4
5 Crawford stated that the cost is nothing, according to the County Auditor.
6
7 Brenner stated she doesn't want to see something like this on the ballot
8 without a menu of options because she doesn't support this option.
9
10 Motion failed 2 -4 with Dawson and Crawford in favor and Imhof absent.
11
12 12. NOTIFICATION TO THE COUNCIL BY THE EXECUTIVE OF THE
13 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY
14 SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SUPERINTENDENT BURTON DICKERSON, TO THE
15 BELLINGHAM WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC
16 VIOLENCE (AB2001 -431)
17
18 Dawson moved approval.
19
20 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
21
22 13. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT OF
23 TODD CHILDS AND TERRI HANSEN TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL
24 DISABILITIES BOARD (AB2001- 432)
25
26 Dawson moved approval.
27
28 Crawford encouraged each of the councilmembers to look at the applications
29 of Todd Childs and Terri Hansen. They are two of the self- advocates, and they are
30 fantastic people. Their commitment to this is phenomenal.
31
32 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
33
34 14. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT OF
35 MARY ELLEN SHIELDS, M.D. AND JOHN WORLUND TO THE PUBLIC
36 HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (AB 2001 -433)
37
38 Nelson moved approval.
39
40 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
41
42 15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
43 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE GO FOR MARKET #2, 6476
44 MT. BAKER HIGHWAY, DEMING (AB2001 -434)
45
46 Nelson moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 47
1
2 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
3
4 16. RESOLUTION TO JOIN WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO BAN 2-
5 CYCLE ENGINES FROM LAKE WHATCOM (AB2001 -402)
6
7 See "Open Session."
8
9 17. RESOLUTION SETTING COUNCILMEMBER SALARIES FOR THE YEARS
10 2004 AND 2005 (AB2001 -400)
11
12 Hoag moved approval.
13
14 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed and Imhof absent.
15
16 18. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
17 PLAN, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (AB2001 -310A)
18
19 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the following
20 Comprehensive Plan amendments have to be considered and approved
21 concurrently. She had a clarification regarding the ordinance amending the
22 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Sudden Valley UGA (AB2001- 310B).
23 The map on Council packet page 623 needs to be updated. This one is backwards.
24 The existing zoning is not in brackets. They need to correct that. She also had a
25 clarification on the ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive
26 Plan, Point Roberts Subarea Plan (AB2001- 310E). The correct map is on
27 Council packet page 649. It is map number version 5.0. The ordinance is after the
28 map in the packet. The Pt. Roberts ordinance also adopts the plan that was too fat
29 to put into the packet, including the changes that the staff put into the letter in the
30 packet. There is a section in the Comprehensive Plan that was also too fat to put
31 into the packet. Those are all referenced in the ordinance.
32
33 Nelson moved to adopt.
34
35 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
36
37 19. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
38 PLAN, SUDDEN VALLEY UGA (AB2001 -310B)
39
40 (Clerk's Note: See Sylvia Goodwin's comments on this item in item 18,
41 above.)
42
43 Nelson moved to adopt.
44
45 Hoag stated policy 2Z -24 on Council packet page 634 should require an
46 interlocal agreement with the Sudden Valley Association, to ensure that zoning
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 48
1 density will not be increased, prior to incorporation. She questioned what happens
2 if an agreement is not developed.
3
4 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that if Sudden Valley tries
5 to incorporate before developing an interlocal agreement, then the County Council
6 could take them to the Boundary Review Board and say it is not consistent with the
7 Comprehensive Plan.
8
9 Hoag asked what happens if discussion about an interlocal agreement doesn't
10 work out. Goodwin stated that the County Council still could take them to the
11 Boundary Review Board and say it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
12 The Boundary Review Board would make a determination.
13
14 Crawford asked what happens if this ordinance does not pass. Goodwin
15 stated that Sudden Valley would not be an urban growth area.
16
17 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Imhof absent.
18
19 Brenner stated they are doing a great job, but the numbers aren't there.
20
21 20. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
22 PLAN, LYNDEN UGA (AB2001 -310C)
23
24 McShane moved to adopt.
25
26 Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed and Imhof absent.
27
28 21. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
29 PLAN, POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
30
31 (Clerk's Note: See Sylvia Goodwin's comments on this item in item 18,
32 above.)
33
34 Brenner moved to adopt.
35
36 Crawford stated he views concurrency votes differently than other
37 councilmembers. He votes for the sake of looking at each ordinance to see if it
38 conflicts with the other ordinances. He will vote for this ordinance, even though he
39 doesn't agree with what they are doing. He will vote yes because he doesn't find a
40 conflict of concurrency here.
41
42 Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
43
44 22. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
45 PLAN, MAPLE FALLS RF TO R10A (AB2001 -310F)
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 49
1
Dawson moved to adopt.
2
3
Motion carried 4 -2 with Hoag and McShane opposed and Imhof absent.
4
5
23.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
6
PLAN, PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS (AB2001 -310G)
7
8
Hoag moved to adopt.
9
10
Motion carried 6 -0 with Imhof absent.
11
12
(Clerk's Note: See "Other Business," below, for a final, concurrent vote on all
13
Comprehensive Plan amendments.)
14
15
16
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
17
18
Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the two items
19
added
to the Introduction Items.
20
21
Motion carried unanimously.
22
23
1.
ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLING STOP SIGNS ON CERTAIN
24
COUNTY ROADS (AB2001 -435)
25
26
2.
ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON
27
CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS (AB2001 -436)
28
29
3.
RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO.
30
07 -01 (AB2001 -428A)
31
32
4.
RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO.
33
08 -01 (AB2001 -429A)
34
35
S.
RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO.
36
09 -01 (AB2001 -430A)
37
38
6.
RESOLUTION TO SURPLUS COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY, REQUEST NO.
39
05 -01 (AB2001 -380A)
40
41
7.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CLOSURE OF ADERGROVE ROAD AND
42
GULF ROAD (AB2001 -442)
43
44
S.
ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
45
CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 50
1 TRANSMISSION LINES CARRYING 115,000 VOLTS EXCEPT IN THOSE
2 DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL (AB2001 -441)
3
4
5 OTHER BUSINESS
6
7 Crawford stated they had a deadline for submitting applications for the
8 Planning Commission. They received many applications. He has a new application,
9 and asked if they can still receive applications.
10
11 Nelson stated they can.
12
13 McShane stated the Council needs to vote an all of the Comprehensive
14 Plan amendments (AB2001 -310) as one slate. The idea is that they need to
15 vote and consider them all together.
16
17 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it wouldn't hurt to take
18 one vote.
19
20 McShane moved to adopt all of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
21 ordinances concurrently.
22
23 Motion carried 4 -0 -2 with Hoag and Brenner abstaining and Imhof absent.
24
25 Dawson moved to request that the administration secure legal ferry road
26 access of the upland property by working with necessary entities, within one year.
27
28 McShane stated he is against the motion. There will be a broad negotiation
29 at some point in time regarding the ferry. They don't want to make one issue that
30 will break what has otherwise been a fairly good agreement. It would not be
31 prudent to make a big deal out of something that is trivial in the larger scale of
32 negotiating a deal with the tribe regarding access to a ferry landing and dock to get
33 people to Lummi Island.
34
35 Hoag suggested that the motion be rephrased to seek permanent access for
36 the ferry. They would like to have this be a permanent thing rather than a
37 renewable lease.
38
39 Dawson accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment.
40
41 Nelson restated the motion to request the administration to seek permanent
42 access for the ferry as soon as possible.
43
44 Motion carried 4 -2 with Crawford and McShane opposed, and Imhof absent.
45
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 51
1 Hoag stated Mr. Hinkle brought information forward regarding the United
2 Nations. She is unclear about a United Nations (U.N.) Free Zone, however, it would
3 be wise for the County Council to send a letter of concern to congress about the
4 U.N. usurping national sovereignty. Mr. Hinkle has some valid points. Some of the
5 documentation he provided is accurate. She moved for the Council chair to send a
6 letter to congress on behalf of the Council expressing concerns about the U.N.
7 usurping national sovereignty.
8
9 Nelsons stated he is not comfortable with that at all.
10
11 Brenner stated she would not support the motion because she hasn't read
12 the latest information from Mr. Hinkle. She shares some of the concerns, but not
13 all of them. She would want the letter to be more specific about what she doesn't
14 like about the U.N. doing. They would have to be specific about what they are
15 talking about.
16
17 Hoag stated she is talking about something very specific. The U.N.'s current
18 path is setting up tribunals that overrule the United States' Constitution. They are
19 taking command of the United States' forces.
20
21 Brenner stated the President is asking the U.N. to do certain things.
22
23 Motion failed 2 -4 with Dawson and Hoag in favor, and Imhof absent.
24
25
26 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
27
28 Hoag thanked the County staff, her husband, her family, and her Lord for
29 making it possible for her to be a councilmember. She also thanked the citizens of
30 Whatcom County. It has been an honor to serve.
31
32 Dawson stated it has been an honor serving the citizens of Whatcom County
33 and working with the councilmembers. They are like family.
34
35 McShane stated it has been a pleasure serving with Councilmember Hoag.
36 He and Councilmember Dawson often disagreed, and he has tremendous
37 admiration for her civility. He is very proud of what the County Council did tonight,
38 including the award they received on the flood issue. It wasn't just that they have
39 a great staff that made that happen. They had the Council's support. It is a
40 shining moment for this county.
41
42 Crawford thanked the departing the councilmembers. He enjoyed working
43 with them. It has been an experience where they have gained a working
44 relationship for life. He wished everyone Merry Christmas.
45
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:24 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 15—, 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/11/2001, Page 53