HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 1 20011 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 May 1, 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 None
12 Marlene Dawson
13 Connie Hoag
14 Barbara Brenner
15 Sam Crawford
16 Robert Imhof
17
18 ANNOUNCEMENTS
19
20 Nelson announced that during Committee of the Whole in executive session
21 the Council discussed pending litigation (AB2001 -018).
22
23
24 OPEN SESSION
25
26 The following people spoke:
27
28 Kerry Chappell, 1121 Roland Street, stated that Whatcom County provides
29 free office space to Planned Parenthood on 509 Girard Street. She read her letter
30 into the record (on file). She asked for the removal of Planned Parenthood from
31 County -owned property. The Ellis Street building is available as a facility.
32
33 Alex Cummings, resident, stated she is a nurse and mother, and lives in the
34 York neighborhood. There is a town meeting planned for Thursday, May 3 at the
35 Unitarian Church to talk about water and water quality issues.
36
37 A fish advisory was issued last week during three different meetings. It was
38 not done in a normal public meeting. She was concerned about how the fish
39 advisory was released. There was not ample publicity, and it was held in a location
40 difficult for most city dwellers to find. She requested that the Council ask the
41 Health Department to hold the meeting again that was held last week. The prior
42 meeting was not videotaped or advertised. Hold the public meeting again to
43 explain the fish advisory and water quality issues, and let the people hear and
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 1
1 speak. She is trying to make sure people are well educated and ask good
2 questions.
3
4 Nelson suggested having a joint meeting with the City of Bellingham.
5
6 Jim Kolbo, 3918 Saltspring Drive, Ferndale, stated he spoke for his wife,
7 Linda Kolbo. He read the letter from his wife into the record (on file). He wished
8 the County Council and the City of Bellingham could legislate accurate reporting by
9 the Bellingham Herald.
10
11 Sakibu Hutchinson, 1814 Mill Avenue, Bellingham, Black Social Action
12 Network, stated she was part of a coalition who worked to pass a hate crimes and
13 malicious harassment resolution in front of the Bellingham City Council. She
14 supported the resolution before the County Council. In 1963, the lives of African
15 Americans were not deemed worthy of protection. It has taken 38 years for that
16 act of racial terrorism to be brought to justice. In 1994, the Whatcom County
17 Council rejected a hate crimes resolution because the lives of gays and lesbians
18 were not deemed worthy of protection. In 2001, the County Council has the
19 opportunity to redress that egregious act of social injustice, and send a clear
20 message to the forces of hate and intolerance that acts of terrorism against all
21 communities are worthy of protection.
22
23 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she spoke on
24 the Agricultural zone changes. One request was to move mining of the MRL's into a
25 conditional use section. She sees there is a proposal of one councilmember that
26 partly corrects that error. However, it instead continues forward with language that
27 says one must reclaim to agricultural use and processing if in the MRL. That would
28 include washing and screening, which would move to the conditional use section.
29 Reject those changes. Leave the MRL the way it was set up to be. This is not the
30 appropriate vehicle to make those changes. The Agricultural Advisory Committee
31 did not deal with mining, and made it clear they would leave it alone. The Surface
32 Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) is currently dealing with ensuring consistency
33 with regulations in the Comprehensive Plan. The changes in the packet are not
34 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. People are assuming that these changes
35 just address agricultural issues, not mineral resource issues.
36
37 Two weeks ago, she referred to the fact that there are limited MRL's in the
38 Agricultural zone to begin with. There are just over 250 acres. Of that, there are
39 only 19 acres that have prime agricultural soils. Given the comments made at the
40 morning's Natural Resource Committee meeting about reclamation at all in the
41 Agricultural zone, requiring designated lands for commercially significant aggregate
42 to be reclaimed to agricultural use flies in the face of reason when they are
43 debating whether or not even a knoll or ridge could.
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 2
1 She requested that language be included in the code regarding storage units
2 within the Agricultural zone. It is not completely covered with the cottage industry
3 ordinance that was adopted.
4
5 Brenner questioned whether it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to
6 require the land, after mining, to be reclaimed to agricultural use. Starkenburg-
7 Kroontje stated the Comprehensive Plan sets up the MRL as being the place where
8 they are supposed to protect the commercial reserves, and protect their use. A
9 comment was made two weeks ago by Kraig Olason that policy 8L -2 might be
10 inconsistent. It is not inconsistent because it refers to designated agricultural
11 lands. One can't be a designated agricultural land and a designated mineral
12 resource land. One can be zoned Agriculture, with an overlay of MRL, but can't be
13 designated both. That policy comes into play when they are talking about the knoll
14 and ridge removal, not the MRL's.
15
16 Crawford asked for more information on Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje's
17 suggestion regarding storage. Starkenburg - Kroontje state she made a request two
18 weeks ago to add a conditional use in the Agricultural zone allowing the use of
19 buildings for storage to allow buildings to have some functional use.
20
21 Jack Wiren, 1814 Mill Ave #2, Bellingham, stated he spoke on behalf of his
22 neighbors. He strongly urged the Council to pass the hate crimes resolution.
23
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING
26
27 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE
28 PROPERTY, REQUEST #01 -01 (AB2001 -138A)
29
30 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
31 this is an exchange of property. The Middletons own property on the south side of
32 Park Road now. The property is split. The County owned an old County pit site on
33 the north side of the road. The amount of land needed for the right -of -way is the
34 same amount of land on the other side of the road. They would swap a little over
35 an acre of property, and use it for the Park Road right -of -way project.
36
37 Nelson opened the public hearing, and hearing no one else, Nelson closed the
38 public hearing.
39
40 Dawson moved to approve the resolution.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 3
1 2. RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS
2 AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY, REQUEST #02 -01
3 (AB2001 -139A)
4
5 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, gave a staff report and stated the
6 Treasurer proposes this, and the Property Management Committee recommends it.
7 There are two small pieces of property. The proposal is to sell them for not less
8 than the amount of the foreclosure cost. These are properties that have come to
9 the County as a result of the tax foreclosure.
10
11 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
12
13 Erin Osborn, 1020 North Forest Street, Bellingham, stated she was interested
14 in bidding on either or both pieces of property. She is interested in looking into
15 other tax title properties for conservancy uses.
16
17 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
18
19 Brenner moved to approve.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 3. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON CONDITIONAL USE
24 PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS, PETROLEUM, AND
25 PETROLEUM BASED PRODUCT TRANSMISSION LINES (AB2001 -122)
26
27 Brenner gave a report and explained the history of the ordinance. This is the
28 one extension that is allowed to the current emergency ordinance.
29
30 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
31
32 Dick Gilda, Jensen Road, asked that WCC 20.82.030 be read into the record.
33 He asked why they are thinking about a moratorium. The County has no real input
34 into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an interstate pipeline.
35 He wanted to know, for the record, what the Council considers a transmission line.
36
37 McShane stated this also applies to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
38 Council ( EFSEC). The County Council does have some say, because it gets to
39 appoint one of its members to EFSEC, although the County Council has no control
40 on what the EFSEC committee member says. Regarding FERC, it can override
41 individual property rights and ownership. However, FERC does listen to the
42 Council's opinion, and the County can be an intervener on FERC decisions and
43 argue for certain pipeline rights -of -way. The County has some say, particularly if
44 there are established interstate pipeline corridors.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 4
1
2 Brenner stated they were talking about the transmission lines that feed to
3 the smaller lines. Those are the lines that go to the smaller distribution lines, which
4 go to individual homes or buildings. Transmission lines only feed the distribution
5 lines.
6
7 Hoag stated the transmission lines could be interstate or intrastate lines.
8 They are high pressure and large diameter. Distribution lines have lower pressure
9 and smaller diameters, and feed into individual homes and businesses.
10
11 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
12
13 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. It is true that most transmission
14 lines will probably end up being interstate and inter - county lines. There is a
15 moratorium in place now. This is an extension of that existing moratorium. This
16 means that the County will not issue conditional use permits, which is part of the
17 process. This is going to allow that committee to get its work done and come back
18 with recommendations.
19
20 Hoag stated the County could plan on where it thinks the appropriate
21 corridors are. Although FERC can pre -empt the County, they have a process where
22 they take into consideration what the County has for its plans.
23
24 Crawford asked the status of the committee.
25
26 Brenner stated they meet regularly.
27
28 Hoag stated they reported to one of the Council's committees two weeks ago.
29
30 McShane stated they are making progress.
31
32 Crawford stated he looked at Council minutes from May, July, and November
33 2000. A year has gone by. He asked what is really happening with the committee.
34
35 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the committee actually started meeting
36 in October. They established a series of issues that the committee wants the
37 County to address. They spent quite a bit of time looking at what they have
38 responsibility for and authority over. They've established the differences between
39 several jurisdictional authorities that the County has to interact with, including
40 FERC, EFSEC, and the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). The
41 committee held several meetings around the county to take comments on the issue
42 list that the committee established. Good comments from the public were received.
43 The committee is now taking those comments and incorporating them into the issue
44 list. They are finalizing the review of that list, which was several pages long.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 5
1 They've had to look at how they address pipelines through franchise agreements.
2 They've had to look at how the County fits into these filing processes so it can
3 respond appropriately and at the right time. Now, they are going to put the
4 committee on a monthly meeting schedule, and develop some siting preferences for
5 pipelines. They will analyze existing pipelines to develop what they want for
6 policies to direct the new pipelines. They will also look at developing established
7 corridors to be preferred corridors for future pipelines. He anticipates having policy
8 language back to the Council in October. That is a year turnaround, which is not
9 bad.
10
11 The committee structure is permanent. One of its functions is to review
12 pipeline proposals. They will look at the Georgia Strait proposal. The committee
13 met with FERC and talked about what they are going to look for.
14
15 Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
16
17 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
18
19
20 CONSENT AGENDA
21
22 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
23 moved approval of items one and two.
24
25 Motion to approve items one and two carried unanimously.
26
27 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID# 01-
28 42 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, NC POWER SYSTEMS, FOR
29 TWO REPLACEMENT ENGINES FOR THE WHATCOM CHIEF, LUMMI
30 ISLAND FERRY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,879.40 (AB2001 -149)
31
32 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
33 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH &
34 HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WASHINGTON,
35 INC. (FORMERLY BLACK FLAG) TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL
36 EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
37 DISABILITIES, AND TO TRANSFER ALL RIGHTS, INTERESTS AND
38 OBLIGATIONS FROM BLACK FLAG EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO
39 SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WASHINGTON, INC., IN THE
40 AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $11,323.00, FOR AN AMENDED CONTRACT
41 AMOUNT OF $85,525.00 (AB2001 -150)
42
43 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
44 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PUBLIC UTILITY
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 6
1 DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR COUNTY -WIDE FIBER OPTIC PROJECT (PHASE
2 I) FROM RURAL SALES TAX, IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,292.00
3 (AB2001 -151)
4
5 Imhof moved approval of item number three. There was discussion during
6 the committee.
7
8 Crawford stated he appreciated the effort the Public Utility District (PUD) has
9 put into this. However, this is not the appropriate use of this money. The money
10 should be spent on water and electrical provisions throughout the county.
11
12 Brenner stated the proposal lacks detail. If they move ahead with this, they
13 are not saying who is going to be the service provider. This is just to do the work
14 they need to do. It wasn't clear to her why they would need to spend that kind of
15 money.
16
17 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he would share a copy of a
18 detailed budget. The dates need to shift a bit, because they are not going to begin
19 when they originally planned. It will probably begin in weeks, if approved by the
20 County Council. There will be extensive engineering and feasibility work that is
21 proposed by the PUD to determine routes. They want to provide information to the
22 County Council about the providers who would be associated with this project,
23 including school districts, cities, the County, the PUD, the Port, and many other
24 entities. They need to do the financial analysis to determine the extent to which
25 the project is viable, with the view in mind that the subscribers would pay for the
26 ultimate cost of the project. It is intended that the PUD or some entity would bond
27 the cost of the program. The bonds would be paid back by the income from the
28 various subscribers to the service.
29
30 Brenner asked what their definition of affordable is. She was nervous they
31 would end up with one provider.
32
33 Imhof stated that is not the program they are looking at here. This program
34 is to put in the backbone and let different providers rent the space.
35
36 Brenner questioned whether they are going to allow competition for the lines,
37 and have more than one provider. Desler stated they are.
38
39 Mike Fournier, PUD, stated they are going to have a governance board made
40 up of all the public entities. That governance board would make the policies. The
41 issues of owning the line would be determined through the business plan they are
42 doing.
43
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 7
1 Dawson stated they are putting in what is similar to the regional transmission
2 line. Something similar to the distribution lines are what is going to be managed by
3 the multiple, different companies.
4
5 Brenner stated they thought they were going to do that with television cable,
6 but it's not working. This is an important issue for everyone. If it doesn't turn out
7 that there are multiple providers, the government should not subsidize this.
8 Fournier stated the business plan would determine the revenue and expenses.
9 Those who participate will generate the revenue for the program.
10
11 Nelson stated there have been letters of interest from every city, Western
12 Washington University, the Chamber of Commerce, and the library system. There
13 is wide community interest.
14
15 Imhof stated this was one of the top priorities on the Council's Washington
16 Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) priority list.
17
18 Dawson stated this money would come back to the County for many years.
19 Having a good plan in place is critical. This is a good plan.
20
21 Nelson stated this contract is not to put in the lines. It is only to look at the
22 feasibility.
23
24 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
25
26
27 OTHER ITEMS
28
29 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
30 REGARDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO NON - CONFORMING
31 SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE MINING IN THE RURAL,
32 AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
33 ZONES (AB2000 -301)
34
35 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the
36 committee recommends that this item be sent to the Agricultural Advisory
37 Committee, and also the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) for majority
38 and minority reports.
39
40 The committee also had a presentation by All Hanners on shoreline
41 conditions at Cape Whitehorn (AB2001 -146). The committee will be studying
42 the difference between the conservancy designation and the natural designation on
43 shorelines.
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 8
1 Hoag stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee has decided not to meet
2 until the completion of the farming season. That would put the issue off for quite
3 some time.
4
5 Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated they would meet sooner than the end of
6 the season.
7
8 2. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR TEMPORARY LOCAL HEALTH OFFICER
9 COVERAGE FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2001 -143)
10
11 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
12 moved to adopt.
13
14 Hoag asked what the interlocal agreement would involve. She didn't want to
15 pay to have this person on standby. She asked if they could instead appoint
16 someone within Whatcom County to serve as an interim health officer during the
17 times Dr. Stern is absent.
18
19 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Department Acting Director,
20 stated this is a reciprocal arrangement. There wouldn't be any payback. The
21 Whatcom County health officer would cover for the health officers of the other
22 counties. If our health officer goes on vacation, then Whatcom County can call the
23 health officer of the other county for advice if there were an emergency. The
24 health officer on duty would still cover his or her own county at the same time.
25
26 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
27
28 ADDENDUM:
29 AMENDMENT #5 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
30 OF BELLINGHAM REGARDING ANNEXATIONS WITHIN THE
31 BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (AB2001 -156)
32
33 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Service Committee and
34 moved approval.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 3. ACADEMY ROAD LATECOMERS AGREEMENT — ASSESSMENT
39 REIMBURSEMENT AREA AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (AB2001 -098)
40
41 Brenner reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
42 stated they want to reopen the public hearing and include the information that was
43 provided today. The staff brought forward new information, and the people in the
44 area were not aware of those changes. The committee minutes will be included in
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 9
1 the public hearing. The public hearing will be based on the new information
2 received at the committee meeting. They will have to do a new public notice.
3
4 Motion to reopen the public hearing and schedule a public hearing in two
5 weeks carried unanimously.
6
7 4. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
8 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY FRANK
9 MULJAT AND HILLSIDE ASSOCIATES FOR "GOVERNOR ROAD — PHASE
10 2" (PUD99 -0004 & LSS99 -0007) (AB2001 -145)
11
12 McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved
13 approval.
14
15 Hoag stated she was concerned about item two on Council packet page 122.
16 She was concerned about giving the critical areas administrator the power to
17 amend the conditions of approval. It is not something usually put into these
18 planned unit developments. According to staff, the language was included because
19 a monitoring plan is in place and may need to be addressed if a problem shows up.
20 The language that requires that is already in the findings. It seemed odd that the
21 critical areas administrator can modify any condition of approval. It is like writing a
22 blank check.
23
24 Sylvia Goodwin, Senior Planner, stated the critical areas administrator can
25 only deal with things that are in the critical areas code. Any decrease in conditions
26 would be consistent with the critical areas ordinance. The only thing that could be
27 modified would be something that came up with the monitoring, and required a
28 change in the way they were treated.
29
30 Hoag stated the language seems wide open. Her concern is not enough to
31 kill the project.
32
33 Brenner stated she would rather have the decision be with the critical areas
34 administrator than the hearing examiner.
35
36 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
37
38 McShane moved to adopt the emergency ordinance proposed by staff to
39 reinstate the five -year development prohibition on gift exemptions as discussed
40 earlier in the day in the Planning and Development Committee during its
41 discussion regarding the ordinance amending the gift exemption provisions
42 of the Whatcom County Code, Title 21, Land Division Regulations (AB2001-
43 153). In December, the Council made changes to Title 21. One of the changes
44 was to drop language regarding gift exemptions that are restricted from sale for
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 10
1 five years. Someone has been notifying property owners that they can avoid the
2 short -plat process. There has been a giant run on applications in the last month.
3 The short -plat process includes an administrative review process on issues such as
4 critical areas. Gift exemptions don't have to do that. That review does have to be
5 done once the building permit is applied for. This was brought forward to the
6 Planning Commission as a staff recommendation a few weeks ago.
7
8 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that Planning Commission
9 review may have accelerated the number of permits. People are concerned that
10 the rules are going to change, so they are hurrying to get their applications in. It
11 will take 60 days for the proposal being introduced can go into effect. That is why
12 staff is bringing forward an emergency ordinance.
13
14 Nelson asked the cost differential. Goodwin stated there is a cost difference
15 due to a difference in standards. A gift exemption doesn't require a survey,
16 demonstrated water, sewer, and septic services, or road improvements.
17
18 Nelson asked why they have the two processes. Goodwin stated it was a
19 decision the Council made to continue the gift exemption. If someone is just giving
20 a piece of property to a family member, and the property is not for development or
21 sale, then the family member should not have to go through the cost of subdividing
22 and providing services.
23
24 Crawford stated this is not a decision on gift exemptions. This is an
25 opportunity to put the brakes on and look at the effects of this. This is a good
26 reason for the emergency ordinance.
27
28 Hoag stated this requirement prohibiting a sale for five years has worked well
29 for twenty years.
30
31 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
32
33 S. RESOLUTION CONDEMNING HATE CRIMES AND RACIAL HARASSMENT
34 (AB2001 -144)
35
36 McShane stated he would move approval of the ordinance and accept some
37 minor changes suggested by councilmembers and citizens:
38 1. Amend the second "Whereas" statement, "...and ethnic diversity of
39 Whateeng Ceunty are not isolated incidences... "
40 2. Amend the third "Whereas" statement, "...recently been targeted by a
41 racially intolerant white supremacist organizations and Facially inteleran-t
42 ; and...." This happened recently in his neighborhood.
43 3. Amend the fifth "Whereas" statement, "...or sexual orientation or sexual
44 identity should be condemned..."
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 11
Brenner stated that there have been recent hate messages toward people
with sexual orientation, which belongs in the second "Whereas" statement.
McShane accepted Councilmember Brenner's suggestion as a friendly
amendment.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to "Whereas" statements two and
four, "racial bigotry." She doesn't like any form of bigotry, and they are talking
about all forms.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to the title, "Resolution
condemning Fae -ial harassment..."
Dawson asked for a definition of 'bigotry' from Councilmember Brenner.
Brenner stated 'bigotry' is a prejudice toward any group of people.
McShane accepted a friendly amendment to the title, "Resolution condemning
Faegal malicious harassment..."
Brenner agreed. They need to make the resolution broader.
Crawford questioned the effect of what they are doing. The Constitution of
the United States and the Declaration of Independence protect everything they are
doing here. There are laws covering all this, also.
McShane stated this confirms those laws. There are issues in which the
County Council has very little say on, but the Council can speak for the community.
It is a responsibility that the Council has to speak for the community. In other
communities, despite federal laws, the local officials don't speak out for the
community regarding bigotry and hate crimes. It creates an environment that
fosters that thought. Speaking out shows that this is where the community is.
Hoag stated that she is opposed to hate crimes and harassment. She was
concerned that some of the language in the resolution is not clear. She was
concerned that this language could be used against people who are simply
operating within the parameters of their faith. She questioned who is to determine
what is bigotry. She also questioned whether there is a legal definition for
malicious harassment.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 12
1
2 Dale Brandland, Sheriff, stated that malicious harassment follows the
3 language in the packet. He was not sure it would include sexual identity.
4
5 McShane stated the resolution just says 'malicious harassment under the
6 law,' whatever the law is. Brandland stated he supported this. They are not
7 creating the law against bigotry. The law is in place that identifies malicious
8 harassment as that sort of behavior that is targeted at people of racial minority or
9 sexual orientation, for example. Bigotry is not even mentioned in there.
10
11 Hoag stated the language says that the Council encourages all agencies and
12 jurisdictions to adopt positions and policies about this.
13
14 McShane stated they would encourage adopting policies against hate crimes
15 and malicious harassment, not bigotry.
16
17 Hoag stated she did not want someone to be able to harass someone else.
18 She also does not want someone who is simply abiding by their faith to be accused
19 of harassment. That is why she is concerned about what they have going here.
20 Brandland stated the resolution doesn't suggest that. The resolution suggests that
21 they rigorously follow the law, and the County Council, as a body, is making a
22 public statement that says malicious harassment and that type of treatment of
23 people is not something that is going to be tolerated in this community. They are
24 not creating a new body of law.
25
26 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated malicious harassment is
27 defined as one who "maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts
28 because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry,
29 national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory
30 handicap...." They key is the listing of the nature of the acts that comports with
31 what Sheriff Brandland mentioned. They are focusing on the victim's race, color,
32 religion, et cetera. The act has to cause someone physical injury, damage to
33 someone's property, threaten a person or members of a specific group, or put a
34 person in reasonable fear of harm. There is a caveat that threatening words do not
35 constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does
36 not have the ability to carry out the threat. The burning of a cross is mentioned.
37
38 Brenner stated assault could be verbal. It is not always physical. A threat
39 could be verbal. There are enough people going against other groups. It is never
40 appropriate. Nothing is going to change until people stop hating each other.
41
42 Crawford questioned whether the County Council is making this statement
43 for the County government. He was concerned that they don't make the
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 13
departments come up with their own statements or plans. He didn't want to create
a cost.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Executive stands tall on
these kinds of issues. He supports the Council on this, and didn't anticipate that it
would cause new regulations or cost.
Dawson stated what is going on at the college should be monitored. People
from outside the college are organizing some of the students by telling them it was
fine to write letters to the editor accusing groups and people of racism if they held a
property viewpoint that was contrary to the viewpoint of a minority group. This is
another type of hate mongering going on in the community.
Nelson stated this addresses the issue that the resolution of 1994 did not.
He understood Councilmember Hoag's concerns. They are reaffirming what
currently exists as law, and what they want to protect in the community, which is
quality of life and to not live in fear. They have to keep the verbal dialogue open to
ensure they are not creating hate one way or another. He thanked Mr. McShane for
bringing this forward.
Hoag stated she didn't want anyone to be the victim of a hate crime or to be
harassed, for any reason. She raised her concern because this country has
freedom of religion. Nothing should infringe upon that.
Dawson stated they should also have freedom of association, which should
also be protected.
Brenner stated she didn't know how this resolution is interpreted as stifling
freedom of religion or association. The resolution is a positive statement of how
they feel.
McShane restated his amendments:
1. Change the title, "Resolution condemning hate crimes and Faeial malicious
harassment"
2. Amend the second "Whereas" statement, "...and ethnic diversity and
sexual orientation ef Whateeng Geunty are not isolated incidences... pattern
of persistent racial bigotry...."
3. Amend the third "Whereas" statement, "...recently been targeted by a
racially intolerant white supremacist organizations and Faeially
mi++tia -ga s; and"
4. Amend the fourth "Whereas" statement, "...hate crimes and Facial
bigotry..."
5. Amend the fifth "Whereas" statement, "...or sexual orientation or sexual
identity should be condemned..."
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 14
1
2 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
3
4 Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried unanimously.
5
6 McShane complimented the Council for approving this, and expressed his
7 appreciation to Sheriff Brandland.
8
9 Brandland stated he probably sees an average of one complaint of malicious
10 harassment per month. It does happen.
11
12 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
13 TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
14
15 McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
16
17 Hoag suggested that they work from her version of the ordinance, beginning
18 on Council packet page 191.
19
20 Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 194, section 20.40.131(1),
21 "...a professionally- documented physical or mental disorders...." If a physical
22 examination verifies the need for the person to be there due to a mental disorder,
23 that should be plenty. She was disappointed that language was originally removed.
24
25 Nelson stated that mental disorders are a health condition. They are
26 treatable. He questioned how they determine whether there is a need for
27 supervision.
28
29 Hoag stated there has to be a need for supervision and care.
30
31 Nelson asked how a need would be interpreted by someone without a
32 medical background.
33
34 Brenner stated a note from a doctor should suffice.
35
36 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they want to make sure
37 this section of the code is consistent with the same section in every other zoning
38 district. They are trying to verify that. It should be the same as all the other
39 districts.
40
41 Hoag questioned whether anyone from the Agricultural Advisory Committee
42 was present.
43
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 15
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated there is not. He talked to the chairman
today. The chairman reviewed Councilmember Hoag's comments, and had no
problem with them.
Nelson stated that is just one individual.
Goodwin read the current language in section 20.36.131(1), which should be
the same in every other zone section. Unless there is some difference between the
Agricultural zone and every other area, all the sections should remain consistent.
She did not know why the term 'mental' was removed.
Brenner stated that is her motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner read section 20.40.153 on Council packet page 197, "Temporary
Aaircraft landing areas when used as an accessory use to an agricultural operation
(aircraft based on landing areas...." This will not in any way have anything to do
with damaging agricultural land. If someone has an airplane and wants to keep
that airplane on that property for personal use, he or she should be able to. Olason
stated the committee talked about it quite a bit. Subsection .101 talks about all
uses other than agricultural production being subordinate to agricultural uses. They
looked at things that are not related to agricultural uses. Airfields take up a fair
amount of area.
Brenner questioned whether they are now deciding whether they are only
going to let farmers buy the land. That change moves way beyond the Council's
charge to protect the agricultural land. This is not going to harm or damage
agricultural land. She moved to amend section 20.40.153 on Council packet page
197, "Terperary Aaircraft landing areas when used as an accessory use to an
agricultural operation (aircraft based on landing areas...."
Hoag questioned what the committee was trying to get at. She thought this
is just a landing strip. She was confused by the term 'airfield.' Olason stated they
were looking at landing strips, and they questioned whether it is something that is
necessary in agricultural areas.
Hoag questioned why they removed the phrase "or agriculture (aerial
application of agricultural chemicals)." Olason stated there wasn't a sense in the
committee that anyone was doing aerial pesticide application anymore because of
the problem of drift in the Agricultural zone. Also, there was a question about
whether they wanted to have the chemicals out there associated with a commercial
chemical applicator. It is not a big issue because no one is doing it anymore.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 16
1 Crawford questioned whether this language came out of the Agricultural
2 Advisory Committee. Olason stated it was.
3
4 Crawford stated he would not support the motion because this is what the
5 Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended, and they worked hard on it.
6
7 Brenner stated they also supported taking out the term 'mental.' They
8 probably took out the language regarding airfields because no one has a plane.
9 This is not going to be a big deal. Just because the Council can restrict something
10 doesn't mean it should. This doesn't do anything to disrupt any protection of
11 agricultural land. People should be allowed to do what they want to do on their
12 property as long as it doesn't hurt the use of the property. There are farmers out
13 there with planes.
14
15 Crawford agreed.
16
17 Brenner amended her motion to amend section 20.40.153 on Council packet
18 page 197, "TemperaFy Aaircraft landing areas when used as an aeeessery use to an
19 agricultUFal eperati (aircraft based on landing areas...." If someone uses an air
20 strip for their private enjoyment, or to get from point A to point B, she didn't have
21 a problem with it."
22
23 Hoag asked the purpose of putting the word 'temporary' in the section.
24 Olason stated it wasn't a permanent use or an automatic grandfathered use. It is
25 used during the time it is an accessory to that operation. That is what the
26 committee was getting at.
27
28 Hoag questioned how a plane would be accessory to an agricultural use if it is
29 not used for crop dusting. Olason stated one person used to fly back and forth
30 between two farms, one in Eastern Washington and one in Western Washington.
31
32 Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
33
34 Brenner moved to reinsert the original language to section 20.40.153 on
35 Council packet page 197.
36
37 Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
38
39 Hoag stated they need to put semicolons at the ends of the sentences in
40 section 20.40.132(1) through (12) on Council packet page 195. They are not in the
41 staff version.
42
43 The Council concurred.
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 17
Hoag moved to reinstate a portion of the language in the current section
20.40.135 to match the Comprehensive Plan, which allows surface mining as an
administrative approval use. However, rock crushing is a conditional use in the
Comprehensive Plan. The language in the Comprehensive Plan says that washing
and sorting should be done when appropriate. In the minutes for the meeting on
April 8, 1997, language says that the impacts of mining are to be contained within
the mineral resource land (MRL) zone, and the development regulations shall say
that the impacts be kept on site. Noise and vibration must be contained inside the
site, which means there must be an appropriate buffer. To set an appropriate
buffer, one needs to go through the conditional use process so the public can speak
to what uses are going on around it. When sorting gravel, one can create a
tremendous amount of dust. She proposes allowing surface mining because the
Comprehensive Plan allows it as an administrative approval use. She also proposes
that sorting and washing, because of legislative intent, should be a conditional use.
Last, rock crushing is specifically called out as a conditional use in the
Comprehensive Plan. She transferred those activities over to the conditional use
section. Reclamation would be attached to the mining, not the rock crushing or
conditional uses. She restated her motion to make surface mining an
administrative use, and the other items would be a conditional use.
Imhof stated it is appropriate for rock crushing to be a conditional use.
Washing and sorting is an accessory use to the facility, and is not a big issue. The
more regulations the aggregate industry must have, the higher the product price
will be. They are being forced further from the market now. They need to be
concerned that there is enough aggregate for the long haul. It should be allowed
on site in places where it is appropriate in the Agricultural zone.
Brenner asked how washing and sorting is approved now. Olason stated it is
administrative approval.
Hoag stated that is not what the Comprehensive Plan says.
McShane suggested that they hold off on the amendment regarding washing
and sorting. He wanted to offer a friendly amendment, because there is a problem
here. There is an existing MRL within the county in the Agricultural zone. To
require them to reclaim to agricultural use may be inappropriate. He suggested a
friendly amendment "Site reclamation must be to agricultural use within any MRL's
after the adoption of this ordinance."
Hoag accepted the friendly amendment.
McShane stated he preferred to hold off on the vote regarding the washing
and sorting.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 18
Crawford stated there is some review of the MRL going on now. He would
support leaving this as the Agricultural Advisory Committee left it, intact. Reinstate
section X335 that is formatted in bold font. Remove the additions in the
conditional use section. Remove the new Hoag revision.
Brenner stated rock crushing is and should be a conditional use. She offered
a friendly amendment to remove language regarding the rock crushing.
Hoag stated she would accept as a friendly amendment adding the washing
and sorting to the surface mining.
Imhof stated the document becomes unmanageable if they try to define
every possible scenario. Over the last couple of months, they've been regurgitating
the notion that they regulate things ad nauseam. Vote down the motion. Reinstate
the language that is proposed to be stricken, and remove the language about rock
crushing so it is only in one section.
Hoag stated the public was assured during the Comprehensive Plan process
that all of this would be covered under the development regulations. When this
language was adopted, it was with the understanding that dust would be controlled
per the development regulations. In any conditional use permit process that has
occurred where Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje has testified, Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje
assured the Hearing Examiner that the dust would not be allowed to leave the site.
There should be no objection to this language, because it is what the Council said it
would do and it is what the gravel industry assures the Hearing Examiner is going
to happen. Regarding restoring to agricultural use, Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje said
there was confusion about policy 8L -1. The policy is actually 8L -2. It is not about
knolls and ridges. Policy 8L -1 is about knolls and ridges, and it says that
reclamation of mineral extraction sites in those areas should occur in a timely
fashion, should be restored to uses allowed in an agricultural zone, and blend with
adjacent landscape and contours. Policy 8L -2 talks about mining in general, which
she read into the record. This is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for in the
Agricultural section of the MRL section. If they are going to allow mining, they
should avoid it unless the soils can be restored to productive capability as soon as
possible after mining occurs.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Hoag restated the motion to reinstate section 20.40.135, "Surface mining
and accessory washing and sorting, subject to Washington State's Surface Mining
Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW), when within a mineral resource land special district
subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.73 WCC and all other applicable
regulations. Site reclamation must be to agricultural use within any MRL's
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 19
1 designated after the adoption of this ordinance. No generation of off -site dust from
2 the operation."
3
4 Hoag's motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Crawford opposed.
5
6 Hoag moved to amend section 20.40.155, "...but not including recreational
7 vehicle parks, campgrounds, or recreational facilities for motorized vehicles."
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 Hoag moved to move the phrase "No generation of off -site dust from the
12 operation." from section 20.40.161 on Council packet page 199 to section
13 20.40.164 on Council packet page 201. When there are enforcement complaints,
14 there is nothing in the code that says there is not going to be any dust coming off
15 site. This is in the Agricultural zone where soft fruit producers have testified to
16 their concern about the transmission of mites on the dust.
17
18 Nelson stated that dust is raised all the time in agricultural areas from tilling
19 soils. He questioned whether they are not going to allow dust off site of agricultural
20 practices.
21
22 Hoag stated that farmers are very cognizant of the dust they create, and
23 very careful to do it in ways that will not generate excessive dust, and then employ
24 sprinklers to knock the dust down that is generated. That is their own use on their
25 own land. They deal with their own results.
26
27 Motion carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Imhof, and Nelson opposed.
28
29 Hoag moved to amend sections 20.40.252(1)(d) and 20.40.252(2)(d), "The
30 applicant and his or her heirs provides right of first refusal ... of the farmstead parcel
31 before they are offered on the open market, and." That is the same language that
32 was in the retiring farmer section.
33
34 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
35
36 Brenner asked if they already decided on sign sizes, as referenced in section
37 20.40.154. Olason stated they deferred to the cottage industry ordinance, which is
38 done.
39
40 McShane moved to delete section 20.40.155 on Council packet page 198. It
41 is broad, and it is not in the best interest to maintain agricultural land, which is the
42 purpose of this ordinance.
43
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 20
1 Brenner agreed. This would take land out of agricultural use to create a
2 public recreation area.
3
4 Nelson stated that many fish farmers give access to the public to fish.
5
6 Brenner stated that is not a public outdoor recreational area.
7
8 Imhof stated that, according to this ordinance, one can't have a fish farm.
9
10 Brenner stated fish farms are private.
11
12 Hoag stated this came up because a horse farm, with stables for the public to
13 use, wouldn't be allowed if this language is stricken. She hadn't run into any
14 farmers who would mind those activities in the agricultural zone. They need to
15 protect the agricultural soils, but also the farmer. They are getting overly
16 restrictive to not allow people to bicycle, hike, or hunt.
17
18 Brenner stated the word 'public' doesn't mean a farmer's private stable.
19
20 Hoag stated it means someone other than the farmer.
21
22 Brenner stated it means that it is open to the entire public. If someone has a
23 private stable, he or she gets to pick and choose whom they want to deal with.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether the phrase "public outdoor recreation" would
26 include a stable that the public uses for outdoor recreation.
27
28 Brenner stated it would not be public outdoor recreation unless it is open to
29 the entire public.
30
31 Olason stated they are talking about commercial versus public. A
32 commercial stable that is part of a business would identify who would come.
33
34 Nelson stated they allow public access. The County has agricultural open
35 space that requires public access.
36
37 Olason stated that the word 'public' typically means that it is open to the
38 general public, as a public, non - commercial use.
39
40 Motion carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Dawson, and Hoag opposed.
41
42 Hoag moved to amend section 20.40.252(1)(d) and 20.40.252(2)(d),
43 First Right of Purchase...."
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 21
1 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
2
3 Imhof moved to re- insert the fish farm and aquaculture section, 20.40.154.
4
5 McShane stated the committee amended this. This type of fish farm and
6 aquaculture can occur just as well, and preferably, in other zones so it wouldn't
7 take up good agricultural soils. The soils would have to be covered up with tanks,
8 or the soils would have to be excavated to create ponds. He preferred to see the
9 excavation and creation of ponds in non - agricultural areas. Also, they bring in a
10 land use that would conflict with agricultural uses.
11
12 Hoag stated this use creates a large loophole for gravel mining in the
13 Agricultural zone. One could excavate a fishpond, and mine the gravel.
14
15 Imhof stated that any excavation requires a fill- and -grade permit.
16
17 Dawson suggested leaving it in because farmers are next to the rivers, and
18 this might be something compatible for those farmers. She suggested allowing a
19 fish farm without excavation.
20
21 Imhof did not accept the friendly amendment.
22
23 Motion carried 4 -3 with Dawson, Hoag, and McShane opposed.
24
25 Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.255 to insert "...on the same property.
26 Expansion of existing facilities within the 150 -foot buffer, providing such expansion
27 is not closer to a neighbor's residence, and pastures...."
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 Hoag moved to reconsider the motion regarding aquaculture. She was
32 concerned that the premise on which the vote was taken has not been adequately
33 researched.
34
35 Brenner questioned whether the Planning and Development Services can
36 handle the fish farm thing without it being abused.
37
38 Nelson stated it has been allowed before.
39
40 Goodwin stated they can handle it.
41
42 Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
43
44 Crawford stated the mineral resource lands are going to be under review.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 22
1
2 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson,
3 and Crawford opposed.
4
5 7. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF ONE OF ITS
6 MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
7 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -147)
8
9 McShane stated this came up in discussion when he was officially on the
10 flood committee. It was often discussed that the Council didn't track very well with
11 what the Flood Advisory Committee was doing. The committee is a great group of
12 people. It is an important committee, and needs to have someone who can read
13 what the Council is thinking and pass quickly any Council issues onto the Flood
14 Advisory Committee, and vice versa. He offered to serve on the committee. He
15 moved to make it one of the regular Council committees that are appointed every
16 year.
17
18 Hoag suggested as a friendly amendment that the councilmember be an
19 official or ex- officio member. The committee is structured with a certain number of
20 members.
21
22 McShane accepted the friendly amendment. When he was elected to the
23 County Council, he resigned from the advisory committee because there was some
24 discomfort.
25
26 Brenner stated the Council acts as the Flood Control Board of Supervisors.
27
28 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the district is a separate
29 municipal corporation. It can be sued and sue under its own name.
30
31 Nelson suggested holding the motion on the table to the next meeting so
32 they can get more information.
33
34 Grant stated they should look at the mechanism to be used to create this
35 position.
36
37 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITIZEN REQUESTS FOR THE COUNCIL TO
38 SEND A LETTER TO THE LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL
39 (AB2001 -148)
40
41 Nelson stated that this item was withdrawn from the agenda. It will be
42 handled by the Council's liaison.
43
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 23
1
9.
REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT GLEN
2
HALLMAN (FIRST FULL TERM), CLIFFORD HENSEL (THIRD FULL
3
TERM) AND ADRIANNE HUNTER (FOURTH FULL TERM) ON THE
4
NORTHWEST SENIOR SERVICES BOARD (AB2001 -152)
5
6
Brenner moved approval by acclamation.
7
8
Motion carried unanimously.
9
10
11
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
12
13
Dawson moved acceptance of Introduction Items.
14
15
Motion carried unanimously.
16
17
1.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
18
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY UR -MX ZONING TEXT
19
REGARDING COMMERCIAL CENTERS, BUILDING SETBACKS, THE
20
CALCULATIONS OF THE PERCENT ALLOWABLE MULTI - FAMILY
21
STRUCTURES AND TO PROVIDE FOR SIGN REGULATIONS IN THIS
22
ZONE (AB2000 -254) (REINTRODUCTION — ORIGINALLY
23
INTRODUCED ON JUNE 27, 2000)
24
25
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
26
TITLE 20, TO ADD A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR '"DUPLEX" AND
27
"'SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING," REVISE THE DEFINITION
28
OF " "MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING" AND CLARIFY THE USE OF THESE
29
TERMS (AB2000 -321) (REINTRODUCTION — ORIGINALLY
30
INTRODUCED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2000)
31
32
3.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFT EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF THE
33
TITLE 21 LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (AB2001 -153)
34
35
4.
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -013, ESTABLISHING
36
THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY
37
BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -131A)
38
39
S.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
40
REQUEST #4 (AB2001 -154)
41
42
43 OTHER BUSINESS
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 24
1 Brenner asked for approval to send a letter to the Lummi Indian Business
2 Council Chair, the Nooksack Tribe Director of Natural Resources, the Mayor, and the
3 Public Utility District Manager regarding Council's position.
4
5 Dawson moved approval of the draft letter.
6
7 Hoag stated this draft uses confrontational language that doesn't need to be
8 in there.
9
10 Brenner disagreed.
11
12 Hoag suggested amending the next to last paragraph of page two, "We
13 believe the council recently showed our good faith by pulling letters that could have
14 been inteFpFeted by senge as being in opposition to the Lumn9i Nation after the
15 Lummi Nation expressed concern."
16
17 Brenner accepted Councilmember Hoag's suggestion as a friendly
18 amendment.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22
23 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
24
25 Crawford reported that the Domestic Violence Commission is going to ask for
26 an additional $6,000 for next year. He felt it is worthwhile.
27
28 McShane announced the Dine for Maple Alley Inn on May 8th to support the
29 Opportunity Council. He suggested that the public and the councilmembers eat out
30 that night at this list of restaurants.
31
32 Brenner complimented the Council for working together on the letter to the
33 Tribe.
34
35 Brenner reported that on Friday, May 4, there is a bus going to Portland,
36 Oregon to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) headquarters to lobby BPA to
37 treat Intalco the same as other businesses and residences. She moved to send a
38 letter of support asking BPA to use the same configuration of offering to Intalco the
39 75 percent reduced rate. She and Councilmember Dawson will draft a letter and
40 present it.
41
42 Nelson stated the administration is also working on this.
43
44 Motion to approve the letter carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 25
1
2 Imhof reported that he has eight months left to go on the Council.
3
4 Hoag reported regarding the Northwest Air Pollution Authority ( NWAPA). The
5 state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has stopped its burn permit program.
6 There is a deadline when counties have to take up the program. If a county does
7 not have a program by the deadline, then one can only burn eight days of the year.
8 She is trying to set up a program. She is looking for direction and whether they
9 should coordinate with other counties in NWAPA. A subcommittee proposed having
10 two wardens that operate over the three counties. The counties would share the
11 costs, and each county's approximate cost would be about $42,000. She'd asked
12 Warner Webb if he, the fire wardens from the other counties, and the NWAPA
13 subcommittee would make a presentation to the County Council on the details of
14 these options.
15
16 Hoag also reported that the PUD's have expressed opposition to the 75/25
17 percentage split with BPA. The Whatcom County PUD has not expressed
18 opposition, only the PUD's statewide. A compromise should be considered. She
19 discussed it with Intalco's management, who said it would possibly work for them.
20 The compromise would be to have a tiered rate but not with a 75/25 percentage
21 split as currently suggested. The tiered rate could be a combination of a blended
22 rate and tiered rate.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
25
26 Hoag continued to state that PUD's would be more likely to accept her
27 proposal because 15 percent is something that can be achieved through
28 conservation.
29
30 Nelson stated there are many of these proposals. The object is to get
31 Bonneville and Intalco talking so they don't have businesses going out of business.
32
33 Hoag stated that if there is any blending of rates at all, whether or not
34 Intalco stays in business will depend on the cost of that market power. The Federal
35 Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said earlier that refunds would need to be
36 made by the people that overcharged during the first few months of this year.
37 Now, FERC is pulling back from that position. The California regulators say that
38 those refunds amount to billions of dollars. If people want to do something about
39 what is going on at Intalco, they need to address price caps with FERC. Wind
40 power is available for $60 per megawatt. There is no reason why anyone should be
41 able to charge more than $100 without justifying it or tying it to the cost of
42 production. Citizens need to urge FERC to put those price caps in place.
43
44
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 15 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 5/1/2001, Page 27