HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 24 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 July 24, 2001
5
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
8 Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Also Present: Absent:
11 Dan McShane Robert Imhof
12 Marlene Dawson
13 Connie Hoag
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Sam Crawford
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Nelson announced that there was discussion on a resolution regarding the
20 advancement of Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Funds to the
21 Acme /VanZandt Subzone (AB2001 -263) during the Committee of the Whole
22 meeting. This item is scheduled for discussion later this evening.
23
24 Nelson also announced that there was discussion with Chief Civil Deputy
25 Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding pending litigation (AB2001 -018) in
26 executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Council
27 provided direction to legal counsel.
28
29
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
31
32 REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 10, 2001
33
34 Dawson moved approval.
35
36 Hoag asked that her amendments to the minutes be included.
37
38 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
39
40
41 OPEN SESSION
42
43 The following people spoke:
44
45 Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, thanked the Council for
46 attempting to set aside funds for preserving farmlands. He was opposed to using
47 Conservation Futures funds for the purchase of the bluff at Point Whitehorn. It is
48 unstable geologically and is inappropriate for use as a County park. He would like
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 1
1 to see the area designation changed under the Shorelines Management Act to
2 "Natural," which would preserve the area as it is now.
3
4 Mark Peterson, 1100 Roland Street, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the
5 purchase of property on Galbraith Mountain. It is an incredible opportunity to
6 purchase parkland at a reasonable price.
7
8 Henry Bierlink, 9713 Double Ditch Road, Lynden, first thanked the Council for
9 its support to put Conservation Futures fund money aside for agricultural land. The
10 Agricultural Advisory Committee will work on a recommendation this fall. The
11 committee is working with the County Executive to make this happen. Second, the
12 agenda includes an item to make the Agricultural Advisory Committee permanent.
13 The Agricultural Preservation Committee is pleased with what the Agricultural
14 Advisory Committee has done.
15
16 Brenner stated the editorial in the newspaper stated the head of the
17 Agricultural Preservation Committee supported the veto of the vote. Bierlink stated
18 they are not pleased with the veto. They are going to work with the Executive and
19 the Council to get it right.
20
21 Dave Simms, 4064 Jones Lane, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of
22 purchasing 20 acres on Galbraith Mountain. He provided a handout showing trails
23 in the area. The seller, Mr. Nielsen, listed the parcels in March 1999, after the
24 property was appraised. The County's 20 -acre portion was appraised and listed at
25 $195,000. The City made an offer in the fall of 1999 to purchase the 40 -acre
26 parcel. That caused Mr. Nielsen a problem because he needed an access through
27 the 40 acres to his 20 acres. The City was reluctant to grant an easement for a
28 future residential subdivision on the 2 -acre parcel, through the 40 -acre parkland.
29 That sale did not close. In the fall of 2000, people from the City Parks Department,
30 the County Parks Department, and Greenways met at the site to look at the
31 parcels. Everyone agreed that it was a once -in -a- lifetime chance to purchase
32 excellent parkland.
33
34 Executive Kremen decided that $195,000 was too much, and asked for
35 another appraisal. A second appraiser came up with a value of $100,000. They
36 agreed to sell the property for $100,000. The City agreed to fund their purchase.
37
38 Brian Smart, 2910 Peabody, Bellingham, stated he moved here from
39 Michigan and immediately loved the area because of all of the sporting activities in
40 the area. He spoke in favor of the purchase of the property on Galbraith Mountain.
41 The 20 acres create a wonderful gateway to Galbraith Mountain. Mountain Bike
42 magazine rated Bellingham the seventh best city for mountain bikers to live. A new
43 mountain bike patrol is designed to work on Galbraith Mountain in the Blanchard
44 and Chuckanut areas.
45
46 Nelson asked if the trails are maintained by the biking clubs. Peterson stated
47 they are. Approximately 1,000 work hours have been put in this year.
48
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 2
1 Brenner stated that if the County purchases the 20 acres, it will be
2 maintained by the City.
3
4 Ellen Barton, 1106 W. Holly Street, Bellingham, stated the the local mounting
5 bike club has done thousands of hours of work maintaining trails, patrols, and
6 helping people on the trails. Having official trails offers opportunities for training
7 and outdoor skills building. She spoke on behalf of the Mt. Baker Bike Club.
8 Privately owned and publicly owned forestland is more secure if there are official
9 trails. People keep an eye on things.
10
11 Marie Kimball, 1842 Emerald Lake Way, stated she is a full time bicycle
12 commuter, a volunteer for Greenway Projects, and will be one of the residents who
13 will maintain the trails. She moved here from Seattle because she could bike and
14 breathe better here. She urged the Council to purchase the Galbraith Mountain
15 land.
16
17 Scott Fleenor, 3000 Lynn Street, stated he is a member of the Whatcom
18 Independent Mountain Pedalers, and he supports acquisition of the land.
19
20 John Steensma, 9295 Axton Road, Lynden, stated he is a member of the
21 Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Whatcom County Planning Commission,
22 although he would not speak for those groups. Regarding the Conservation Futures
23 fund, he encouraged the Council to use some of the money on agricultural lands to
24 preserve them from development.
25
26 Craig Stevens, 2421 Henry Street, stated he supported the acquisition of
27 land on Galbraith Mountain. He has put in hundreds of hours of work on the hills,
28 and thousands of hours of riding.
29
30 Roger DeSpain, 2056 Jefferson Avenue, thanked Rob Nielsen and Dave
31 Simms for their work on the land acquisition. He also thanked the Council for the
32 time it has spent on this project.
33
34 Paul Reed, 3315 Oregon Place, spoke in support of the property purchase on
35 Galbraith Mountain. People go up there with their families.
36
37 Carl Weimer, ReSources Executive Director, 1155 N. State Street, stated
38 there is an un- permitted dump along Highway 9 along the Nooksack River. People
39 have been trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do an
40 assessment of the site. To date, that hasn't happened. Recently, the EPA visited it
41 briefly, but did not take an overall look. The Health Department asked why the EPA
42 did not do a site assessment. The EPA needs the County to fill out the preliminary
43 assessment petition form. A number of private citizens will file this form with the
44 EPA, but they would like letters of support from various County departments.
45
46 Brenner moved to send a letter of support.
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 3
1 McShane stated the Council had discussed previously the Corps of Engineers
2 and the fact that there may be wetlands along the river, and the location may be in
3 the floodway. He questioned whether there has been any discussion with the Corps
4 of Engineers about that issue. Weimer stated he did not know. They are going to
5 send copies of the petition to the Corps of Engineers and also to the National Marine
6 Fisheries Services (NMFS).
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Chris Covert - Bowlds, 5967 Abbey Road, Ferndale, stated he bicycles from
11 Ferndale to Bellingham. He supports the land acquisition on Galbraith Mountain
12 and any elements of the County Road Plan that the Bicycle Advisory Committee
13 supports.
14
15 John Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, Lynden, stated he is a member of the
16 Agricultural Preservation Committee Board. Make the Agricultural Advisory
17 Committee permanent. He spoke in favor of the setting aside 50 percent of the
18 Conservation Futures fund for the agricultural community. On July 18, the
19 Preservation Committee voted to support the Conservation Futures fund proposal.
20 The county is at risk of losing one of its most desirable assets. By losing it, they
21 would gain increased sprawl and increased costs for roads, schools, police, and fire
22 services. Economically, aesthetically, and environmentally Whatcom County cannot
23 afford to lose its farmland.
24
25 Dawson stated a new proposal will come forward that addresses the flexibility
26 the County Executive and some of the County councilmembers are looking for. The
27 agricultural community will like it better than the 50 percent proposal. The
28 proposal will put a sunset clause on the ordinance after one year. It appropriates
29 at least 50 percent of the funds.
30
31 David Lynch, 4737 Cable Street, Bellingham, stated he supports the
32 Galbraith Mountain land purchase.
33
34 Steve Barnett, 5913 Vista, Ferndale, stated he supports the Galbraith
35 Mountain land acquisition. No city on the I -5 corridor has as many trails next to or
36 within the city limits as Bellingham. It is a terrific asset.
37
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING
40
41 1. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX YEAR
42 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2002 THROUGH
43 2007 (AB2001 -227)
44
45 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
46 he is available to answer questions.
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 4
1 Brenner questioned the plan for Sunrise Road. Mills stated it is planned for
2 construction next year.
3
4 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
5
6 Ellen Barton, 1106 W. Holly Street, Bellingham, spoke in support of bike
7 trails and bike lanes on roads. She complimented the Executive for increasing the
8 amount of money suggested for the installation of bicycle lanes and trails over the
9 next six years. The Bicycle Committee commented on a couple of the projects, and
10 gave its comments to the Public Works Department. Those recommendations are
11 important to keep on the priority list. Expand road service for cars to include
12 bicycle lanes where possible, or multi -use shoulders at the very least.
13
14 She asked that the Council consider a mission for the Public Works
15 Department that would include reducing vehicle miles traveled as one goal to reach.
16 The Bicycle Committee could create innovations for the road system to reduce
17 congestion and the number of people who feel comfortable bicycling and walking.
18
19 Cathy Cleveland, 4961 Morgan Drive, Birch Bay Traffic Committee, stated
20 she supports doing whatever will get traffic off Birch Bay Drive. There is a lot of
21 speeding, and the road is dangerous. She submitted a petition from residents
22 asking for help with the road.
23
24 Brenner stated an option was making part of the road one -way. Cleveland
25 stated that would work if the commuters did not use the road as an arterial. The
26 problem is that there are many people living fulltime at Birch Bay Village who rush
27 to get to work. The issue is the speed and volume of those residents. The County
28 engineers found that there are 1,700 people going up and down that small road.
29 The count was not taken during peak summer use. If the alley becomes a one -way
30 road, they would still have a problem with speeding. She did now know what the
31 exact solution should be. There are many ideas. The road can't be widened.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether the residents on Morgan Road would mind having
34 speed bumps on their road.
35
36 Nelson stated the fire departments and ambulance services don't like speed
37 bumps on the roads.
38
39 Cleveland stated another problem is that trucks over a certain weight are not
40 supposed to be on the road. No one is obeying the laws. That is why they
41 originally contacted the Sheriff's Office.
42
43 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
44
45 Peter Spencer, Gold Star Resorts Inc., stated he is a Vancouver, B.C. based
46 land developer. There is an area of concern as an independent developer. The text
47 states that the document is a planning tool at the local level. A connection needs to
48 be made to ensure that priority funding be available in instances where private
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 5
sector development creates significant employment and tax incentive dollars to the
community. For example, he submitted an application for a truck travel plaza
project at Birch Bay - Lynden Road and I -5. It would take up 16 acres of land for full
development. This project has a potential for 150 fulltime jobs, plus additional tax
dollars to the community and revenues in the amount of $2.6 million. When the
project is completed, the total of 75 acres will contribute $75 million to $100 million
of private sector money invested into the local community. The land use is
available through current County ordinances. However, the County, State, and
federal infrastructure dollars have not been coordinated at this time to provide the
necessary transportation infrastructure. In the future, economics must be taken
into account in the selection of the County road projects. He would like to work
with the County to develop some form of economic criteria for project selection.
Brenner questioned whether the developer would be willing to post a bond
for the cost of the road if that kind of revenue was not realized. Spencer stated it
depends on the size of the bond.
Brenner stated the County has been promised this before. It sounds
interesting, but they've had a lot of projects that don't happen. Spencer stated he
is familiar with posting a bond, and has done that with the County before. One
example is with the Ocean Breeze resorts project in Birch Bay. They've spent about
$20 million of the total $50 million cost. The bonds are in the amount of
approximately $20,000 to $30,000. These bonds are for engineering and
landscaping. They have not gotten into the road situation before.
Crawford asked what road improvement would need to be made for Mr.
Spencer's project. Spencer stated he looked at various areas of funding available
to bring the project into the area. With this development, the potential is for a new
off ramp from the freeway, significant mitigation fees for traffic and signalization,
upgrades of Valley View Road and other intersections. His clients will go to another
county with different grant structures.
Crawford questioned whether the County's commitment to work on this
project would be incentive for the federal government to upgrade the freeway off
ramps. Spencer stated there should be a shared formula.
Hoag stated she was concerned about this proposal. They are talking about
the taxpayers paying for these improvements so Mr. Spencer can put in a
development and make money. Off ramps and road upgrades are not one -time
expenses.
Nelson stated that a county will typically play a role in providing assistance
so it can get the infrastructure needed to improve jobs and the economy. That is
what Mr. Spencer is referring to. Spencer stated the first portion of this project
would create 150 fulltime jobs within one year. The tax benefit projects to the
State of Washington and City of Blaine totals $2.6 million annually. These people,
Flying J, are the largest truck travel corporation in America. These calculations
come from their office.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 6
Hoag stated that when a county provides infrastructure, it doesn't generally
upgrade all the roads in the area. It means a county will make sure sewer, water,
and services are available. She is familiar with Flying J, because they put a facility
in her hometown. She is also familiar with the road upgrades it took to accomplish
that project. It took two years of construction, and it ate up three farms in the
area. They also have a problem with prostitution there now. Look at the entire
picture. Spencer stated this is not going to take up a large area. The plans are
already submitted with Whatcom County. David Evans and Associates have done a
preliminary traffic study. He dealt with the state. There have been two designs for
the ramps. This is a simple off ramp realignment to Valley View, and there are
some signalization improvements there.
Brenner stated she was encouraged that they would consider posting a bond
to cover the cost of the improvements if nothing comes to fruition.
David Lynch, 4737 Cable Street, stated he rides his bike whenever possible
to work and for recreation. When they talk about road plans for the future, they
talk about motorists and cyclists as if the are different people. Sometimes, he has
to make a choice to not use the car and use the bike because of the choices made
by the County on how roads are built and how development is planned. As they
plan for roads and development, always consider the alternative methods of
transportation, including walking and biking. People want to make those choices.
He is a physician and advocates healthy lifestyle. People tell him that they don't
want to bicycle to work because the roads are not safe. The County has narrow
roads with ditches. New roads still do not allow safe bicycling. Always consider
alternative methods.
Dawson suggested that one lane be reserved exclusively for bicycles and
pedestrians, and was separate from the traffic lanes.
Marie Kimball, 1842 Emerald Lake Way, stated she commutes on her bike
and does her shopping on her bike. If they don't have adequate bicycle lanes with
the roads, then she is limited in how she does that activity. They need sufficient
space for bicycles on the roads to accommodate bicycle trailers. They end up
endangering the pedestrians, because bicyclists will move to the sidewalks.
Scott Thompson, 5880 Green Acres Drive, Everson, stated he supports
bicycling interests. He supports separated paths, especially in high traffic areas.
They are going to try to get a separate pathway in the North Shore area, between Y
Road and the Bellingham City Limits. They also need to address the Birch Bay
area. Not related to capital improvements is the maintenance program. They need
to get funding from the Public Works Department to implement a sweeping
program, so the debris doesn't cause a safety hazard to bicyclists. It is in the
Comprehensive Plan. Bruce Mills is being helpful in trying to accommodate their
requests.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 7
1 Hoag asked Mr. Thompson to summarize his recommendations. Thompson
2 stated they want to put a priority on the Birch Bay area. The second item is the
3 North Shore Road between the Bellingham city limits and Y Road. They want a
4 separate pathway there. It is a major connector to the North Shore Trail and the
5 trailhead off the Y Road. They also want to consider the Lincoln Road area to see if
6 they can take traffic off of Drayton Harbor by connecting Lincoln Road. Make it so
7 that all new roadway construction and refurbishment includes a separate pathway
8 or at least shoulders that can accommodate a future class two bike lane.
9
10 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
11
12 Hoag moved to approve the resolution.
13
14 Brenner moved to refer to the Public Works Committee.
15
16 Nelson asked if they've done a cost assessment on alternative transportation
17 to determine the cost of refurbishing and restructuring the roads. Mills stated they
18 have not in detail. Item 19 on the list is the item people are referring to. The
19 proposal is to put in $250,000 per year, which would construct shoulders for bike
20 travel and pedestrians on roads they might not typically get to in the normal six -
21 year road program.
22
23 Brenner stated she wanted to deal with the comments made on the two
24 areas suggested for separate bike paths. The County can't afford separated bike
25 paths everywhere, but if there are specific areas that make sense, including Birch
26 Bay, they should encourage wider shoulders. She wanted to bring up those specific
27 points in committee, and incorporate them into the six -year road plan.
28
29 Mills stated there should be different design standards for urban areas versus
30 rural areas.
31
32 Crawford asked for staff's response to Mr. Spencer's proposed development
33 of a truck stop. Mills stated he talked to Mr. Spencer. They don't have anything on
34 the six -year plan at this time. At this time, Valley View doesn't have the traffic
35 level that would warrant the need to make improvements. They just made
36 improvements to Birch Bay- Lynden Road. The County right -of -way doesn't begin
37 for one - quarter mile off the freeway.
38
39 Crawford stated the Planning Commission worked with these people on
40 zoning and water issues. It seems the next logical step is to figure out the traffic
41 situation. He asked if that is something that staff would need direction from the
42 Council to move up on the priority list. Mills stated they could also enter into a
43 latecomer reimbursement. At this point, it has not been policy to spend money on
44 development. The developer should pay for the mitigation for the traffic they would
45 create.
46
47 Brenner asked if a developer has ever posted a bond for the full cost of road
48 improvements. Mills stated the County has not required a bond like that. The
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 8
1 County has required a bond for roads not yet built that are needed for approved
2 developments.
3
4 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, acknowledged the
5 Public Works staff for their extra effort to get public comment. They took this to
6 the Planning Commission. There is a transportation planning component to this
7 project. At that intersection, and other intersections, there are federal, state, and
8 local jurisdictions. The question becomes how to coordinate those areas. This
9 year, they will look at economic development through the partnership, and how to
10 coordinate these issues in the future.
11
12 Brenner stated the state and federal governments do not consider local
13 needs when it comes to the freeway.
14
15 She asked if the mall project in the City of Ferndale would pay for the
16 improvements to West Smith Road. She asked if the County and the developers
17 should coordinate. Mills stated West Smith Road, scheduled to be built next year,
18 is a half -mile to the Ferndale city limits. The proposed widening should be
19 sufficient for that development. The development might trigger the need for
20 signals at Northwest and Axton roads and Northwest and Smith roads.
21
22 Brenner stated the additional traffic impacts the neighboring County roads.
23 Mills stated the need is there now.
24
25 Nelson asked about the current level of service (LOS) for Lakeway Drive.
26 Mills stated it is an LOS D in the city, and an LOS C in the county.
27
28 Nelson stated the original studies projected maximizing the capacity by 2010.
29 They have not done an engineering study. He would like to move the Lake
30 Whatcom connector study up on the schedule. Land acquisition is going on in the
31 area. It is an excellent tie -in program. There are going to be constraints as
32 development occurs. He questioned where they would put that item on the list to
33 get to it by the year 2010. If they could get the traffic off Lake Whatcom Boulevard
34 and Lake Louise Road, it would be a better pedestrian and bike haven and would be
35 better for the lake. Mills stated the traffic could be evaluated first to see if the
36 traffic growth is there. A sewer line going in on Lake Louise Road will encourage
37 growth. It would be most appropriate to gather as much information as possible,
38 such as the peak hour volumes and LOS'S.
39
40 Brenner stated that could be discussed during the Public Works Committee.
41 She restated her motion to refer to committee. Mills stated he preferred not to
42 refer the entire resolution to committee. They are trying to get the program
43 adopted by August 1, when it will go to the Council of Governments, which will send
44 it to the state. They can add these issues to the plan later. They can do a
45 supplemental. Also, the one -year road program will come forward in another few
46 months. The one -year program formalizes the first year of the six -year program.
47 They can add alternate projects to the one -year list. The issues to be discussed in
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 9
1 committee are Mr. Hovde's Drayton Harbor /Lincoln Road issue and the Morgan
2 Drive issue. They can be worked on even though the plan is adopted.
3
4 Hoag stated she would like the comments from Bike Committee brought
5 forward for discussion. It would be too expensive to upgrade every County road.
6 She suggested a grid of safe bike paths in the county.
7
8 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
9
10 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.10, SOLID
11 WASTE AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION (AB2001 -228)
12
13 Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and gave
14 background of the ordinance. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) looked
15 at the ordinance and made minor adjustments. They are still working with a
16 definition for "seasonal vacation or weekend homes." The first recommended
17 change, as outlined in the substitute ordinance, is to Whatcom County Code (WCC)
18 8.10.030(E), "...recreation facilities, a-nd transportation facilities, and Pt. Roberts
19 seasonal vacation or weekend homes." The second recommended change is to
20 WCC 8.10.030, "I. 'On -call Service' means garbage pickup service on other than
21 regularly scheduled days, from a dwelling unit that is a seasonal vacation or
22 weekend home. On -call garbage service does not include roadside recycling service
23 and tends to be on a variable infrequent basis.
24
25 Nelson stated visitors to Point Roberts would not be under the same criteria
26 as the permanent residents regarding curbside recycling. Prieve stated that is
27 correct.
28
29 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
30
31 Nelson stated the object is to modify the curbside recycling requirements in
32 Point Roberts, so the part time residents do not follow the same requirements.
33 Prieve agreed.
34
35 Staff does not believe that they need to add subsection .030(J). There is no
36 definition of a seasonal vacation or weekend home from the Washington Utilities
37 and Transportation Commission. Staff also looked in the building code, and there is
38 no definition. The term is self - explanatory, but staff will work with the Council to
39 create a definition if the Council determines there is a need.
40
41 The SWAC recommended adding language to WCC 8.10.040(A), "...have the
42 option of on -call service and will be encouraged to participate in recycling."
43
44 The SWAC also recommended adding language to WCC 8.10.050(A),
45 "... Whatcom County that receive regularly scheduled garbage collection... plus an
46 appropriate administrative /billing fee. In Point Roberts only, single - family
47 residences are defined as permanently year -round occupied buildings, and every
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 10
1 other week recycling collection does not have to be on the same day as garbage
2 pickup."
3
4 Nelson questioned whether the tax statements have to report whether a
5 parcel is a permanent residence. Prieve stated he could not answer that.
6
7 Nelson stated that if a seasonal vacation or weekend home is not defined,
8 the changes are moot.
9
10 Brenner stated it is either developed or undeveloped property. The assessor
11 does not have anything to do with how long during the year a residence is
12 occupied.
13
14 Nelson suggested defining a seasonal or weekend home as a residence that
15 is not listed as a permanent residence.
16
17 Brenner suggested leaving the term's definition as it is. The Council can
18 revisit the term if it becomes a problem.
19
20 Hoag stated the memo from Mr. Prieve said the WUTC considers the term to
21 be self- defining. If the definition works statewide, it should work here. If it doesn't
22 work, they can change it.
23
24 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
25
26 Carl Weimer, ReSources Executive Director, 1155 North State Street,
27 Bellingham, stated he supported this idea. The franchise for garbage collection in
28 Point Roberts was set up so that it is so small it is difficult for a company to succeed
29 economically. That company has been dysfunctional for at least ten years. A new
30 operator is trying to do new things and is on the right track. There are a couple of
31 problems with the ordinance. The first problem is the definition of a seasonal
32 vacation or weekend home. That problem has been taken care of by SWAC, with
33 their inclusion of the Point Roberts seasonal vacation homes. There needs to be a
34 definition of a seasonal vacation home. If someone lives in Point Roberts for nine
35 months, he or she should not be treated any differently than a permanent
36 residence.
37
38 In state laws, the priorities for handling solid waste always put recycling
39 above disposal of garbage. This process sets up a system for disposal of garbage,
40 but doesn't provide recycling options. A problem is that there is on -call garbage
41 service, but that doesn't provide any recycling service. That tells people to put
42 their recyclables in the garbage. The disposal operator says the part time residents
43 can take recyclables to their permanent homes. That may work if the resident is
44 visiting Point Roberts on weekends, but it doesn't work if the resident lives in Point
45 Roberts for six months out of the year. They are not tying recycling to the garbage
46 system. There are other ways to look at this issue. In other areas of Whatcom
47 County, part of the garbage bill includes the cost of recycling. The on -call drop -off
48 for garbage service could include a small fee so part time residents can take their
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 11
recyclables to Point Distributors for free, instead of being charged for it. They could
also create an on -call recycling service. They need to make recycling an equal
priority with garbage disposal. This ordinance doesn't do that.
Brenner stated Mr. Weimer's ideas are good ideas. She questioned why on-
call recycling pickup and a recycling surcharge were not included. Weimer stated
the operator would like to expand his drop -off center in Point Roberts. He's never
had enough money. The surcharge on the drop -off garbage may be able to help
him to expand.
Brenner questioned whether adopting the ordinance as it is would prevent
the Council from exploring those ideas. Prieve stated it will not prevent the Council
from making amendments in the future. Staff has been working with the operator
on this from the beginning. This is a trial program to see what the weekend people
generate. The operator is confident that he will be able to generate more pickup
service from the weekenders, but he will also encourage recycling.
Hoag questioned how the operator would know the difference between
someone who has paid a recycling surcharge and someone who has not paid the
surcharge. Weimer stated the operator will sell tickets for a bag of garbage. The
price of the ticket for the garbage pickup could include a ticket for dropping off the
recycling as well.
For eight years, the County has been dealing with yard waste. Collection of
yard waste has been deferred pending amendments to this chapter of the code, no
later than December 31, 1999. As of this point, all the County solid waste haulers
are out of compliance with this law. It may be something that needs to be talked
about. The mayors of the small towns have not been able to deal with this issue.
It needs County Council and Bellingham City Council attention.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She asked that the issues brought
forward by Mr. Weimer be brought to the Public Works Committee. This ordinance
is not perfect, but the overwhelming majority of people who want to have roadside
recycling still have that option. There is more flexibility and more options for the
company. There are areas that do not lend themselves to small companies. She
supported small businesses, but a larger company was ready to come in and take
over this service if this small company couldn't do it. The Council can't say that it
will keep a small business in business at any price. There are some things that can
be more efficiently done by a larger company, if necessary.
Hoag moved to amend WCC 8.10.030(I), On -Call Service, "means garbage
pickup service and drop -off recycling on other than regularly scheduled days..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 12
1 Hoag moved to amend WCC 8.10.040(A), "In Point Roberts only, seasonal
2 vacation or weekend residents have the option of on call sei=viee and will be
3 encouraged to participate in recycling and have the option of on -call service, which
4 will include a surcharge for drop -off recycling."
5
6 Motion carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
7
8 Crawford moved to amend WCC 8.10.030, "J. Seasonal vacation or weekend
9 home is defined as a secondary residence used only for weekend or vacation use
10 and not as a fulltime or primary residence. Residences under this definition shall
11 not be continuously occupied for more than 14 days."
12
13 Hoag stated she did not like the last sentence in the motion. Some people
14 vacation for three months at a time.
15
16 Crawford withdrew the last sentence of the motion.
17
18 McShane offered a friendly amendment to reinstate the last sentence of the
19 motion.
20
21 Nelson asked the reason for limiting residency to 14 days.
22
23 Crawford stated he understood that the problem is that some people don't
24 want the service because they are going to haul the garbage back home. After two
25 weeks, people should do something with their garbage rather than accumulate it.
26
27 Hoag stated the seasonal residents there for more than two weeks want to
28 be able to call for garbage pick -up. The residents aren't saying they want to haul
29 two weeks worth of garbage home. They are asking for on -call service instead of
30 subscribing to regularly scheduled full -time service. That seems to be the direction
31 the residents want to go.
32
33 Crawford stated someone who is permanently on vacation would struggle
34 with his proposed language.
35
36 McShane withdrew his friendly amendment.
37
38 Crawford restated his motion to amend WCC 8.10.030, "J. "Seasonal
39 vacation or weekend home" is defined as a secondary residence used only for
40 weekend or vacation use and not as a fulltime or primary residence."
41
42 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
43
44 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
45
46 3. RESOLUTION TO EXCHANGE COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY, REQUEST
47 NO. 03 -01 (AB2001 -219A)
48
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 13
1 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
2 hearing.
3
4 Dawson moved approval.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 4. RESOLUTION TO EXCHANGE COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY, REQUEST
9 NO. 04 -01 (AB2001 -220A)
10
11 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
12 hearing.
13
14 Dawson moved approval.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18
19 CONSENT AGENDA
20
21 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
22 and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through 28.
23
24 Crawford removed item six.
25
26 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through five and seven through
27 28 carried unanimously.
28
29 Crawford stated Consent Agenda item six would be discussed later in the
30 meeting when discussing Other Item four.
31
32 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
33 85 FOR SECURITY SERVICE AT GOOSEBERRY POINT TO THE LOWEST
34 RESPONSIVE BIDDER SECURITY SPECIALISTS PLUS IN AN ANNUAL
35 AMOUNT OF $51,520 (AB2001 -234)
36
37 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
38 PURCHASE FROM VENDOR CURT MEENDERINCK BY PUBLIC WORKS
39 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF ADDITIONAL LIGNOSITE FOR
40 DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS, IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
41 OF $20,000 (AB2001 -235)
42
43 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
44 SETTING A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO WCC
45 1.10 (AB2001 -236)
46
47 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
48 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 14
1
AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF LAW &
2
JUSTICE COUNCIL SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,720 (AB2001-
3
237)
4
5
5.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
7
NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES
8
FOR THE LAW & JUSTICE COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,720
9
(AB2001 -238)
10
11
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
12
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
13
COUNTY AND NIELSEN BROTHERS INC. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A
14
TWENTY (20) ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (TAX PARCEL #380333-
15
497069) USING CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
16
OF $100,000 (AB2001 -239)
17
18
See "Other Items" four.
19
20
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21
CONTRACT WITH SOLE SOURCE COMPU -TECH, INC. TO COMMENCE
22
THE DATA INTEGRATION PROJECT TO MERGE THE WHATCOM
23
COUNTY SHERIFF'S AND PROSECUTOR'S MASTER
24
NAMES /ADDRESSES FILES INTO ONE SHARED DATABASE AND
25
UPGRADE AS /400 IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,600 (AB2001 -240)
26
27
8.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
28
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
29
HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WA, INC. TO
30
EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
31
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $36,000 FOR AN AMENDED CONTRACT
32
AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2001 -241)
33
34
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
35
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
36
HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL — COMMUNITY
37
ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS
38
WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $45,000 FOR AN AMENDED
39
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $104,000 (AB2001 -242)
40
41
10.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
43
HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES — GROUP
44
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
45
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $100,740 FOR A TOTAL
46
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $196,258 (AB2001 -243)
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 15
1
11.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HEALTH
3
AND HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES -
4
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT
5
FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $136,800 FOR
6
A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $217,033 (AB2001 -244)
7
8
12.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
9
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
10
HUMAN SERVICES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES -
11
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR
12
TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $22,500 FOR A
13
TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $48,331 (AB2001 -245)
14
15
13.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
16
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
17
HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING TO
18
EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
19
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $41,040 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
20
AMOUNT OF $102,444 (AB2001 -246)
21
22
14.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
23
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
24
HUMAN SERVICES AND CURRENT INDUSTRIES TO EXTEND THE
25
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
26
AMOUNT OF $168,960 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
27
OF $357,330 (AB2001 -247)
28
29
15.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
30
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
31
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
32
SERVICES - CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES TO EXTEND THE
33
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
34
AMOUNT OF $12,129 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $108,208
35
(AB2001 -248)
36
37
16.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
38
PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
39
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT
40
OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES (DSHS) - DIVISION OF ALCOHOL &
41
SUBSTANCE ABUSE (DASA) TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR OUTPATIENT
42
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES AND MANAGE CONTRACTS, IN THE
43
AMOUNT OF $2,222,950 (AB2001 -249)
44
45
17.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
46
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
47
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
48
SERVICES - PASSPORT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 16
1
HEALTH NURSING SERVICES TO ASSESS HEALTH INFORMATION ON
2
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE IN THE AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
3
OF $12,441 FOR A TOTAL THREE MONTH EXTENSION AND AMENDED
4
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $110,989 (AB2001 -250)
5
6
18.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
7
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
8
HUMAN SERVICES AND HOLLY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO EXTEND
9
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
10
AMOUNT OF $10,800 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
11
$34,551 (AB2001 -251)
12
13
19.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
14
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
15
HUMAN SERVICES AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED - GROUP
16
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
17
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $45,600 FOR A TOTAL
18
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $87,075 (AB2001 -252)
19
20
20.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
22
HUMAN SERVICES AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED - INDIVIDUAL
23
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
24
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $153,600 FOR A TOTAL
25
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $311,777 (AB2001 -253)
26
27
21.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
28
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
29
HUMAN SERVICES AND LOCAL FOCUS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL
30
CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF
31
$85,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $181,712
32
(AB2001 -254)
33
34
22.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
35
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
36
HUMAN SERVICES AND MT. VIEW GROUP HOME - COMMUNITY
37
ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS
38
WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $13,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
39
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $31,260 (AB2001 -255)
40
41
23.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
43
HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO EXTEND THE
44
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
45
AMOUNT OF $184,320 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
46
OF $452,099 (AB2001 -256)
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 17
1 24. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
3 HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTH SOUND REGIONAL SUPPORT
4 NETWORK TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR SIX MONTHS
5 WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $69,158 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
6 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $345,785 (AB2001 -257)
7
8 25. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
9 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
10 HUMAN SERVICES AND O'BRIEN RESOURCES TO EXTEND THE
11 ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
12 AMOUNT OF $13,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
13 $28,828 (AB2001 -258)
14
15 26. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
16 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
17 HUMAN SERVICES AND SEQUOIA HILL, INC. TO EXTEND THE
18 ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
19 AMOUNT OF $27,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
20 $72,587 (AB2001 -259)
21
22 27. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
23 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
24 HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WA, INC. —
25 INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT
26 FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $144,000 FOR
27 A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $229,525 (AB2001 -260)
28
29 28. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
30 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
31 HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING TO
32 EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
33 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $108,108 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
34 AMOUNT OF $216,216 (AB2001 -261)
35
36
37 OTHER ITEMS (Council action may be taken)
38
39 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
40 PLAN (AB20001 -233)
41
42 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this was
43 not a discussion of the draft WRIA Watershed Management Plan. This item was a
44 request for direction to staff to give approval of the request for proposals (RFP) that
45 will be voted on at the next Planning Unit meeting. The Committee unanimously
46 recommended approval of the RFP. He so moved.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 18
1
2 2. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FERRY RATES AS SET FORTH IN WHATCOM
3 COUNTY ORDINANCES NO. 89 -103, 91 -046 AND 93 -040, WITH A
4 RECOMMENDATION OF NO RATE INCREASE FOR 2001 (AB2001 -195)
5
6 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
7 and stated the committee recommended asking the administration to put together
8 a proposal for a $1 per vehicle increase, including information on where the money
9 would go and how it would be allocated. The committee further recommended
10 having a public hearing on the matter. He suggested that this item might be held
11 in committee until more information can be obtained.
12
13 Nelson asked why the $1 increase was suggested when the proposal was for
14 no rate increase.
15
16 Crawford state the analysis was based on information up to the year 2000.
17 Public Works staff acknowledge that the County can already anticipate some
18 increased costs, including higher dry dock costs, labor negotiations with the crew,
19 parking area lease, and security for the parking area.
20
21 McShane moved to approve the ferry rate as it is. There is going to be a
22 need to do a rate increase in the future, but a lot of careful planning will have to go
23 into assessing just what revenue the County will need to maintain collecting 55
24 percent of the operating costs at the fare box. Planning will have to include what
25 kind of ferry the County will buy and the kind of improvements that need to be
26 done. They are getting ahead of assessing what revenue the County needs.
27
28 Brenner stated the administration doesn't have any problem with waiting to
29 make a decision. It is prudent to have the most information they can have to make
30 a decision. Vote on it in September.
31
32 Dawson stated there hasn't been an increase in the fee in 12 years. The
33 ferry is at capacity. There is a general consensus that if the price was increased a
34 bit, there would be more foot traffic, which would accommodate more cars. She
35 would not support the motion.
36
37 McShane stated that he agreed there would be a ferry rate increase, and
38 could support an increase now to some degree. However, the request for this work
39 will take up staff time unnecessarily.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Public Works staff can make
42 recommendations about what a $1 increase will mean, given the upcoming issues
43 in 2001 and 2002. It is appropriate to have a public hearing on the matter,
44 regardless of the proposal.
45
46 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the staff was already planning to
47 do much of this evaluation. There is a lot of detail to be worked out in which the
48 staff is already involved with the Island Transportation Committee.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 19
1
2 Brenner moved to refer to committee.
3
4 Motion to refer to committee carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
5
6 3. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR PROCEEDING
7 WITH FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OF THE "Y" ROAD LANDFILL (A62001-
8 208)
9
10 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
11 and stated Councilmember Dawson moved to accept option two during the
12 committee. That motion failed. There is no recommendation from the committee.
13
14 Brenner moved to approve option two because that is the option that the
15 Health Department has chosen. The argument for option three is compelling. With
16 option two, the County will know what it can and cannot expect from the
17 Department of Ecology (DOE). Her biggest concern was that this would force the
18 County to spend more money and take more actions than what it really needs to
19 do. Staff knows the Council's concerns, and can write a contract to protect the
20 County to some degree.
21
22 Nelson stated option two is to enter into a 50/50 funding agreement with
23 DOE in which the County's cost would be approximately $175,000. Option three
24 would be an assessment done exclusively by the County.
25
26 McShane spoke against option two, and supported option three, as submitted
27 by staff. His main concern is not the initial cost. His concern is entering into a
28 consent decree, which is option two. A consent decree means the County and DOE
29 has to have an agreement on what the investigation would be. That costs would be
30 approximately $300,000 or more, with the DOE paying for half of that cost. That is
31 just the first step. Before they do the investigation, the consent decree must be in
32 place that specifies what the County would do if they find any contamination. He
33 could not imagine that the County would not be required to cover the landfill and
34 install a monitoring system. If they find something, they have to do something
35 about the contaminated groundwater. He was not sure that is in the County's fiscal
36 best interest. Serious money would have to be spent. The staff worked hard on
37 the alternative proposal three. The total of that proposal is around $126,000. He
38 was concerned about a geo -probe investigation, but staff can work out that issue
39 with the consultant. He preferred monitoring wells, but a geo -probe might work.
40 This is an excellent proposal to answer the ultimate questions regarding their
41 greatest concerns of the Y Road landfill. It will answer whether the County is
42 protective of the public and Lake Whatcom. It is fiscally responsible, and the
43 County will deal with its own liability concerns without passing liability off to the
44 state, which would drive the cost up.
45
46 Hoag supported option two. She understood Councilmember McShane's
47 concerns. However, option two provides a more comprehensive review. The
48 County gets a 50 percent match of funds, so it will get more work done for about
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 20
1 the same amount of money. Because the review is more comprehensive, it will do
2 a better job of protecting the lake and the local residents.
3
4 A major concern with option two is liability. With something like a landfill
5 and its contaminants, more requirements will come along. If they can do what is
6 required now and get rid of the liability, instead of being required to do greater
7 things in the future, the County is better off.
8
9 Crawford stated he supported Councilmember McShane's arguments.
10
11 Regina Delahunt, Acting Health and Human Services Manager, stated that
12 although she is in favor of option two, it will take some time to get an agreement
13 with the state. The County will not get to any investigation until next year. With
14 option three, they could do something this year.
15
16 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
17
18 Brenner questioned whether Ms. Delahunt supported option two. Delahunt
19 stated she does, but she could live with option three.
20
21 Brenner stated she could also live with option three. She would not support
22 any consent decree contracts that she was uncomfortable with. There are
23 safeguards built into option two.
24
25 Nelson asked for an explanation of the consent decree. Delahunt stated it is
26 a legal document saying that the County agrees to certain things and the DOE
27 agrees to certain things. It is a contract. There are legal requirements associated.
28 It is a negotiated document.
29
30 Brenner stated the Council will see the consent agreement before it is
31 entered into.
32
33 Delahunt stated the Council should be certain it wants to go with a consent
34 decree if it approves option two. They will expend a lot of time on getting the
35 consent decree.
36
37 Nelson questioned the amount of money spent negotiating the consent
38 decree. Delahunt stated the County cost includes County staff time and also DOE
39 staff time. The County will have to pay a fee to DOE. The County will also have to
40 provide consultant fees.
41
42 Nelson questioned whether the County could go back to DOE for help if the
43 Council chooses option three and discovers that it needs DOE assistance. Delahunt
44 stated the County could do that. Part of the original Council discussion was to
45 come up with this intermediate option to get more information, and then decide to
46 go into a consent decree.
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 21
1 Hoag stated the downside of option three is that the County would spend
2 $126,000 on its own, and not get the advantage of a 50/50 cost share.
3
4 Brenner stated she would be willing to wait until they get an estimate of the
5 cost of negotiating a consent decree. Delahunt stated she guessed the negotiating
6 cost to the County would be approximately $20,000 to $30,000.
7
8 Motion to approve option two failed 3 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson in
9 favor.
10
11 McShane moved to approve option three for an amount of approximately
12 $126,000. He appreciated Regina Delahunt and Chris Chesson, who put a lot of
13 effort into this proposal at his request. They are the ones who are going to get the
14 heat on the Y Road landfill. He also appreciated his fellow councilmembers, who
15 entertain his ideas. The Council is doing the prudent thing by supporting this
16 proposal. His scientific theory is that they are not going to find a thing, other than
17 the results of the geo- probes in the upper landfill.
18
19 Delahunt stated that option three will provide the County will sufficient
20 information to determine whether or not there is a problem.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, REQUEST
25 #6 (AB2001 -230)
26
27 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
28 and stated the committee recommends approval of budget request items one
29 through three. The committee also recommends changing all references to "burn
30 ban program" to "burn permit program."
31
32 The committee recommends delaying deciding on budget request item four
33 until April 2002. At that time, the Agriculture Preservation Committee will come
34 forward with recommendations on using Conservation Futures funds.
35
36 In addition, the committee did not make a recommendation for Consent
37 Agenda item six.
38
39 Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
40
41 Nelson moved to change references to "burn ban program" to "burn permit
42 program."
43
44 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
45
46 Dawson moved to approve the acquisition of the 20 -acre parcel. The Council
47 will not have to wait until April, because she is confident the new ordinance
48 proposed tonight will be approved.
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 22
1
2 Hoag stated she would not approve any more money for parks until an
3 agricultural program is in place.
4
5 Nelson stated he supported this proposal. He had some concern regarding
6 traffic corridors.
7
8 Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated it will not be a problem
9 with the City of Bellingham about the traffic corridor. They've verbally assured him
10 that it won't be a problem. The agreement on maintenance, operation, and
11 development will include language about the traffic corridor.
12
13 Brenner stated it is important to get the agricultural program in place. She
14 supported the agricultural program and the new proposal. However, these are two
15 different issues. This is an incredible buy. The land is zoned Rural Residential, one
16 dwelling unit per two acres (RR2). This is such an important purchase, it should
17 not be held up. The County needs to be committed to providing money for
18 protecting agricultural lands. This proposal is wonderful.
19
20 Hoag stated she would not vote for any parks until the County earmarks
21 funds for agricultural preservation, so they know the money will be available. The
22 area is zoned RR2 with no access roads, which makes a difference. The County is
23 paying full appraisal price for it.
24
25 Brenner stated the law says people have to have access. If the property is
26 landlocked, there would be a court case to force access. If the County does not
27 purchase the property, and the City of Bellingham pulled out of the deal, the
28 property would not be landlocked because it is all one large parcel that a developer
29 could develop.
30
31 Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
32
33 Request authorization for the Executive to enter into a real estate
34 purchase and sale agreement between Whatcom County and Nielsen
35 Brothers Inc. for the acquisition of a twenty (20) acre parcel of land (tax
36 parcel #380333 - 497069) using Conservation Futures funds in the amount
37 of $100,000 (AB2001 -239)
38
39 Crawford moved approval.
40
41 Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
42
43 S. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONS OUTLINED IN
44 THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF -
45 DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000 (PL- 106 -393) AND REQUEST FOR
46 VOTE ON PROPOSED WSAC TIMBER ANALYST /COORDINATOR
47 POSITION (AB2001 -232)
48
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 23
1 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
2 and stated the committee made two recommendations.
3
4 The first recommendation regarding the Allocation ballot is to vote for the
5 State's highest average over three years. He so moved.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8
9 Crawford moved to approve the resolution on Council packet page 35 to fund
10 Whatcom County's share of the cost of a timber analyst /coordinator position at the
11 Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) in the amount of approximately
12 $2,800 per year.
13
14 Nelson asked how the counties have any control over how the analyst
15 lobbies.
16
17 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County would deal with the
18 analyst to seek advice on and support of the things Whatcom County is trying to
19 do.
20
21 Hoag stated Whatcom County's participation at WSAC would influence their
22 position.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 6. ORDINANCE CREATING THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
27 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2001 -229)
28
29 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
30 the committee recommended approval with minor amendments.
31 1. Amend page two of the ordinance, "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the
32 Whatcom County Council finds the long terns work plans (Exhibit B and C)
33 to comply with..."
34 2. Amend Council packet page 145, Whatcom County Code 2.43.03.030,
35 Function, "1. Review and provide recommendations ... annexation issues or
36 proposals which directly..."
37 3. Amend Council packet page 148 and add to item two, "E. Review and
38 make recommendations regarding rezones from Agriculture and the
39 Agricultural Protection Overlay (APO) to other uses."
40
41 Nelson stated the APO is the overlay.
42
43 Hoag stated the APO is not Agricultural zoning. It is rural zoning with an
44 APO.
45
46 McShane moved approval of the ordinance with the amendments
47 recommended by the Planning and Development Committee.
48
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 24
1 Motion to approve the second amendment carried unanimously.
2
3 Hoag moved to amend page two of the ordinance, "BE IT FURTHER
4 ORDAINED that the Whatcom County Council finds the +en— trng work plans as
5 attached in (Exhibits B and Cato comply with..."
6
7 Motion to approve the amendment carried unanimously.
8
9 Nelson stated he would support rezones from Agriculture, but not from the
10 APO. They have already gone through a rezone process. He was concerned about
11 recommendations coming forward that would be held up by this process.
12
13 Crawford stated this ordinance would tell this Agricultural Advisory
14 Committee that they are to review rezones. He questioned whether state law
15 allows extra level of review.
16
17 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated one purpose of the Agricultural Advisory
18 Committee is to review activities in agricultural land. The Council can have the
19 committee review and make a recommendation on proposals that would impact the
20 very land the Council is asking them to be stewards over.
21
22 Brenner stated she shared Councilmember Nelson's concern. She would
23 support the motion if they remove the language about review of rezones in the
24 APO.
25
26 Hoag stated a rezone applicant is not required to go in front of the
27 Agricultural Advisory Committee, which only does a review and makes comment. If
28 there is not support from the Council regarding review of APO rezones, she would
29 withdraw that portion of the motion. The APO should be included because it talks
30 about rezones from APO to other uses. The proposal is to take the land out from
31 the APO.
32
33 Brenner stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee is not prohibited from
34 making comments on a proposal if they were not required to review the proposals.
35
36 Hoag offered a friendly amendment to the third committee recommendation,
37 to amend Council packet page 148 and add to item two, "E. Review and make
38 recommendations regarding rezones from Agriculture and the Agricultural
39 to other uses."
40
41 McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
42
43 Motion to approve the third amendment as amended carried unanimously.
44
45 Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
46
47 7. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHATCOM COUNTY
48 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDS TO THE ACME /VANZANDT
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 25
1 SUBZONE (AB2001 -263) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL
2 ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
3
4 Hoag moved approval.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 8. ORDINANCE EXTENDING TEMPORARY AMENDMENTS TO THE ADULT
9 BUSINESS PROVISIONS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
10 PLAN AND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
11 (TITLE 20) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (AB2001 -182B)
12
13 Hoag moved to adopt.
14
15 McShane stated Exhibit A, Policy 2AAA -1, excludes the airport area. He
16 questioned whether they should add other sensitive areas, gateways, or highly
17 visible sites. He questioned whether the City would have some review of a request
18 for a permit.
19
20 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the County would issue the permit. The
21 County may circulate a copy of the application.
22
23 McShane stated he was concerned that the City inherits the adult business
24 when it annexes an area of the urban growth area. He was not comfortable with
25 that policy. There may be other areas that are not appropriate locations. Also, this
26 passes the buck to the City.
27
28 Hoag stated other restrictions limit these types of businesses to only a few
29 places in the County.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33
34 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
35
36 Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the addition of the
37 ordinance regarding the Conservation Futures fund.
38
39 Crawford stated there is a substitute ordinance to be introduced regarding
40 budget request seven.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 1. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.92, FLOOD
45 CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -231) (COUNCIL ACTING
46 AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
47
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND
ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATING TO ADULT
BUSINESSES (AB2001 -182C)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST #7 (AB2001-
264)
4. RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING BIRCH BAY WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN,
AMENDMENT NO. 1 (ARCO) (AB2001 -265)
S. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2001 -236A)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.25,
CONSERVATION FUTURES (AB2001 -217B)
OTHER BUSINESS
Nelson announced the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
meeting from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on July 25 at the Planning and Development
Services Department.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Hoag stated the Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) hearings have begun again.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September it , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council, 7/24/2001, Page 27