Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 20 20011 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council February 20, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Dan McShane Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: Marlene Dawson Nelson announced that there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Gibson regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) and discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) in executive session during Committee of the Whole, regarding shorelines and pending litigation. The committee provided direction to its attorney. Nelson further announced that there was consideration of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on File No. APL 2000 - 00012, filed by Planning and Development Services, regarding retail sales of after - market motorcycle accessory parts at the Park Store (AB2000 -433) during Committee of the Whole. Imhof moved to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding the Park Store administrative appeal, case numbers AB2000 -043 and APL2000 -0012, and find that the respondent's use of the building for their sale of motorcycle parts and accessories does not fall within the definition of any permitted uses within the existing zone. Brenner stated she would recuse herself from the vote. She was asked to get involved by a person who later decided that she shouldn't be able to vote because she had already formed an opinion. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 with Crawford opposed and Brenner abstaining. SPECIAL PRESENTATION SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND ENERGY — INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRICAL POWER MANAGEMENT (AB2001- Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 1 1 017) 2 3 Nelson stated this presentation was requested by councilmembers. 4 5 Kathy Larson, Puget Sound Energy Community Relations Manager, stated she 6 started with the company in 1969. Then, the company generated 80 percent of 7 their own energy resource needs for its customers. Today, it generates 20 percent. 8 They purchase the rest through long -term contracts. There is a relationship 9 between energy costs and business cycles. When energy costs are low, there are 10 periods of business expansion. When energy costs are high, there are periods of 11 contraction. The current run -up in wholesale energy costs has been extreme. If 12 costs remain high, the economy will not continue to expand. The federal 13 government will not solve the problem. The United States has no national energy 14 policy. Absent a policy, environmental policies have become the de facto policy, 15 and have dictated the process for developing new energy sources. 16 17 The Northwest is at risk for losing subsidies due to activity by the Bonneville 18 Power Administration (BPA) and the results of the 2000 election. For many years, 19 the Northwest has enjoyed regional preference from BPA. With the crisis in 20 California and the congressional power that California wields, they could lose this 21 regional preference. Losing Slade Gorton in the November election did not help 22 either. The Northwest has less influence on key committees that address the 23 energy issues in Washington D.C. It may be difficult to protect BPA, and its cheap 24 federal power, from California and the rest of the nation. Because the Northwest is 25 still hydro dependent, they are held hostage to weather conditions. Although 26 26 states have enjoyed competition and moderate prices, the California experience has 27 put a halt to the deregulation of the utility industry. 28 29 There has not been much rain lately. Hydro flows are 50 percent of what is 30 normal. Utilities plan for that. With the lack of hydro and the wholesale market 31 raising prices, there have been a lot of deterrents. Recent rate increases from 32 other utilities range from 14 to 43 percent increases. Puget Sound Energy 33 increased 1.5 percent, due to a merger agreement with the Utility Commission in 34 1997. In 1997, rates decreased 3.25 percent. 35 36 The power crisis is due to California's bungled deregulation. Development of 37 new power resources has not kept pace with rising demand. There has also been a 38 record dry spell. As a whole, the Pacific Northwest is able to meet electric loads 39 under good water conditions. If there are not good water conditions, then utilities 40 will have to call on plants that would otherwise be out of service, buy outside of the 41 region on the spot market, or curtail loads. 42 43 Puget Sound Energy is in good shape for covering the core loads. Through 44 2003, it will deliver the kilowatts needed by core customers without purchasing 45 more. In 1996, the largest industrial customers demanded a market price rate. 46 These customers are considered non -core customers. When their new rate was set 47 up, it was clear that Puget Sound Energy would stop planning to secure resources 48 on behalf of these customers, and these customers would not be able to return to Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 2 1 the old rate schedules. Puget Sound Energy does not have the resources to supply 2 to these non -core customers. For the core customers, the electric rates are stable. 3 Puget Sound Energy doesn't have a plan for any rate increase. 4 5 Crawford asked if core customers include residences. Larson stated core 6 customers include residences, government facilities, businesses, and local schools. 7 The non -core customers are the 27 customers who elected to go off the rate, 8 including Georgia- Pacific, Bellingham Cold Storage, Arco, Boeing, Northwest 9 Containers, and other accounts in the Seattle area. To go onto that rate, those 10 businesses had to have a load of two megawatts or larger. Western Washington 11 University could have, but it chose to stay on the embedded cost rates. 12 13 Larson continued to state that Puget Sound Energy secured power resources 14 for customer demand. There is a long -term emphasis on contracts they've 15 purchased. Contracts carry lower prices than wholesale prices. Puget Sound 16 Energy has an expensive portfolio mix. There are also some resources that are 17 extremely inexpensive. 18 19 The risks for the customers include external factors, such as the weather or a 20 power plant failure. If that happened, Puget Sound Energy would turn to the 21 wholesale market for replacement power. If hydro conditions continue to worsen, 22 and backup resources were unavailable, then large customers have agreed to a 23 curtailment rate. Their energy costs are lower, but in trade for that lower cost, the 24 company must shed some of its load if asked. Puget Sound Energy has also asked 25 its customers to conserve energy. There could even be a possibility to have a buy - 26 back ration, where the larger customers would be asked to curtail their power use, 27 and Puget Sound Energy would buy back their energy from them. 28 29 Other remedies include a short -term wholesale cap throughout the West. 30 They are encouraging the development of new power resources in the West. 31 They've pushed to secure equitable BPA distribution of customer savings from the 32 federal projects. They've heightened their conservation efforts. They extend 33 incentives to curtail use when necessary. Good conservation is installing insulation 34 and insulated glass and turning down the thermostat. Conservation from the 35 1970's and 1980's has become the norm. The next step after energy conservation 36 is personal energy management, which is putting customers in control of their own 37 energy use. 38 39 Puget Sound Energy has developed a personal energy management program 40 for its customers. There are new, automated meters. They started installing the 41 new meters two years ago in Thurston County, and have worked their way north. 42 There are many benefits of the meters. The meters help Puget Sound Energy with 43 outage management to alert them about power outages. The meters will also 44 provide opportunities for better service for customers. They have done some pilot 45 tests in service territories where customers can control their own heating in their 46 houses. There will be other new technologies. This program will also allow 47 customers to look at their energy uses on an hour -by -hour basis. With this 48 program, Puget Sound Energy will send customer price signals 24 hours per day. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 3 1 They have entered into a pilot program with almost half of the electric customers in 2 the program. The customer can go into their account on the internet and look at 3 their energy usage. If the customer does not have a computer, he or she could call 4 the customer service representatives 24 hours per day, seven days per week to find 5 out what their usage has been. 6 7 Puget Sound Energy started the personal energy management demonstration 8 project the first part of February. It is not going on in Whatcom County because 9 the meters were installed too late in the process. They hope to extend the program 10 for Whatcom County customers. 11 12 Puget Sound Energy will set up rates that are tied to the cost of the energy 13 during the 24 hours per day. Residential customers consume 85 percent of the 14 energy resources. Industrial customers consume 15 percent of the energy 15 resources. The personal energy management program goes further than 16 conservation. It shifts energy use. Puget Sound Energy has to manage the base 17 load for customers. The energy use peaks during the day are more expensive to 18 provide for. That is when Puget Sound Energy has to supply additional energy. 19 Puget Sound Energy brokers are buying and selling energy on an hourly basis. If 20 residential customers shift from using energy during peak periods to off peak 21 periods, it would free up an average 200 megawatts of energy. 22 23 Customers can go to PSE.com and look at an example energy profile. If 24 customers want to know if they have the kind of meter being used in the pilot 25 program, they can enter that information as well. Customers can see what their 26 energy use has been for the past seven days. 27 28 This technology is the wave of the future. Puget Sound Energy started the 29 deployment of these meters over two years ago. Now, pricing signals can be sent. 30 The Governor is picking up on that and wants to reward utilities for implementing 31 this type of price signaling for customers. 32 33 Hoag asked how increased charges would affect sick or elderly people who 34 can't shift the time of their usage. Larson stated the pricing has not been 35 established. The program is used only to determine how consumers are using their 36 energy. At a later date, any pricing change would take that into consideration. 37 38 Hoag stated Ms. Larson mentioned that 10,000 megawatts are currently 39 proposed for the Northwest. In addition, there are 10,000 megawatts that have 40 already been approved according to the Northwest Power Planning Council. In 41 California, there are nine plants under construction and 20 more plants that are in 42 the process of being constructed. Don't let people get the idea that the only thing 43 that will help is anything new that is being proposed. There are many things 44 already approved that are being constructed. She asked for an explanation of the 45 environmental policies being the de facto energy policies. Larson stated there is 46 not a national energy policy or a Washington State energy policy. Policies that 47 have arrived for new power generation have been environmentally driven. For 48 instance, they don't see new hydroelectric dams because of environmental concerns Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 4 1 and restrictions that have come about. 2 3 Hoag asked if Ms. Larson meant that companies tailor their plans to 4 environmental concerns because there is nothing else driving it. Larson stated yes. 5 6 Hoag stated she'd seen projections that, with the number of gas -fired power 7 plants that have been permitted and are being built, wholesale gas prices will 8 continue to rise. She questioned whether it would also cause higher electrical costs 9 if the price of natural gas goes up. Larson stated that was true. It is supply and 10 demand. 11 12 Brenner questioned what is considered a prolonged dry spell, whether the 13 wholesale rates are going to be capped in the west, and whether they will have a 14 price incentive to use power during the off -peak hours. Also, she saw on the news 15 how Oregon worked with the federal government to get funding to subsidize 16 personal windmills. She asked if PSE would look into windmills and solar power. 17 Larson stated a prolonged dry spell is cyclic on a yearly basis. 18 19 Nelson stated one year of a dry spell could cause a crisis. 20 21 Larson stated they've asked the federal government for price caps. So far, 22 the Bush administration has said no. Puget Sound Energy will continue to push for 23 price caps. Regarding incentives for shifting energy, Puget Sound Energy hopes 24 that education of the people will make the people want to volunteer shifting their 25 usage, especially if there is a pricing mechanism attached to it. She assumed there 26 would be incentives at some point in the future. Right now, it is just a pilot 27 program. 28 29 Brenner asked how soon there would be an incentive. Larson stated there 30 may be incentives in a year. Regarding alternative energy development, PSE will 31 buy it if it is out there. A facility in Puyallup uses cow manure to produce methane. 32 PSE buys from that facility. Their product is expensive. She had not heard 33 anything about the program in Oregon. 34 35 Nelson asked for clarification on the electric loads and resources. Larson 36 stated the core load is covered for 2001. In future years, there could be a problem 37 if there are critical hydro levels. 38 39 Nelson questioned whether it would require additional energy from Puget 40 Sound Energy if the non -core customers want to come back into the fold. Larson 41 stated it would take some of their resources. They are not adding that in. There 42 have been discussions at the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). As of 43 today she believed that all the customers have agreed to work things out. 44 45 Nelson asked if there would be power resources if PSE had to take back the 46 non -core customers. Larson stated no. 47 48 Hoag questioned whether Whatcom County produces far more energy on the Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 5 1 Puget Sound Energy grid than is used in the community. There may be a problem 2 system -wide, but in this community there is a surplus. Larson stated that is 3 correct, if Intalco is out of the equation. 4 5 Nelson asked if they have to be concerned if the non -core customers come 6 back on the core grid. Larson stated that would be a concern. 7 8 Hoag stated there is a difference between being concerned system -wide and 9 being concerned in the community. 10 11 Brenner stated Ms. Larson is not saying that Puget Sound Energy could keep 12 the power in the community. 13 14 Hoag asked if any of the plants scheduled for construction would be under 15 contract for Puget Sound Energy. Larson stated she didn't know that. 16 17 Hoag stated the graph doesn't say whether just hydro will be used to meet 18 future goals. She questioned whether that is the forecast. Larson stated the graph 19 is based on just the hydro. She could get information on the resources they are 20 considering entering into. 21 22 Nelson asked for further discussion in Natural Resources Committee. 23 24 Hoag stated a criticism is that fossil fuel gas is contributing to warming and 25 less snowfall, which compounds the problem. Larson stated that was beyond her 26 scope for a discussion at this meeting. 27 28 29 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 30 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: 32 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2001; REGULAR 33 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2001; SPECIAL COUNTY 34 COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 30, 2001 35 36 Imhof moved approval. 37 38 Brenner stated she submitted scrivener's errors. 39 40 Motion carried unanimously. 41 42 43 SELECTION OF CANVASS REPRESENTATIVES 44 45 COUNCIL TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO CANVASS SPECIAL AND 46 QUESTIONED BALLOTS FROM THE MARCH 13, 2001, MERIDIAN 47 SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION. THE CANVASS WILL TAKE PLACE ON 48 MARCH 22 AT 9:00 A.M. AND MARCH 23 AT 1:00 P.M. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 6 1 2 McShane volunteered for March 22. 3 4 Brenner volunteered for March 23. 5 6 7 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 8 9 COUNCIL TO APPOINT ONE MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE EMERGENCY 10 MEDICAL AMBULANCE ADVISORY BOARD (AB2001 -071) 11 12 Imhof moved to appoint Councilmember Crawford. 13 14 Motion carried unanimously. 15 16 17 OPEN SESSION 18 19 The following people spoke: 20 21 Arlene Blanker- Sanders, Bellingham, spoke on the urban growth area (UGA) 22 amendment for the City of Lynden. She asked staff to be notified when this was on 23 the agenda, but she wasn't. They desire to use their property in the same manner 24 as properties bordering on the sides. There is a proposal for a condominium in that 25 area. They would consider doing multi - family housing for senior citizen housing. 26 They have no plans in writing at this time. The property is four blocks from the 27 Fairway shopping center, across the street from the Lynden fairgrounds, and next 28 to a proposed park in Lynden. The property is in a residential area of downtown 29 Lynden. Regarding the lines running along the flood plain, the City of Lynden and 30 County need to protect and respect the flood boundaries. When the city and 31 County did amend the urban growth area line last year, a certain amount of 32 acreage in the flood plain was allowed in the UGA. This property is in a logical 33 place to be put in the UGA of Lynden. 34 35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 36 37 Blanker- Sanders continued to ask Council to consider approval of her 38 request. 39 40 Dennis Jones, former Democratic caucus representative for Sudden Valley, 41 thanked the Council for considering Sudden Valley as being officially recognized as 42 a community. They don't have the option of being a township in this state. The 43 previous board opened the process at Sudden Valley. The board has seven new 44 members in a very open forum. He was asked to give a vision of a residential 45 cluster community. They are little towns like Everson. The idea is of a residential 46 cluster community with a school, theater, and other services. Sudden Valley has a 47 voice in the elective process. They want to be a fellow steward of the lake. They 48 all agree that they don't want to ruin the lake. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 7 Bo Bumford, Sumas, stated that it is good to explain power to the public. Some things were missing from the explanation. He advocates better power policies. The presentation didn't address that they don't need a surge of fossil fuel generation to address problems. They don't need new generation of any kind in attempt to answer shortages as a knee -jerk reaction to California. Instead, stress conservation. They talked about power shifting. Rather than doing that, it is equally, or more, important to reduce power usage. They could save about 30 percent of the energy in homes and across the board. It is in everyone's best interest to address this issue. Additionally, the drought seems to be coming on quickly. Three years ago was a record snow pack year. It is a temporal thing that may be gone soon. Look at the big picture, and present an overall view to take into consideration more of the long -term solutions. He would also like to hear more stress on renewable sources as part of the integral program. Look forward to alternative sources and not fossil fuel sources that pollute. Some of the increases they are seeing are natural market increases. Peter Tassoni, 6176 Saxon Road, stated there was a Bellingham Herald article on Sunday, January 21, 2001 by John Stark. He outlined a history of trust land and violation controversies in the un- enforced citations of the Foothills Recycling operation. A citation issued and then not enforced sets a dangerous precedent. Foothills Recycling operates on Native American trust land, and any regulation and enforcement must come from the federal entity. However, the Nooksack Tribal Council would accept responsibility for the Foothills Recycling operation if financial liability for the cleanup costs are funded from a federal source. There were monies created to close open dumps on Native American lands. There are several millions of dollars available in this fund. Before starting litigation, initiate a dual pronged response to Foothills Recycling. He has faith in the Nooksack Tribal Council to address the resolution's intent. First, the County Council should instruct its Health and Human Services Department to contact the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Indian Health officials monthly to plead for the immediate enforcement of all outstanding citations issued against Foothills Recycling. Second, to secure federal monies, the Council should share the administrative costs with the Nooksack Tribal Council to secure federal funds to either bring the operation into compliance with all standards, or facilitate a closure and clean up of the operation based on federal standards. He has faith that the County and Tribe can resolve the problem in a neighborly way, without resorting to litigation. His comments are as a citizen, not as an Acme Fire Department volunteer or as the citizen representative on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). Nelson asked if this resolution was proposed to SWAC. Tassoni stated no. SWAC recommended that the Council send a letter to the tribe. As a citizen, he recommends this instead. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 8 1 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated efficient trucking is the economic 2 lifeblood of the agricultural community. The farming community uses many of the 3 types of equipment that the Washington Alliance for Safe Highways (WASH) is 4 against. He provided photos of Whatcom County trucks that exceed the federal 5 standards. The Washington Alliance for Safe Highways is an anti -truck group 6 financed by railroad interests. Their representative made several inaccurate 7 statements and one outrageous claim that 90 percent of the trucks on the road 8 have safety faults. Each year, all heavy truck enforcement officials pick a week 9 when they put every available inspector out. During that week, they inspect 10 hundreds of thousands of trucks across the country. Generally, they come up with 11 25 percent of the trucks inspected that can be put out of service for safety errors. 12 However, that doesn't mean that 25 percent of the trucks on the road are unsafe. 13 They select trucks that aren't safe historically, or look unsafe. They can't inspect 14 every truck, and have to be selective. The data doesn't reflect the true picture. 15 Safety conditions improve every year. Equipment, inspection, and drivers are 16 better. Reconsider the resolution. It is hypocritical to support a group that doesn't 17 want other states to use the same efficient trucking equipment that the State of 18 Washington uses safely. 19 20 Hoag asked if the trucks in the photos don't meet federal standards. Wiesen 21 stated they all exceed the 80,000 pound gross standard that this lobbying group is 22 trying to keep enforced. 23 24 Hoag asked how they are allowed if they exceed the federal standard. 25 Wiesen stated they were grandfathered in because the state historically allowed 26 that kind of equipment. If this group gains considerable power, then the group will 27 have the power to reduce what is allowed by grandfathering. 28 29 Hoag asked how the trucks in the photo violate the standard. Wiesen stated 30 they run at 105,500 pounds, which is over the 80,000 -pound federal standard on 31 five axles. Most of those trucks have seven or eight axles, which has less weight 32 per axle and tire. 33 34 Imhof stated that, federally, one is allowed only 80,000 pounds, no matter 35 how many axles there are. 36 37 Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated there should be no new mineral 38 resource lands (MRL) designated until the mandated study of the Comprehensive 39 Plan is complete. Without the study, they will not know whether they will need 40 more MRL's or whether they should be. Three of the five proposed MRL's would be 41 in areas with prime soils. The Comprehensive Plan is clear that no MRL's in areas 42 with prime agricultural soils are permitted, unless there is no other source. The 43 County won't know that until the study is done. He urged that the proposals be 44 sent back to the Planning Department and do the study. 45 46 Holly Siano, Everson, stated that in the Northwest power region, they have 47 10,000 megawatts approved and are waiting to be built. That equals 10 million 48 homes or 25 million people. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 9 1 2 Darlyn Del Boca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated some of the MRL's proposed 3 are on agricultural soils. She was opposed to the MRL's. She was strongly opposed 4 to the one on Pole Road. This is her neighbor who presently has a 40 -acre 5 extraction site under a conditional use permit that is out of compliance and is not 6 being enforced by the County. She's had to live with that activity for 15 years. The 7 applicant has taken out 40 -acres of some of the best raspberry ground in the 8 county. The acreage he's proposed to expand is also on prime agricultural soil. 9 She provided a complete cost benefit comparison that puts the mining activities' 10 gross income against the agricultural activities' income. There is a difference in 11 favor of agriculture at the site to be continued, without mining to occur. 12 13 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the Open Session. 14 15 Brenner moved to rescind the resolution in opposition to lifting the 16 current freeze on truck length and weight restrictions (AB2000 -409). The 17 entire time they talked about triple trailers. It wasn't just about length. It was 18 about weight. She wanted to see an amended resolution that is about the triple 19 trailers. It is not fair the way this is. This weight is already allowed in the state 20 and seems to be working. They already allow the weight issue. She was bothered 21 that there is a resolution supporting a freeze for other people when it is allowed 22 here. She moved to rescind the resolution in support of WASH. 23 24 Imhof stated the two items that brought this forward were the concern of the 25 limit on the 80,000 -pound gross weight and the concern of triple trailers. He could 26 support rescinding the motion on the 80,000 -pound weight limit, but not the triple 27 trailers. He suggested developing a resolution to that effect, and approving it at 28 the next meeting. 29 30 Brenner stated her motion was to rescind the portion of the resolution 31 regarding the weight limits. 32 33 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated it would be cleaner for the 34 record to do a new resolution that would rescind the previous resolution, and bring 35 it forward at the next Council meeting. 36 37 Brenner withdrew her motion. She would put the new resolution into 38 committee. 39 40 41 PUBLIC HEARING 42 43 1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR 44 CONDITIONAL AND /OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER 45 TRANSMISSION LINES CARRYING 115,000 VOLTS AND LOADS 46 GREATER THAN 100 MEGAWATTS, EXCEPT IN EXISTING HIGH - 47 POWER TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS OR THOSE DISTRICTS 48 CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL (AB2001 -060) Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 10 1 2 Crawford asked why they are doing this. They looked at it a year ago and 3 voted against it. 4 5 Hoag stated they didn't vote against it. Councilmember McShane had 6 abstained and they had to have five votes for an emergency moratorium. The 7 Council looked at the situation and said it needed to be cleaned up. A loophole was 8 pointed out to them. The intent of the 1990 ordinance based on an initiative was to 9 restrict high power transmission lines to existing corridors in industrial areas. The 10 Council thought they had done that when it passed the ordinance. The ordinance 11 just limited the voltage. Electricity also has watts and amps. People were trying to 12 circumvent that ordinance and put in high - powered transmission lines in the county 13 that are even more dangerous than what the initiative was designed to prevent. 14 15 Brenner stated that at the time, the Public Utility District (PUD) was in 16 negotiation, and the Council felt it wasn't fair to put a moratorium forward while 17 they were in the middle of a negotiation. It was out of respect for that situation 18 that the Council decided not to do it. Out of respect for the Utilities Committee, 19 which is working on these issues, it is important to give them the ability to make 20 these decisions without any other permit applications coming in. This is a good 21 time to do it. 22 23 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 24 25 Marlene Noteboom, Lynden, supported the moratorium to allow the County 26 the time to deal with proper amperage and location of the transmission lines and to 27 take control of the County's own energy destiny. This would be proactive for 28 Whatcom County. It could be a role model for other counties. Part of the tax base 29 is dependent upon over 200 dairies. Stray voltage is a concern for the health of 30 cows. Half a volt stops a cow from drinking and /or releasing her milk. Stray 31 voltage could result in a farmer losing his or her farm in a week or two. Next would 32 be Dairigold, and then equipment companies. Agricultural people already have 33 problems. The Council needs to think about conservation, alternatives, renewables, 34 and sensible solutions. Support the moratorium. Establish a local energy policy. 35 36 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she was in favor of the 37 moratorium. Local planning is an excellent way to address these problems. No 38 one doubts that a large industrial line affects that community. Communities and 39 entities work in a combined fashion. There is a Utilities Planning Committee that 40 has a charge to address this issue. They are overloaded with their current 41 workload. An expanded involvement with the community would be a great benefit. 42 Ms. Larson expressed a concern over the lower than 50 percent hydro reserve. She 43 also expressed something about the environmental policy as driving this. Relating 44 hydro reserve to the global warming and environmental circumstance, they will find 45 a connection. Less rainfall comes from environmental conditions. Support the 46 moratorium. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 11 1 Candice Ambrosio, High Noon Road, stated she supported the moratorium. 2 The Whatcom County Utility and Planning Advisory Committee is working on a plan. 3 The plan would involve the public. They are scheduling meetings in March. 4 Whatcom County is a gateway from British Columbia. It is important for citizens to 5 be in control of these industrial corridors. Whatcom County can be an example to 6 other counties around the country. 7 8 Kathy Larson, Puget Sound Energy, stated that Puget Sound Energy doesn't 9 have a concern about the moratorium today. However, there are concerns going 10 forward about how a regulatory limit would impair a utility's ability to respond to 11 system needs. The County set up the Utility Planning and Advisory Committee to 12 address policy and regulatory issues. They have been meeting twice a month since 13 last fall. If there is a concern with some of the issues, the assignment should be 14 given to that committee. 15 16 Dirk Petty, Whatcom County resident, stated he served on the 17 Electromagnetic Task Force in Olympia and worked on the initiative to restrict high 18 voltage lines to industrial corridors. It is important to address and support the 19 moratorium. Whatcom County is a gateway for where power is produced and how 20 power is moved to the consumers in the south. Two things from the 21 Electromagnetic Task Force that no one disagreed with were that intensity and 22 duration affect a person. If intensity is very high, duration should be limited. With 23 placement of high voltage transmission lines, They don't address the fact that it 24 may go over someone's home. That is intense exposure over long duration. There 25 are concerns that need to be addressed. If they plan how this is done, they can 26 reduce exposure and limit how they move power through Whatcom County. He 27 urged the Council to support the moratorium. 28 29 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that staff has no opinion 30 on the moratorium, but has concerns about having adequate staffing and expertise 31 for this. If the Council passes the moratorium, it should think about funding a 32 technical expert to assist the committee with its work. There isn't anyone on staff 33 who is particularly knowledgeable about electrical magnetic field issues, or even 34 knows the difference between an amp, a volt, and a watt. It is a technical field that 35 requires a lot of staff time. The current staff is currently overloaded with the 36 existing committees they have. The department has no budget for overtime, and 37 they are having many evening meetings with these committees. 38 39 Bo Bumford, Sumas, stated this discussion would gain attention on the need 40 to focus. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed regarding 41 energy. A moratorium will provide a time to do that. This is a chance to build good 42 policy on high power corridors. Support the moratorium. 43 44 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. 45 46 Hoag moved to postpone temporarily the vote to the end of the meeting 47 because Councilmember Dawson was not present. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 12 1 Nelson stated that he didn't know whether Councilmember Dawson would 2 arrive by the end of the meeting. 3 4 McShane stated the appeal date for SEPA ends on February 26. He asked if 5 the Council is allowed to vote on it before it is appealed. 6 7 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, indicated that they could vote on 8 it. 9 10 Nelson stated there was a concern by Ms. Larson regarding possible changes 11 to power transmission. Larson stated Puget Sound Energy doesn't know what the 12 system needs to serve the public on a day -to -day basis. 13 14 Nelson stated this moratorium is for filing and processing of applications for 15 land use permits. He questioned whether that would be about putting in new lines. 16 Goodwin stated it is for land use permits for transmission lines. 17 18 Nelson asked if the Puget Sound Energy concern was about whether they 19 could change what they have currently to modify existing lines. Larson stated that 20 there is not a plan on the table. That is not to say there won't be a plan. She could 21 not address it. 22 23 Nelson stated the moratorium deals with permits for electric power 24 transmission lines, except in existing high -power corridors. He questioned whether 25 Puget Sound Energy would be able to change the loads on their lines. Goodwin 26 stated that if Puget Sound Energy is currently designated as a high -power 27 transmission line with a conditional use permit, then they could. If they have an 28 existing 115 kV line, and what to increase their amperage to over 100, then they 29 couldn't because they wouldn't be designated as an existing corridor. 30 31 Hoag stated that is if Puget Sound Energy has an existing line that is greater 32 than 115 kV. Goodwin stated that, right now, the County only regulates lines 33 greater than 115 kV. This would be for lines of 115 kV if it has greater than 100 34 megawatts. 35 36 Nelson asked if that was Ms. Larson's concern. Larson stated she didn't have 37 a project at this point to site specifically. The concern is about the moratorium's 38 impacts to serve the needs of consumers in the county. Puget Sound Energy 39 doesn't think that the moratorium is the way to go. If there is a concern about 40 regulation and policies, then turn it to the Utility Planning Committee. 41 42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 43 44 McShane asked if there is a limit on the megawatts currently being run. 45 Goodwin stated there is a limit on volts, but not amps or watts. 46 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 13 McShane asked if an existing line could increase the load over 100 megawatts. Goodwin stated they could now, but could not if they have this moratorium. Hoag stated they could. They wouldn't have to apply for a permit. Crawford stated they don't need a permit to increase the megawatts. There is no limit on existing lines. Goodwin stated that as much power could be put through an existing line as they want, as long as a new line suitable for that power is not built. Hoag stated that if it required a permit, the moratorium would stop it. Imhof questioned whether the concerns could be addressed with a conditional use permit (CUP). Goodwin stated that a conditional use permit is only for the line. Once the line is in, they could increase the amperage through that line. Imhof stated that a condition of the permit could be to limit the volts on the line. McShane asked if there are any 115 kV lines that have 100 - megawatt loads currently. Hoag stated utilities testified that the average load is very small. There is only one line in all of Whatcom County that was higher than 100 megawatts. It is a very short line from Georgia- Pacific to the grid. All the rest of the lines were considerably under 100 megawatts. The testimony at that time said that they don't like to run loads like that on 115 kV lines because it is not efficient. Tom Anderson, Public Utility District Manager, stated the only 115 kV line designed for greater than 100 megawatt goes from Tenaska to Arco, which is inside the heavy industrial zone. It was put up by Puget Power when the Tenaska plant was built. There are some lines in the county, a PUD line included, that go from Tosco to Dewey, which is currently run over 100 megawatts on occasion, such as when there is maintenance or an accident. That is also true of several Puget Sound Energy lines in the county. McShane asked if there are 115 kV lines that could not run that load. Anderson stated that was correct. They would burn down. Hoag stated they could if the wire is sized properly. Anderson stated that the existing line from Tosco to Dewey, which was put up in 1953, is small by today's standards. It will run at about 120 megawatts, depending on temperature conditions. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 14 1 Brenner stated if they don't have some kind of standard in place, they can't 2 condition something that is not already in writing. They have a CUP process, but no 3 conditions. 4 5 Imhof stated that it seems the average use is below what they are doing. He 6 asked why they are dealing with this moratorium. 7 8 Hoag stated they are dealing with it because, even though the lines built in 9 the past were designed around efficiency and safety, the County was confronted 10 with a proposal that could engineer a line to carry more than it should. The 11 proposal was to carry 330 megawatts on a 115 kV line. They don't want to see that 12 much power on a line not designed to take it. The utilities testified about the 13 electromagnetic field that would be created, the electrical interference, the height 14 of the poles, how vulnerable those poles would be to falling, and how close they 15 would be to people's barns and houses. There were concerns associated with trying 16 to put that much power on a line that is not designed to take it. When a large load 17 is transmitted on a small voltage, the amperage becomes a part of the equation, 18 which creates negative effects. 19 20 Regarding the comment that this go to Utilities Committee, she agreed. 21 They don't want to get an application dropped on them in the meantime. After the 22 input from public and experts, change the ordinance to reflect the intent 23 appropriately. The point of the Neighbors Opposed to Power Encroachment (NOPE) 24 initiative and the ordinance passed by the Council was to limit high transmission 25 lines to existing corridors and industrial areas. Whatcom County will suffer revenue 26 shortfalls if it has miles and miles of high - powered transmission lines that devalue 27 property. 28 29 Nelson stated this moratorium expires on September 4, 2001. It will be a 30 problem for staffing. If the Council approves the moratorium, it has to provide 31 direction to the Utility Committee to work on this right away and get them some 32 support. The Council will need direction from the administration about what is 33 available for funding. 34 35 McShane questioned whether Mr. Anderson knew how much load Georgia - 36 Pacific and Bellingham Code Storage would be if there was one wire running to 37 them. Anderson stated Georgia- Pacific is a 40- megawatt load. Bellingham Cold 38 Storage peaks at just over 10 megawatts. 39 40 Imhof moved to approve the ordinance. 41 42 Brenner stated she was an original sponsor of the ordinance. 43 44 Hoag restated her motion to postpone temporarily to later in the meeting. 45 46 Motion to postpone temporarily failed 3 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Crawford 47 opposed. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 15 1 McShane stated that he would abstain because this issue may come up as an 2 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) issue. 3 4 Motion to approve failed 3 -2 -1 (due to a lack of a majority) with Imhof and 5 Crawford opposed and McShane abstaining. 6 7 8 CONSENT AGENDA 9 10 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 11 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through ten. 12 13 Brenner asked what the $75,000 was for in item eight. 14 15 Imhof stated it is for a program brought forward in the budget in November. 16 17 Brenner stated she didn't remember the specifics. She wanted the specifics. 18 19 Crawford stated he would vouch for what the Convention and Visitor's Bureau 20 (CVB) is doing and what they are achieving. There has been a growth of visitor 21 drop -ins. It is successful. 22 23 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated this is something the Council already 24 unanimously approved. It is the same line item amount that the CVB was allocated 25 the previous year. The CVB was sensitive to the fact that the County is not 26 generating the same amount of hotel /motel tax as it had in the past due to 27 annexations. They did not increase their request from the year 2000. 28 29 Nelson stated the money goes to printing costs and recruitment costs for 30 companies to advertise. 31 32 Motion to approve items one through ten carried unanimously. 33 34 Crawford stated he desired to see more specifics regarding item five. One 35 component in the next year is to look at tangible and objective results. 36 37 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE 38 PURCHASE OF LIGNOSITE FOR DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS 39 FROM SOLE SOURCE SUPPLIER GEORGIA PACIFIC, IN AN AMOUNT 40 NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 (AB2001 -072) 41 42 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE 43 PURCHASE OF A VARIETY OF ROAD MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS, 44 USING WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACTS, FOR USE ON COUNTY 45 ROADS, ROADWAYS AND VEHICLES IN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME 46 AMOUNT OF USAGE AS IN THE YEAR 2000 (AB2001 -073) 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 16 1 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE 2 PURCHASE OF JD EDWARDS SOFTWARE UPGRADE, AT A COST OF 3 $58,266 (AB2001 -074) 4 5 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 6 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND 7 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND MT. VIEW GROUP SUPPORTED 8 HOME, TO PROVIDE FOR PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS 9 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR 10 DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT 11 OF $6,540, FOR AN AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $17,760 12 (AB2001 -075) 13 14 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 15 MOA WITH WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TO IMPLEMENT THE 16 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 17 PROJECT AS APPROVED IN THE 2001 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 18 BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2001 -076) 19 20 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM 22 VOLUNTEER CENTER TO PROVIDE VOLUNTEER SERVICES TO A 23 NUMBER OF COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY NON - 24 PROFITS, SCHOOLS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AND HEALTHCARE - 25 RELATED WORKSITES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 (AB2001 -077) 26 27 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 28 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE 29 VOCATIONAL - COMMUNITY ACCESS TO PROVIDE FOR PERSONS 30 WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DUE 31 TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN 32 THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $13,349, FOR A MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT 33 TO EXCEED $50,113 (AB2001 -078) 34 35 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 36 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE 37 BELLINGHAM / WHATCOM COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS 38 BUREAU TO PROVIDE VISITOR INFORMATION SERVICES AND 39 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2001 -079) 40 41 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 42 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM 43 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR 44 THE MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF THE ANNUAL SKI TO SEA 45 FESTIVAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2001 -080) 46 47 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 48 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORSTAN Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 17 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (FORMERLY ERICSSON) FOR INSTALLATION 2 OF REMOTE PBX EQUIPMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,583.96 3 (AB2001 -081) 4 5 6 OTHER ITEMS 7 8 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 9 AMENDMENTS (AB2001 -041) (NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 10 DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A, K, L, M, N, AND O) 11 12 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated: 13 • Amendment A was held in committee. 14 • Amendment K failed 2 -1. 15 • Amendment L was recommended 2 -0 with one abstention. 16 • Amendment M was recommended 2 -0 with one abstention. 17 • Amendment N was recommended 2 -1. 18 • Amendment O was recommended for Council denial unanimously. 19 20 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 2 (AB2001- 21 057) 22 23 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 24 stated the requests were recommended for approval. 25 26 Brenner asked if the grant money is dependent upon the County agreeing to 27 continue the funding when the grants are gone. 28 29 Imhof stated the County has no obligation. The Council could fund it during 30 the next budget cycle. 31 32 Brenner stated she wanted to see something in writing that says the position 33 would end if the grant money dries up. She wanted to see more front people, and 34 was not sure she agreed with a long -term funding of crime analyst. 35 36 Dale Brandland, Sheriff, stated the funding is not going to last beyond this 37 year. The COPS grants in the past have generally been for three years. The Law 38 and Justice Council recommended that the crime analyst position be funded on an 39 ongoing basis. The crime analyst will provide other than anecdotal information on 40 what is going on in the Sheriff's Office. 41 42 Brenner asked if the software that is being asked for would provide that 43 information. Brandland stated he didn't know what software she was referring to. 44 45 Motion carried unanimously. 46 47 3. RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO ACCEPT A PORTION OF ZANDER 48 DRIVE AS A COUNTY ROAD, DECLARING THAT SUCH ESTABLISHMENT Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 18 1 IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY, AND DIRECTING COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER 2 TO REPORT TO COUNCIL UPON THE PROJECT (AB2001 -082) 3 4 Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and 5 stated it was recommended for approval. 6 7 Motion carried unanimously. 8 9 4. RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO ACCEPT A PORTION OF MCLEOD 10 ROAD AS A COUNTY ROAD, DECLARING THAT SUCH ESTABLISHMENT 11 IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY, AND DIRECTING COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER 12 TO REPORT TO COUNCIL UPON THE PROJECT (AB2001 -083) 13 14 Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and 15 stated it was recommended for approval. 16 17 Hoag asked why the County, and not the developer, pays for the right -of- 18 way. 19 20 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated some of that detail would come up 21 in the report at the time of the public hearing. This situation is one where the 22 developer contribution was completed. To make the road continuous, the County 23 had to make sure that other right -of -way issues were addressed. 24 25 Hoag questioned whether building to County standards includes the rights -of- 26 way. Monsen stated in most cases it does. They are processes in which the 27 developer builds the roadway and deeds the entire width to the County at the same 28 time. Both the right -of -way and road are brand new. There are cases where there 29 is a mixture of old right -of -way, new right -of -way, and specific developer 30 contributions toward a roadway. A developer may be required to improve certain 31 segments of the roadway, but it may not be fair to require the developer to do the 32 entire thing. To make it intact, the County may need to play a role to pull the road 33 together, but only the element truly related to public benefit. The County usually 34 does not pay for it. The County has the authority to acquire right -of -way. Even if it 35 gets financial reimbursement, the County still may need to pursue and acquire the 36 right -of -way. He was not familiar enough with this case to say whether or not the 37 County would get reimbursed. That information would be available at the hearing. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 S. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 42 AMENDMENTS (AB2001 -041) (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 43 COMMITTEE DISCUSSED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 44 I, AND J) 45 46 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated: 47 . Amendment B was recommended for approval 2 -1. 48 • Amendment C was recommended for denial unanimously. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 19 1 • Amendment D was recommended for denial 2 -1. 2 . Amendment E was recommended for approval 2 -1. 3 • Amendment F was held in committee. 4 • Amendment G was recommended for approval unanimously. 5 • Amendment H was recommended for denial unanimously. 6 • Amendments I and J were held in committee. 7 8 6. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S 9 DECISION ON FILE NO. APL 2000 - 00012, FILED BY PLANNING AND 10 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REGARDING RETAIL SALES OF AFTER - 11 MARKET MOTORCYCLE ACCESSORY PARTS AT THE PARK STORE 12 (AB2000 -433) 13 14 See "Announcements." 15 16 7. APPROVAL OF DATES FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGS, INCLUDING 17 THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH BOARD, JOINT LAKE MANAGEMENT 18 COMMITTEE, AND WATER RESOURCE WORK SESSIONS (AB2001 -059) 19 20 McShane moved to recommend approval. 21 22 Motion carried unanimously. 23 24 S. APPOINTMENT TO THE BELLING HAM /WHATCOM COUNTY CABLE 25 TELEVISION ADMINISTRATION BOARD (AB2001 -065) 26 27 This item was withdrawn. 28 29 9. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE 30 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE 31 SOLID WASTE SPECIALIST POSITION (AB2001 -069) 32 33 Imhof moved approval. 34 35 Brenner stated she was disappointed in receiving a letter that was 36 orchestrated by the administration. She never said one personal thing about this 37 person. There was support for this from the Council. It is still an issue. It was not 38 personal. She was assured that the person would not be fired or lose her job. 39 Every time she brings up an issue that has any changes that no one likes, she gets 40 accused of doing smear tactics and an unexplainable vendetta. She questioned 41 how it is unexplainable that someone does not meet qualifications. There was one 42 qualification that remained, for technical assistance. She never said that other 43 people should have been hired instead. She said that there were people with lots of 44 credentials. If it's a coordinator position, it should be called a coordinator position. 45 Keep the person as a coordinator. She didn't care. When they have a position for 46 solid waste specialist, someone needs to have the technical qualifications of a solid 47 waste specialist. This is not a personal matter. This is a big waste of County 48 administrative time to be doing this. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 20 1 2 Nelson restated the motion. 3 4 McShane stated he supported the budget change. There are two problems. 5 One is the policy position of how hiring is done. There may have been false 6 expectations that the Council had for this position. It is important to have 7 communication on the technical positions. The Council should hear back if the 8 administration is having a hard time finding someone. His experience with solid 9 waste as a consultant was that he would have liked to see a technical person in the 10 position. He saw an opportunity to create a position that was a good position, 11 without seeing the consequences of their actions. He regretted that it might have 12 caused some discomfort for quite a few people. There was a recent conversation 13 about a flood position. He encouraged the administration to come to the Council if 14 it is having a hard time filling the positions. The Council could look at salary levels. 15 16 Hoag stated she supported the change in the budget with the understanding 17 that what was agreed on did not happen, and the change process was not 18 appropriate. Her information since then confirms that opinion. They are confirming 19 something that was inappropriately done. She could not support the resolution. 20 21 Brenner stated it was never her intention to make a big deal out of this. She 22 went to the Executive before the budget was done, and talked to him about it. She 23 did not go to the press. The Executive told her that if she had the votes, then she 24 could do it. She talked to councilmembers, and did everything through proper 25 channels. It was voted on. It bothers her that they may not have had to raise the 26 salary. She was told that there were no qualified applicants. She saw the resumes 27 of two applicants that had many credentials. She was not invited to the Executive 28 Committee meeting. She knew nothing about it. She did not know whom the 29 Executive Committee heard from. As the person who made the motion during the 30 budget, she should have known about the meeting out of respect, and been able to 31 present her side. This could have been avoided, one way or the other. This came 32 out to the press because of the letter from the Executive Committee. 33 34 Motion carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed. 35 36 10. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT SANDRA 37 ABERNATHY TO HER FIRST TERM ON THE DEVELOPMENTAL 38 DISABILITIES BOARD (AB2001 -084) 39 40 Brenner moved approval. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously. 43 44 11. APPOINTMENT TO THE SEWAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD (AB2001- 45 086) 46 47 Brenner nominated John Lesow. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 21 1 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A. Beginning of tape three, side A.) 2 3 Motion carried unanimously. 4 5 6 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 7 8 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items. 9 10 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed. 11 12 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING 13 MAP FROM LONG TERM PLANNING AREA TO SHORT TERM PLANNING 14 AREA FOR APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES WITHIN THE BIRCH BAY 15 URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2001 -085) 16 17 18 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 19 20 Hoag stated she serves on the Northwest Air Pollution Authority ( NWAPA). 21 She was looking for direction from the Council. The State Department of Natural 22 Resources (DNR) is pulling back from its burning program enforcement. Whatcom 23 County has its own program, but Skagit and Island counties don't have their own 24 programs. Because DNR is pulling out of this arena, NWAPA is considering what it 25 should do. The options are to either burn by general rule, which means that people 26 are allowed to burn only eight days per year, or let the jurisdictions set up their 27 own fire programs. The current program in Whatcom County is working well. 28 Island County is concerned that it can't put together a fire warden program. They 29 are looking to NWAPA for funds, and possibly consolidating all three counties under 30 a burn program. She felt that, because Whatcom County has a good working 31 system, she would like to see the Whatcom County program continue. 32 33 McShane asked if Island County wants to be subsidized. 34 35 Hoag stated yes. 36 37 Brenner stated what Whatcom County is doing is just fine. Don't go regional. 38 39 Hoag stated NWAPA is a regional sharing of resources. They've put together 40 a committee to look at it. The Whatcom County representative on that committee 41 is Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson. She asked that any comments be given to 42 him. She felt that any joint sharing should be kept to a bare minimum. She 43 suggested that permit fees could be established to offset costs. There is also about 44 $35,000 per year that the County had been giving to DNR that would be available. 45 She asked that any thoughts be relayed to Mark Asmundson. 46 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Brenner stated she gets many calls on pollution problems. The County is better off taking care of its own people. Complaints don't get addressed right away. The County has done a great job and should stick with it. Nelson announced upcoming meetings. Nelson stated there is a proposal for regional transportation planning. This is a serious issue. It takes the state out of the loop. He hoped for an update from Councilmember Imhof. Imhof stated he is following it closely. Nelson asked for a report at the next Council meeting ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on March 20 , 2001. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 2/20/2001, Page 23