HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 11 20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
September 11, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Marlene Dawson
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Nelson announced there would be a moment of silence for the tragedy that
occurred today in New York City and Washington D.C. terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he is filled with great sadness. Our
country has been subject to a horrific act by terrorists. There is a vast amount of
casualties. He asked all Whatcom County government employees to remain calm
and diligent in their service to the public in the days and weeks to come. This is a
way of honoring those Americans who were injured or perished in the attacks.
Whatcom County government is stable, and will continue to provide public safety
and support for the people of Whatcom County. To do less would only play into the
hands of the people who have orchestrated the shocking events of the day. He
requested from all County employees and members of the public who were present
in the courthouse today to remain calm, be prepared, cautious, prudent, and alert
for suspicious packages, articles, and individuals. He had two meetings with the
Office of Emergency Management. This office and the area's law enforcement
agencies are working in a unified and professional way to protect the citizens of
Whatcom County. The County Health and Human Services Department and area
mental health agencies are engaged in action to provide those who need help from
anxiety or worries brought on by the gruesome and graphic visuals on the
television. The telephone number 1- 800 - 585 -3578 is for continuous crisis services
assistance. The courthouse was searched this morning. They lowered the flag to
half -staff in recognition of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. The County
government is stable and ready, willing, and able to serve the citizens of this
county.
1. DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING CURRENT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION (AB2001 -042)
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 1
1 Nelson stated the Council provided administration with its questions and
2 concerns.
3
4
5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6
7 Held From August 7, 2001
8 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 24, 2001; REGULAR COUNTY
9 COUNCIL FOR JULY 24, 2001; WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION
10 FOR JULY 17, 2001
11
12 Imhof moved approval.
13
14 Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
15
16 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR AUGUST 7, 2001; REGULAR COUNTY
17 COUNCIL FOR AUGUST 7, 2001
18
19 Imhof moved approval.
20
21 Motion carried 5 -0 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
22
23
24 SELECTION OF CANVASS REPRESENTATIVES
25
26 COUNCIL TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO CANVASS REGULAR,
27 SPECIAL, AND QUESTIONED ABSENTEE BALLOTS FROM THE PRIMARY
28 ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2001. CANVASSING
29 MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 27, AND 28 AT 9:00
30 A.M., WITH SIGNING TO TAKE PLACE AT 1:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 28
31 AT 1:00 P.M.
32
33 Hoag volunteered to canvass on September 26 and September 27.
34
35 McShane volunteered to canvass on September 28.
36
37
38 OPEN SESSION
39
40 The following people spoke:
41
42 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, thanked the Council for the
43 moment of quiet. Everyone is invited to gather tomorrow night at 7:30 p.m. at
44 Maritime Heritage Park on Holly for a candlelight vigil in remembrance and as a call
45 for peace.
46
47 Kevin Hogan, 5048 Mt. Baker Highway, Nooksack Tribal Member, thanked
48 the Council for taking time to discuss a new development project. He also thanked
49 the other who have supported and participated in this project. The Tribe hopes to
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 2
invest $20 million dollars in the next three to five years in eastern Whatcom
County. That money represents development that will fit the region, including a
natural science center, ball fields, a casino expansion, a museum, and a tribal crafts
center. With the support of the Council and state representatives, they can build a
natural science center that will be a centerpiece for eastern Whatcom County. That
centerpiece will be on the level of the children's museum and similar complexes in
Seattle, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Vancouver Aquarium. They will be
focused on the natural history. One hundred fifty people will be hired during this
development. After the development is done, the economic impact will be about
$28 million. He asked for the Council's support of getting 85 acres of land into
trust, and to commit to working with the Nooksack Tribe to see this vision through
in the next three to five years.
Mike Brennan, Bellingham /Whatcom Chamber of Commerce President, stated
he supports the Nooksack Tribe's proposal. He is a resident of eastern Whatcom
County, and co -chair of the Mount Baker Foothills subcommittee for the Port of
Bellingham. He also chairs the Mt. Baker School Board, but does not speak for the
board this evening. The main concern is to encourage the County to support this
project getting to the next step. This development would be a center for the
community in eastern Whatcom County.
Richard Gantman, 3652 Nelson Road, Van Zandt, stated he supports the
Nooksack Tribe's proposal. He represents and works for the Mt. Baker School
District. It is comprised of 504 square miles. The school buses drive over 500,000
miles per year. In that vast area of eastern Whatcom County, there is no
incorporated town. Few places serve as a focused community. That does not
indicate the lack of a need for a community in the area. There are churches, the
school district, the Van Zandt community hall, and the Nooksack Tribe, which has
been a great neighbor. The Tribe has worked extensively with the school district to
keep it informed. The school district hopes to work with aspects of the new
development, such as the ball fields, the museum, and the natural science center.
He encouraged the Council to offer its support.
Nelson stated a citizen just distributed a letter to Art George, Nooksack Tribal
Council Chairman, from Jeralita Costa, Washington State Senator - 38th District.
The letter is in support of the Nooksack Tribe development Project. Another letter
from the Mount Baker School District to the Puget Sound Agency of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, also in support of the project.
Crawford questioned the relationship of the State Senator from Everett to
this project.
Nelson stated he did not know. It is an endorsement for the record.
Dawson stated the Council received a draft letter that the Tribe is asking the
Council to send to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The letter will be discussed tonight.
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 3
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2
3 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
4 RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE
5 MINING IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY AND
6 COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2000 -301)
7
8 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, gave a staff report and explained that one of
9 two issues is about the amount of mining allowed outside of designated mineral
10 resource lands (MRL's) in rural, rural forestry, and agricultural zones. The second
11 issue is when a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for the expansion of a
12 nonconforming mine.
13
14 Regarding mining in the rural and rural forestry zones, the current
15 regulations allow mining in three -acre increments, as long as the miner reclaims his
16 land as he goes. These rules provide the potential for large mining operations in
17 areas of the county that are not designated as MRL's. The largest mine approved
18 outside of an MRL in the 1990's is a 54 -acre site in the rural forestry zone. This site
19 was not mined, but it was approved for mining.
20
21 The Planning and Development Services Department recommends a
22 maximum of three acres of mining per parcel in the rural and rural forestry zones
23 when it is not in an MRL. The Planning Commission recommended keeping the
24 regulations as they are in those zones. Councilmember Hoag submitted a version
25 of this ordinance that allows a maximum of three acres per parcel, if the property
26 has prime agricultural soils. Otherwise, three -acre increments would be allowed.
27
28 Hoag stated her proposal included a condition that the three -acre increments
29 could be done no sooner than ten years.
30
31 Aamot stated that the existing rules in the agriculture zone allow mining
32 outside of an MRL for farm enhancement. One can level ridges and knolls in three -
33 acre increments, as long as there is reclamation. The Planning and Development
34 Services Department recommends a maximum of 15 percent of the site be installed
35 in the agricultural zone. There are both risks and benefits associated with mining in
36 the agricultural area. The benefits include flatter land upon which to operate farm
37 machinery and crops that are closer to the water table. The Comprehensive Plan
38 acknowledges potential drawbacks from mining in agricultural areas, including
39 reclamation and soil rehabilitation problems (p. 8 -23). The staff tried to achieve a
40 balance between the benefits and the risks. The 15 percent limitation on a 40 -acre
41 parcel would allow mining of six acres in an agricultural zone outside of an MRL.
42
43 The Planning Commission did not recommend the 15 percent limitation.
44 They expanded the ability to remove gravel to terraces, in addition to knolls and
45 ridges. Knolls and ridges are either rounded or elongated hills. Terraces are flatter
46 areas with slopes on either end. That would allow mining in a greater portion of the
47 agricultural zone. Councilmember Hoag's version of the ordinance recommended
48 that a maximum of 15 percent of the parcel or six acres, whichever is less, be
49 allowed for mining in a ten -year period.
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 4
1
2 Nonconforming uses are uses that are grandfathered in or allowed to
3 continue because they began before zoning regulations were put in place. The
4 existing zoning ordinance says that expansion of a nonconforming use requires a
5 conditional use permit, which would go to the hearing examiner in a public hearing.
6 That is difficult with gravel mines, because they expand by nature. The Planning
7 Department's current interpretation is that a mine can expand a certain amount as
8 long as an equal amount has been reclaimed. The Planning Department
9 recommends that the expansion of nonconforming pits outside the footprint triggers
10 the requirement for a conditional use permit. It would provide neighbors a chance
11 to comment and the hearing examiner a chance to require buffers or screening
12 when a mine is moving closer to neighboring property. The Planning Commission
13 and Councilmember Hoag's version both agreed.
14
15 The Planning Department also recommended that a conditional use permit be
16 required for expansion of certain nonconforming mines within wellhead protection
17 and aquifer recharge areas. The Planning Commission and Hoag version both
18 agreed.
19
20 Last, the Planning Department recommends deleting a requirement that
21 certain nonconforming pits be limited in their rate of extraction to the rate of
22 extraction achieved during a previous five -year period. The Planning Commission
23 recommends leaving that language in. The Hoag version recommends that a
24 conditional use permit be required if the mine exceeds its average extraction over
25 the last five years.
26
27 Hoag stated that her version of the ordinance was only a compilation of the
28 suggestions made by the public and committee members when this was discussed
29 in committee. She offered to type those recommendations up, and it became the
30 "Connie Hoag version."
31
32 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
33
34 Bob Van Weerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, Everson, thanked the
35 councilmembers for the time they have put in on the Council. He has been
36 removing hills to level land and plant corn for a long time. Now, they are trying to
37 say that one can't grow a good crop on reclaimed ground. The corn he is growing
38 in his reclaimed land is very good. They get six cuttings off of their grass, which is
39 25 to 26 percent of protein. Not being able to reclaim the ground is a rumor. He
40 began removing the hills because it is dangerous to run large equipment up those
41 slopes.
42
43 Nelson questioned whether the hills that Mr. Van Weerdhuizen had removed
44 were knolls, ridges, or terraces. Van Weerdhuizen stated he's taken them all out.
45 When the land is reclaimed, they put a lot of cow manure on the reclaimed land.
46
47 Nelson questioned the number of acres that the hills took up. Van
48 Weerdhuizen stated one hill was on a three -acre area. If a guy is doing it right, let
49 him continue to do it right. One nearby gravel company raped an area that was
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 5
more difficult to reclaim. They didn't do a good job preserving the topsoil. He
bought the area, and has since made it right.
Nelson asked how long it took to get production from that site. Van
Weerdhuizen stated the site is now better than other sites that have never been
mined. It took about three or four years. They got production immediately, but it
was not good. He has been told that when there are not worms in the soil, it is not
as good. However, this soil doesn't have worms or molehills, and hit is just as
good.
Hoag questioned what is being grown on the reclaimed land. Van
Weerdhuizen stated he is growing grass.
Gary Dahl, 2875 E. Vista, stated he lives adjacent to a surface mining
operation. His property rights have been violated. The regulations are too loose.
They are geared toward the surface mining industry. The issues are complex and
include water quality, noise, and dust. The three -acre increment mining would be
allowed in R5A zoning. Five -acre parcels with residents could be next to three
acres being excavated for sand and gravel. Many of the areas outside of the city
limits is R5A zoning. The neighbors would be significantly impacted. In forestry
zoning, the parcels are larger. It is a mistake to include the rural areas.
The topsoil, once removed, exposes all types of things to the water table.
The overburden should be left, rather than stripped and replaced with topsoil that
requires heavy fertilization. As the zoning changes, small pits will be grandfathered
in. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and promoting a rural
community.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, stated this is one of the best -
balanced presentations ever put forward by the Planning Development.
It seems like they keep regulating more and more to preserve farming.
Every time another regulation is required, they put another farmer out of business.
Some gravel mining could help a young farmer get started or help a semi - retired
keep going. When campaigning, all councilmembers have claimed to be pro -
farming. He questioned why it is important to keep the terraces. As a citizen and
Planning Commissioner, he attended a tour of terraces in the area. What he saw
changed his mind. Removing the edges of terraces could be an asset to farming.
He suggested that the terraces be put into a reserve for later gravel extraction, if
needed.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she represents
the Whatcom Sand and Gravel Association.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Starkenburg- Kroontje continued to state that the Planning Commission's
intent to include the word terrace was a good one. It allowed flexibility for farmers.
It allows a broader definition for an issue on one particular site. At the same time,
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 6
1 since the word "terrace" is not included in the Comprehensive Plan at this time, she
2 recommended that the word "terrace" be deleted until later, when the Council is
3 ready to look at a Comprehensive Plan amendment. At that time, the Council can
4 determine what wording it wants in the Comprehensive Plan, and set up the zoning
5 to be consistent with that wording. There is merit in what the Planning Commission
6 was talking about. There is merit in what Mr. Van Weerdhuizen is doing.
7
8 She also addressed the issue of surface mining in the rural zone. A rural
9 zone is intended for a mix of uses. According to the zoning code, a number of
10 things can happen in the rural zone as a conditional use, such as solid waste
11 management, composting, light manufacturing, and limited surface mining. He
12 appreciated that people purchase homes in the rural zone and want to enjoy a rural
13 lifestyle, a rural lifestyle includes things like wood lot management, timber harvest,
14 and things that can be allowed as a conditional use. This ordinance is not the
15 complete picture. It is one portion of the regulatory program. In order for
16 someone to do something in the rural zone, they have to go through a conditional
17 use permit process. The neighbors will be notified and the hearing examiner will
18 recommend and set conditions to make it appropriate with that neighborhood, if it
19 can be done. There are five -acre parcels where it would not be appropriate.
20 However, there are also tracts of land in the rural zone that are 20, 30, or 40 acres
21 in size. A small operation would not have an impact to a neighbor. The conditional
22 use process is an opportunity for the County to have a say about what is being
23 done. There are new requirements in these versions for nonconforming sites to go
24 through the conditional use permit process. That process includes an
25 environmental State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) checklist, any required
26 conditions, or possibly an environmental impact statement (EIS). It is also the time
27 when the staff can recommend conditions to the hearing examiner, and the hearing
28 examiner can impose conditions. The staff and Planning Commission have done a
29 good job in seeking to prevent some of the issues they've seen before about mining
30 moving closer to residential property.
31
32 Her only recommendation for a change from what the Planning Commission
33 recommended is to delete the language regarding the rate of removal. Staff has
34 set up a new definition.
35
36 If three acres will become the limit in rural zones, they will have to look for
37 new gravel supplies, preferably in the MRL.
38
39 Crawford questioned whether the Sand and Gravel Association represented
40 the larger companies or if they also represent the farmers who remove materials.
41 Starkenburg - Kroontje stated the Sand and Gravel Association sent a letter to the
42 Planning Commission in June 2000. The letter indicates that the association is
43 comprised of the larger companies. To become a member, one has to be in the
44 business of extraction. To be in the business of extraction, the owner has to own
45 the equipment and the land for extraction. Someone in Mr. Van Weerdhuizen's
46 situation would not qualify for membership. However, a number of the members
47 would contract with someone like Mr. Van Weerdhuizen to do his work for him.
48 They have the equipment and the trucks to take care of it. The intention of the
49 association was never to get into a situation where it appeared they were seeking
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 7
1 small sites in lieu of large sites. That is not their intent. Their intent is to keep
2 gravel affordable to everyone. Ultimately, that translates into dollars in the
3 taxpayers pockets.
4
5 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the Council should leave as much
6 flexibility to farmers as possible to manage their properties in the best way they
7 feel will be to their advantage. Think of the landowner and the farmer first. Don't
8 try to micromanage their activities.
9
10 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
11
12 McShane gave a report from committee. The committee began to make
13 changes, but was not able to finish. He moved to hold this issue in committee. The
14 only change made this morning was a recommendation to remove the allowance for
15 mining terraces because of the lack of definition in the Comprehensive Plan. There
16 are also concerns about how it should be defined.
17
18 Hoag stated the committee also passed wellhead protection in July. That
19 protection is not in the version of the ordinance that is in front of the Council. Also,
20 she requested that the hearing be held open because of the events taken place
21 today.
22
23 Nelson stated that this has been in committee for two years.
24
25 McShane stated the committee is done taking comments.
26
27 Nelson stated everyone has spoken on this issue.
28
29 Hoag stated there is a large number of people not present at this hearing
30 who wanted to be. She presumed it is because of the events of the day. She
31 moved to extend the hearing to the next Council meeting so that people who could
32 not attend tonight's meeting could attend in two week, and so that people can
33 comment on the changes made by the committee.
34
35 Imhof suggested a friendly amendment that the hearing be held open in
36 writing for only ten days, so comments would be received before the next meeting.
37
38 Hoag did not accept the friendly amendment.
39
40 McShane stated that the committee, if it makes changes, would need to
41 schedule a hearing anyway. The committee has already recommended one
42 substantial change. They will have to have another hearing anyway.
43
44 Hoag withdrew her motion.
45
46 Hoag requested an up -to -date version of the ordinance that reflects all the
47 changes made so far to work from for the next meeting. Aamot agreed to prepare
48 one document to work from.
49
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 8
Hoag stated that 60 percent of the prime soils are on terraces. Mining
terraces would drive a stake through the heart of the farming community. That is
why she is opposed to mining terraces.
In addition, neighbors concerns are not always addressed through the
conditional use permit. She cautioned the Council about being assured in that
process. The public has testified that the CUP process has failed to protect the
neighbors.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.25,
CONSERVATION FUTURES PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND FUND (AB2001-
217B)
Dawson stated this ordinance commits 50 percent of the current balance and
new monies of the Conservation Futures funds would be held for the purchase of
development rights for farmland. A proposal will come forward in April to address
how this will be done. They will use the same type of program and approach that
Skagit Valley has used. It is important to prepare and show support for this
program coming forward. It is important to have ongoing support for programs
instead of having projects, which are stationary. Since Councilmember Brenner is a
sponsor and is not able to attend, she asked that a vote be held until the next
meeting. They can have the public hearing. She moved to hold in Council for two
weeks.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Dick Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, stated he was against this when it first
came out. Don't dedicate percentages into one pocket. Keep it flexible so the
money can go where it is needed at the time.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the ordinance may not be
interpreted the way it is intended. If they are going to address this ordinance in
the future, then specify what calendar year funds they are trying to address.
Dawson moved to amend the ordinance to include a sunset date in one year,
and to amend language to Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 3.25.030, "...At
least 50% of the existing fund balance and at least 50% of the annual funds
received this year to acquire development rights...."
Motion failed 2 -4 with Dawson and Hoag in favor.
Dawson moved to postpone for two weeks.
Hoag stated there has been a lot of discussion on this issue. It is important
to have adequate funds to accomplish anything meaningful in the agricultural
district. This is a voluntary program for farmers to sell their development rights, so
they can continue to farm. The threat of development is removed. It removes the
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 9
1 conflict from the farmers, and it keeps the land on the tax rolls. It is a win -win
2 situation for the farmer and for the County. The farmers pay more in taxes than
3 they use in services. It is a benefit to the entire community to keep the agricultural
4 industry viable. This particular proposal is important. Honor Councilmember
5 Brenner's request to wait until she is present before voting on this item, since she
6 is a co- sponsor.
7
8 Imhof stated the money will still be available for a good project, whether this
9 is adopted or not. It has been before the Council before. The Council should vote
10 on it tonight, and move on.
11
12 Dawson stated there are a lot of good projects that are brought before the
13 Council. It is difficult to vote down good projects when people have worked on
14 them for many years. They don't know that the money is going to be there. If the
15 Council doesn't like a project, it doesn't have to approve. Zoning is temporary.
16 The purpose is to purchase the development rights around the urban growth areas
17 where these small cities are growing and expanding. They may not vote to expand
18 the boundaries now, but there is still a pressure. The Council after this one may
19 vote to expand those boundaries. They have to maintain an area that will protect
20 the future economy for agriculture.
21
22 Crawford stated he would vote in favor of the motion because he wants to
23 see the agricultural community get its hands on a little bit of this money. Later in
24 the meeting, a resolution will come forward that has been worked on by the
25 Executive and different councilmembers. He wants to use the two weeks to work
26 with the people he knows on the Agricultural Preservation Committee to see if they
27 feel that the resolution is strong enough. He understands that there is general
28 concurrence and agreement so far among those agricultural leaders, but he doesn't
29 have that knowledge for sure. The two -week wait will allow the Council to hear
30 from those individuals. He will base his decision on their concerns and views in two
31 weeks. He will vote in favor of the resolution.
32
33 Nelson stated he didn't support the inflexibility of the government. This is
34 another example of restricting flexibility. He hates establishing percentages
35 because groups of people can always make arguments that these funds should be
36 held for their uses. He supported many of the arguments presented regarding the
37 agricultural lands, but he has to be a prudent steward of these funds. If the funds
38 aren't there to use for agricultural purposes, that is a legitimate argument. On the
39 other hand, if the funds were restricted from a legitimate use, they won't be able to
40 use the funds.
41
42 Dawson stated a proposal will come forward for funds to be used in lieu of
43 forestry funds. The proposal makes percentage appropriations to Title II and Title
44 III projects. It is very common to appropriate percentages for different projects.
45
46 Nelson stated he doesn't like the practice.
47
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 10
1 Dawson stated this is not unusual. This program should have certainty and
2 predictability. Mr. Bierlink and Mr. Belisle support both the resolution and this
3 amendment.
4
5 Hoag stated the Council is either committed to agriculture in this county, or
6 they are not. If they are committed to agriculture, then they need to make certain
7 that the money will be there to help protect the farmers from the pressures of
8 development. It is very important to postpone this. The Council is going through
9 the budgeting process right now. This issue is so important that a sponsor of the
10 ordinance is asking that it be postponed.
11
12 A comment was made about flexibility. The Council doesn't leave millions of
13 dollars in the budget undesignated to provide flexibility. They budget the funds
14 out. Compared to a family budget, Parks are the candy, and agriculture is the food.
15
16 Motion to postpone failed 3 -3 with Hoag, Dawson, and Crawford in favor.
17
18 Motion to adopt failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Dawson in favor.
19
20
21 CONSENT AGENDA
22
23 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
24 and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through fifteen.
25
26 Dawson withdrew items four and 14.
27
28 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three, five through
29 thirteen, and fifteen carried unanimously.
30
31 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
32 83 FOR A REPLACEMENT BRUSH CHIPPER FOR MAINTENANCE &
33 OPERATIONS TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WESSPUR LLC,
34 IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,810.49 (AB2001 -288)
35
36 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
37 92 FOR FIVE REPLACEMENT ONE -HALF TON PICKUP TRUCKS FOR
38 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
39 BIDDER, DIEHL FORD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,654.54 (AB2001-
40 289)
41
42 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
43 PURCHASE OF SIX POLICE SEDANS BY ER &R OFF OF THE
44 WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
45 $128,609.70 (AB2001 -290)
46
47 4. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION TO RECEIVE
48 NATIONAL FOREST RELATED SAFETY -NET PAYMENTS UNDER P. L.
49 106 -393 (AB2001 -291)
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 11
1
2 Dawson stated this relates to the forest funds the County will receive. Eighty
3 percent of those funds will go to the schools and the roads. The County has to
4 allocate the remaining twenty percent. The administration recommends further
5 dividing the remaining 20 percent. Of the remaining funds, the administration
6 recommends that 70 percent go to Title II projects and 30 percent go to Title III
7 projects. She moved approval of the administration's recommendation.
8
9 McShane stated his alternative resolution proposed that the remaining 20
10 percent of the forestry funds would go entirely to Title III projects for the first year,
11 and to create a committee to advise the Council on how to allocate those funds to
12 the Title III projects. It is important to approve a resolution now that accepts these
13 forestry funds. The difference between his resolution and the administration's
14 resolution is how the money would be allocated. The Title III projects are
15 completely within the County's control. There are limits to how the County can
16 spend that money on those Title III projects. The proposed committee to oversee
17 the Title II projects consists of 15 people who are divided into three caucuses. One
18 caucus could veto an entire project, even if a vote is 12 -3. The County has not
19 seen anything from the Forest Service on what sort of Title II projects would be
20 brought forward. He is not opposed to Title II projects, but is concerned that the
21 County is unsure what the projects will be and how they would work. Until that
22 information comes forward, he supports providing the entire funding to the Title III
23 projects.
24
25 Nelson stated he would like to separate the two parts of the resolution,
26 accepting the monies and allocating the monies. He moved to accept the
27 $2,018,039 payment over five years.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 Hoag stated the County Council sent a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture
32 requesting this type of program. It is good to see that the County received a stable
33 source of revenue for the schools and roads.
34
35 Hoag stated she has a problem with the 80/20 percentage split. The County
36 has a choice. There is a range of between 15 to 20 percent. If the County chooses
37 15 percent instead of 20 percent, five percent more of the total funds would go
38 toward schools and roads. That is what she supports. Also, the percentage that
39 goes to the schools and roads is divided 50/50. She questioned whether that is
40 determined by the act.
41
42 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the 50/50 split between schools
43 and roads is determined in the act. If the Council chose to receive 15 percent, a
44 little bit more money would go to the County Road fund and a little bit more money
45 would go to the state school fund. It doesn't mean that the extra money would go
46 to the local county schools.
47
48 Hoag questioned whether the money goes back to the school district in which
49 the timber was harvested. Desler stated the legislature has already decided how
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
much money will go to the schools. The schools never get more money based on
local decision - making. They are already set. It does not have to reduce the
amount of monev the rateoavers have to oav on their levies.
McShane stated the only time it would be different would be to take 25
percent of the revenue from timber harvests within Whatcom County on U.S. Forest
Service lands. If that were the case, they would be talking about a few thousand
dollars instead of $2 million. Very little revenue is being generated in Whatcom
County.
Desler stated state money might go to local districts, but the federal money
goes to the state, according to the law.
Dawson moved to allocate 70 percent of the remaining 20 percent funds to
Title II projects. They need to control exotic and noxious weeds; restore, maintain,
and improve wildlife and fish habitat; and have watershed restoration maintenance.
The County can use the inmate work crews to do this work.
Hoag stated Title III has to do mostly with services on federal lands,
including search, rescue, and emergency services; community service work crews;
easement purchases for non - motorized access to public lands for recreational
purposes or conservation easements; forest - related after school programs; and fire
prevention and County planning. It doesn't include the watershed maintenance. At
least 50 percent of the Title II money has to be for road, trail, or infrastructure
maintenance or obliteration and watershed restoration maintenance. Those are two
things Whatcom County is very involved in. She supported the administration's
recommendation for the 70/30 split.
Nelson restated Councilmember Dawson's recommendation to approve the
administration's recommendation to divide the 20 percent remaining forestry funds
by 70/30 percent.
McShane stated Title II projects will not happen unless the committee has
been formed. It has not yet been formed. His name was recommended, and he
received a letter about going through a 13 -step process to be approved as a
committee member. These projects don't happen unless the committee exists.
They aren't going to see any of these projects for awhile. There are many hoops to
get through to make those Title II projects occur. Some of the services that
Councilmembers Hoag and Dawson mentioned could easily be covered under Title
III projects. The easement purchase does not have to be on federal lands. They
can do community service work camps on federal lands. There will be good Title II
projects in the future. Until they see some of those projects come forward, they
are putting out money with no program in place. His proposal gives the County a
lot of control on where to put its money.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Crawford stated he supported Councilmember McShane's concept. One
hundred percent to Title III is the way to go. It provides the most local control. He
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 13
1 liked the search and rescue concepts and the forest - related educational
2 opportunities with the Black Mountain Forestry Center.
3
4 Hoag stated the funds for any Title II projects not expended in a fiscal year
5 will be available for a project in the next fiscal year. She questioned whether
6 Councilmember McShane believed there would be no committee - recommended
7 projects coming forward in two years.
8
9 McShane stated he hoped there would be projects coming forward in two
10 years. The local committee he recommends forming in his resolution would include
11 the state committee members from Whatcom County. A local committee with state
12 committee members will have a handle on projects that the state committee would
13 approve.
14
15 Nelson restated the motion to allocate 70 percent of the remaining funds to
16 Title II projects and 30 percent of the remaining funds to Title III projects.
17
18 Pete Kremen, County Executive, suggested that the percentages be adjusted
19 to 75 percent for Title III and 25 percent for Title II.
20
21 McShane stated he would accept the administration's suggestion.
22
23 Motion failed 4 -2 with Dawson and Hoag in favor.
24
25 McShane moved to approve the resolution he originally proposed,
26 Resolution to receive the full payment amount under PL 106 -393
27 authorized by HR 2389 (AB2001 -286), with 100 percent of the remaining
28 funding to Title III.
29
30 Nelson questioned whether the County can designate part of the funding to
31 Title II projects if the County puts forward 100 percent for Title III projects now
32 and if the state committee is formed and approves Title II projects.
33
34 McShane stated the County cannot during the first year.
35
36 Nelson stated that they are stuck with the percentage allocation for one year.
37 He does not like the inflexibility of government.
38
39 McShane stated one could adjust what the County does within Title III
40 projects.
41
42 Nelson questioned whether Title III monies that remain at the end of the
43 year could be reallocated to Title 2 projects the following year.
44
45 Imhof stated they probably could not. Some Title II projects could be
46 worked under Title III, to a point. Some of the Title II projects would fit under Title
47 III also.
48
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 14
1 Hoag stated she preferred the Executive's recommendation. She opposed
2 Councilmember McShane's motion.
3
4 Motion carried 4 -2 with Dawson and Hoag opposed.
5
6 McShane stated the Finance Committee did not vote on the formation of a
7 local committee that he recommended in his resolution. He moved approval of
8 forming the committee as presented in his resolution beginning on Council packet
9 page 99. (AB2001 -286).
10
11 Nelson questioned why Councilmember McShane chose to include these
12 representatives as committee members.
13
14 McShane stated he felt they were the appropriate representatives to address
15 the types of projects that are eligible under Title III, and also Title II. The
16 members of the local delegation to the state committee would know what is going
17 on.
18
19 Hoag questioned the fiscal requirements of creating a committee like this.
20
21 McShane stated he would try to minimize the fiscal requirements by including
22 knowledgeable staff people.
23
24 Crawford questioned the make -up of the 15- member state committee.
25
26 McShane stated the state committee includes 15 members. Five members
27 would be from Whatcom and Skagit County, and who would be users of resources
28 on federal lands. Five members of the state committee would be environmental
29 organization representatives, and five members would be elected officials. The
30 appointment of the committee is up to the discretion of the Secretary of
31 Agriculture.
32
33 Crawford questioned whether this resolution says that the state committee
34 needs to be appointed before the County spends any Title III funds.
35
36 McShane stated the local committee would advise the Council on how those
37 funds should be spent, and come up with projects and ideas. The Title II
38 committee is the state committee, and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
39 Secretary of Agriculture.
40
41 Crawford questioned whether this resolution says that the local committee
42 has to exist before the County spends any Title III funds.
43
44 McShane stated the resolution does not say that. The local committee is to
45 provide advice.
46
47 Nelson restated the motion to form an advisory committee to the Whatcom
48 County Council.
49
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 15
1 Kremen stated the administration was not consulted about the proposed local
2 committee. The 2002 budget process has revealed that the administration is facing
3 some financial challenges. The administration can meet those challenges. The
4 Council should keep those challenges in mind as it deliberates on this particular
5 issue. Any extra staff time that would be required is something they will have to
6 pull from elsewhere. The administration is committed to keeping the full -time
7 employee (FTE) level stagnant, at best.
8
9 Hoag stated this proposal doesn't talk about the structure of the committee,
10 such as the number of Whatcom County representatives on the state committee.
11 The discussion did not talk about how these people would arrive at their decisions,
12 and if there is going to be a majority vote.
13
14 McShane stated he assumed the committee would figure out its way of
15 providing the Council advice.
16
17 Crawford suggesting amending language to Council packet page 100, line 7,
18 "...year, in a matter yet to be determined; and" They are making the commitment
19 to expend the funds on Title III projects, but they are not going to tie themselves
20 down tonight to determine how they are going to reach that decision. The
21 administration could work on the most cost - effective way to administer these funds.
22 The Council has given the administration direction that this is the way the Council
23 wants to go.
24
25 McShane withdrew his motion.
26
27 Nelson stated the administration has its direction for this item.
28
29 Desler suggested eliminating the bullet points under item three in the
30 resolution on Council packet page 126.
31
32 Nelson moved to approve the resolution beginning on Council packet page
33 124, Resolution to Elect to Receive National Forest Related Safety -Net
34 Payments under P.L. 106 -393 (AB2001 -291), as proposed by the
35 administration, with an amendment to remove all references to Title II and amend
36 language on Council packet page 126:
37 • 70 peFeent of Preject Funds fei= expenditffe on Title 11 projects
38 • -30 100 percent of the Project Funds for expenditure on Title III projects
39
40 McShane suggested that it would be better to leave the references in
41 regarding Title II so that next year, they can just change the percentage amount.
42
43 The Council concurred with McShane's suggested.
44
45 Nelson restated the motion to approve the resolution beginning on Council
46 packet page 124, Resolution to Elect to Receive National Forest Related
47 Safety -Net Payments under P.L. 106 -393 (AB2001 -291), as proposed by the
48 administration, with an amendment to language on Council packet page 126:
49 •
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 16
1
• 30 100 percent of the Project Funds for expenditure on Title III projects
2
3
Motion to approve carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
4
5
5.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO THE
6
'" WHATCOM CHIEF" FERRY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR POLICY
7
PERIOD 9/30/01- 9/30/02 (AB2001 -292)
8
9
6.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL COUNTY ROAD
10
CONSTRUCTION FUND AUTHORIZATION FOR COUNTY ROAD PROJECT
11
NO. 998026 ALDERWOOD /AIRPORT /W. BAKERVIEW ROAD
12
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $181,728 (AB2001 -293)
13
14
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A BID
15
AWARD FOR THE LUMMI ISLAND SEAWALL ROAD MAINTENANCE
16
PROJECT CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FRIBERG
17
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT $329,544
18
(AB2001 -294)
19
20
8.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
22
HUMAN SERVICES AND LINSLEY, KRAEGER ASSOCIATES, LTD. (LKA),
23
FOR ADDITIONAL MODEL REFINEMENTS AND INCORPORATION OF
24
FIELD SURVEY DATA IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $258,600 FOR A
25
TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $523,760 (AB2001 -295)
26
27
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
28
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
29
SOLID WASTE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE
30
FUNDS TO THE COUNTY FOR THE EDUCATIONAL, ADOPT -A-
31
ROAD /TRAIL, AND JUVENILE OFFENDER LITTER CLEANUP
32
PROGRAMS, IN THE GRANT AMOUNT OF UP TO $81,725 (AB2001-
33
296)
34
35
10.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
36
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
37
SERVICES AND STRATEGIC LEARNING RESOURCES TO CONDUCT
38
RESEARCH AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL
39
MODIFICATIONS IN THE LOCAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TRIAGE
40
SYSTEM, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2001 -297)
41
42
11.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
43
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE
44
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND
45
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE NORTHWEST
46
REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
47
$119,760 (AB2001 -298)
48
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 17
1 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE GOVERNOR'S
3 JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GJJAC) FOR THE
4 WHATCOM COUNTY TEEN COURT PROGRAM, IN THE CONTRACT
5 AMOUNT OF $77,600 (AB2001 -299)
6
7 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
9 AND NORTHWEST CARE ADVOCATES FOR COORDINATION OF
10 MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICES, IN THE
11 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $33,754 (AB2001 -300)
12
13 14. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDITURES FROM CONSERVATION
14 FUTURES FUND TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY INTERESTS IN
15 AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR STRATEGIC CONSERVATION PURPOSES
16 (AB2001 -301)
17
18 Dawson stated she appreciated the Executive's efforts. Her concern is that a
19 resolution has no force of law. It commits the Council to expend a fair and
20 significant share for acquiring interests in agricultural lands. The Council should
21 have a special allocation for programs instead of projects. In addition, it also
22 provides an expenditure of up to $30,000 to help the farmers develop a program.
23 Hopefully it won't cost that much. She moved approval.
24
25 Hoag stated this was proposed by the County Executive, and puts the burden
26 on the Council. Also, there are many wonderful and great comments about the
27 farmers and the farmland. She would support the resolution, but it doesn't go far
28 enough.
29
30 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated there is money there. The Executive
31 Director of the Agricultural Preservation Committee put in many hours of work.
32 This is an initial step that will enable Whatcom County to begin preserving and
33 protecting its precious agricultural land. He urged the Council to approve the
34 resolution.
35
36 Nelson questioned the amount available in the Conservation Futures fund.
37
38 Dawson stated there is about $1.2 million.
39
40 Hoag questioned the number of purchases by the Parks Department that are
41 in the queue.
42
43 Imhof questioned the number of farm programs that have been brought
44 forward.
45
46 Hoag stated that until there is a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
47 program in place, the farmers are not going to come forward with a PDR request.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 18
1
2 15. REVIEW OF STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT ON WHATCOM COUNTY FOR
3 FY2000 (AB2001 -302)
4
5
6 OTHER ITEMS
7
8 1. REPORT REGARDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
9 DIRECTION REGARDING THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN HAZARD
10 AREA (AB2001 -287)
11
12 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated this is an introduction to a
13 discussion that they will hold during next week's Water Resources work session. He
14 is under the presumption that he is going to submit a hazard mitigation grant
15 application for a partial buy -out of the Canyon Creek area. Tonight, he asks for
16 confirmation to go forward with that application. There is public process they need
17 to engage in through the application process. Also, this direction would require
18 approximately $300,000 to $400,000 of local money. Next Tuesday, there will be a
19 detailed summary on where they sit today and they will look at alternatives and
20 issues. A public hearing will be scheduled in addition to the discussion next week.
21
22 He requested any questions the councilmembers may want answered during
23 the meeting next week. He also requested confirmation that he should continue to
24 move ahead with preparing a grant application.
25
26 Paula Cooper, River /Flood Engineering Manager, stated they discussed this
27 last in April. She sent in a letter that looked at three different alluvial fan hazard
28 areas that could be targeted for a buyout project. The Council indicated that it
29 leaned toward a buyout project. Staff was to send out a questionnaire to the
30 residents to get the residents input and to let the residents know what the County
31 staff is thinking about. She submitted a copy of the letter and a copy of the
32 residents' response (on file). She sent out about 185 letters, and received 92
33 responses. Of the responses, 75 were in favor of participating in some kind of a
34 buyout project. The remaining responses were not interested. The hazard
35 mitigation grant program applications are out. There is a funding limitation of $2.5
36 million per community. The primary and secondary buyout areas might get the
37 money.
38
39 In the last several months, they've talked to the Whatcom Land Trust. There
40 is a good opportunity for partnering with the Land Trust, which is interested in
41 restoring and protecting the habitat within that primary buyout area. The Land
42 Trust talked to the Salmon Technical Team that is involved in prioritizing Salmon
43 Recovery Fund (SRF) Board projects. They've identified the land in this buyout
44 area as something they would be interested in. These are options for partnering.
45 Some of the money could come from SRF Board funding.
46
47 Nelson questioned the number of parcels that are in the green. Cooper
48 stated 75 parcels are in the green (interested in selling), 17 parcels are in the red
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 19
1 (not interested in selling), and about 100 parcels are in the white (no response to
2 survey).
3
4 Nelson stated people who did not respond are probably not interested in the
5 buyout program. Cooper stated they are not going to force the community into a
6 buyout program. Before the County puts out a grant application, staff will contact
7 the owners who did not respond in an attempt to respond.
8
9 Imhof stated the option is to purchase the green areas in the primary buyout
10 area, then ask the people who did not respond if they are interested. If money is
11 left over, they will make purchases in the secondary buyout area. Cooper stated
12 one option is to designate everything in the primary and secondary areas as
13 potential buyout properties. They would be covered in the grant application.
14
15 Dawson questioned where the County portion of the fees would come from.
16 Cooper stated the hazard mitigation grant program is set up so that 75 percent of
17 the program is funded federally, 12.5 percent of the program is funded from the
18 state, and 12.5 percent of the program is funded locally. In this case, they would
19 use Flood Control Zone District funds.
20
21 Imhof moved to approve continuing with the grant funding process and to
22 have a public meeting with the residents in the area.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Nelson questioned whether the residents ever came forward with a proposal
27 to create their own flood control sub -zone. Cooper stated they have not.
28
29 2. RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE THE FULL PAYMENT AMOUNT UNDER PL
30 106 -393 AUTHORIZED BY HR 2389 (AB2001 -286)
31
32 See Consent Agenda item 4.
33
34 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 8 (AB2001-
35 281)
36
37 Dawson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
38 moved approval of the two items on the substitute ordinance.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 4. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL
43 CLOSURE OF THE MORGAN- COTTONWOOD INTERSECTION IN THE
44 BIRCH BAY AREA (AB2001 -303)
45
46 Dawson reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee. The
47 road is a very small residential road that serves a few homes. People are using the
48 road to bypass the Birch Bay Drive. An ordinance regarding this matter will be
49 introduced this evening.
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 20
1
2 Crawford questioned whether anyone testified to the committee.
3
4 McShane stated the woman who sponsored the petition was present at the
5 committee meeting.
6
7 5. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO
8 THE WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE SERVICE LEVEL ORDINANCE
9 (AB2001 -304)
10
11 Dawson reported for the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and
12 stated this item is scheduled for introduction tonight. It will be held in committee
13 for two weeks.
14
15 6. APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY NETWORK BOARD (AB2001-
16 284)
17
18 McShane moved to approve Joan Myers.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 7. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
23 LARRY SIMKINS TO HIS FIRST FULL TERM ON THE ESSENTIAL
24 PUBLIC FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2001 -305)
25
26 Imhof moved approval.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 8. NOTIFICATION OF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
31 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE:
32 PORT OF BELLINGHAM, STEVE JILK; JAIL ADMINISTRATION, DAN
33 FITZGERALD; CITY OF BELLINGHAM, CHRISTOPHER MORGAN; AND
34 SMALL CITIES REPRESENTATIVE GERALDINE POGUE (AB2001 -305A)
35
36 Dawson moved approval.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40
41 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
42
43 Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 1. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
48 FILE NO. APL2001 -0007, FILED BY CONCERNED NEIGHBORS OF LAKE
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 21
1
SAMISH, REGARDING " "SLEEPY HOLLOW" SUBDIVISION (AB2001-
2
283)
3
4
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.10
5
SOLID WASTE AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION (AB2001-
6
306)
7
8
3.
ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS
9
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF (AB2001 -307)
10
11
4.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF TO DEVELOP INMATE WORK
12
CREWS (AB2001 -308)
13
14
S.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST #9 (AB2001-
15
309)
16
17
6.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
18
PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
19
(AB2001 -310A)
20
21
7.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
22
MAP, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND THE
23
TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
24
ESTABLISH A PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA AT SUDDEN
25
VALLEY (AB2001 -310B)
26
27
8.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
28
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
29
SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY
30
(AB2001 -310C)
31
32
9.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
33
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
34
NORTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR FERNDALE AND THE COUNTY
35
(AB2001 -310D)
36
37
10.
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS
38
SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
39
ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
40
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
41
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
42
43
11.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM
44
RURAL FORESTRY (RF) TO RURAL AND THE ZONING MAP FROM RF TO
45
RURAL -ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (RSA) FOR
46
APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES NEAR MAPLE FALLS (AB2001 -310F)
47
48
12.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
49
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 22
1 SYSTEMS WITHIN SMALL TOWNS, RESORT/ RECREATIONAL
2 SUBDIVISIONS AND THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION
3 CORRIDOR (AB2001 -310G)
4
5 13. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT,
6 REASONS FOR ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MRL-
7 MINAKER ROAD — AS NUMBER EIGHT OF THE INITIATED TEN
8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED
9 ZONING CHANGES FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2001 (AB2001 -310H)
10
11
12 OTHER BUSINESS
13
14 McShane moved to send a letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding
15 Nooksack Tribe Community and Economic Development Project (AB2001-
16 312)
17
18 Dawson commended the Nooksack Tribe for its efforts to get the community
19 leaders involved in acknowledging what was going on with this project. There has
20 been concern about fee to trust transfers. The Department of Interior has been
21 holding a number of hearings, and are postponing any changes from the fee to
22 trust transfer.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
25
26 Dawson continued to state that the leaders have been informed about what
27 is going on, but there has not been any notification to the public who will be
28 affected. The Department of Interior will ask for intergovernmental agreements up
29 front. This is important because there are traffic, sanitation, utility, law
30 enforcement, and public safety issues that need to be resolved up front. Her
31 proposed amendments are about getting an interlocal agreement up front. She
32 would also support having a public hearing. She moved to amend the second
33 paragraph of the letter, "...and sanitation and utilities while the trust status is being
34 reviewed processed and the development plans Fneve forward. We have been...."
35 She also moved to amend the final sentence, "We 4epe anticipate that the
36 application for trust status related to the tFibe's
37 and is can be processed quickly once the intergovernmental agreement has been
38 reached." The County worked on an intergovernmental agreement with the casino.
39 There is concern about getting the terms of that satisfied. It doesn't protect the
40 public interest to suggest that the County supports putting the land into trust until
41 the agreements are signed.
42
43 McShane stated the application for trust status is a sensitive issue. The Tribe
44 has been up front about what it wants to do on that land. They can be comfortable
45 and supportive of their application to put that land into trust. There is a significant
46 process that occurs after lands have been put into trust for any development
47 proposals, which go far beyond what County governments require and would
48 address all those issues that Ms. Dawson is raising. He is working with the
49 Swinomish Tribe on a proposal, and they are required to go through an
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 23
1 environmental impact statement (EIS) process called an environmental assessment
2 (EA). The EA addresses all those service issues, including traffic, police and fire
3 services, air pollution, and public safety. It has a public process. Before the
4 development is approved, it has to go through the public process. There is
5 opportunity there for public comment. They won't know exactly what the proposal
6 might be in the end. Requiring an interlocal agreement before that unfairly
7 hamstrings the Tribe's positive effort. The Council should support the Tribe's trust
8 application.
9
10 Nelson asked what happens if a project fails down the road with other people
11 on the Tribal Council, who may decide to create an industrial park.
12
13 McShane stated the Tribal Council would have to submit a new EA. The
14 exact same people, including the public and everyone in the area would comment
15 on the EA for the new use. A recent EA for a tribe in South Dakota was for a
16 project to put in a gas station on the trust land. They had to address the air quality
17 of putting in a gas station. That is not something that has ever been asked of
18 anyone in the county.
19
20 Hoag stated it has. The Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) deals
21 with gas stations all the time.
22
23 Nelson stated he was concerned about having other projects being proposed
24 on trust land that would not include a comment from the county residents and
25 surrounding property owners. The area is small and in an area of urban
26 development, as designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
27
28 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they are trying
29 to coordinate a working relationship with the Nooksack Tribe. The land
30 development process is similar to the process used when the Lummi Tribe and
31 Nooksack Tribe develop their own lands. In certain aspects, they will look at the EA
32 in greater detail than the County generally looks at through its State Environmental
33 Protection Act (SEPA) process.
34
35 Imhof stated the Lummi Tribe did a poor job on it's EA or EIS for its casino.
36 The local people did not have any say in its development. However, the Nooksack
37 Tribe has been very forthright in what they presented. They worked with the
38 school district and the chamber of commerce. They have been good neighbors in
39 the area. The County owes it to them to not get the two tribes confused. He will
40 support the letter as presented, not as it is proposed to be amended.
41
42 Hoag stated the Nooksack Tribe proposal is very positive, and she is
43 encouraged by it. She asked what assurances there would be that the positive
44 developments envisioned would actually occur. She was told that
45 intergovernmental agreements would provide that assurance. Lately, she read in
46 the newspaper that power companies are planning to build power plants on tribal
47 land because there are fewer regulations. Councilmember Dawson's point about
48 public process is important. If land is transferred from fee into trust, there should
49 be a public hearing. If everything is as it is presented, there won't be opposition.
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 24
1 It is important for the Council to get that input to represent the public. The Council
2 needs assurance that this will be as positive as they envision, before giving support
3 to a project. If that is the case, this is a wonderful project and she would support
4 it. However, she wants those assurances in place. There have been pitfalls in
5 other areas. She did not see the amendments before now. They would not send
6 this letter until there is a public hearing.
7
8 Dawson stated they should have the public hearing first. They could still
9 send the letter, but the final interlocal agreement would follow the public hearing.
10
11 Nelson stated he shares Councilmember Dawson's concerns. There is not a
12 long history of relationship with the tribe. Build that relationship on the basis of
13 trust. He understands the problems of the past. The Nooksack Tribe has come
14 forward in good faith, and has agreed to work with the County on developing a plan
15 to address these concerns. He is willing to support their application for the
16 acreage, with the understanding that there will be an interlocal agreement to
17 protect the public from any of these concerns.
18
19 Crawford questioned whether the Nooksack Tribe currently owns the land.
20
21 Nelson stated it does. It is not in trust status.
22
23 Crawford questioned whether there was an application for a gas station on
24 this property.
25
26 Nelson stated the proposal for a gas station is across the street, where the
27 smoke shop is located. He is opposed to the amendments.
28
29 Crawford stated he is also opposed to the amendments, for the reasons
30 stated by Councilmember Nelson.
31
32 Hoag moved to postpone until after a public hearing is scheduled at the next
33 Council meeting.
34
35 Dawson stated it makes good sense to have public input when changing the
36 zoning of a property.
37
38 Nelson stated the Mount Baker School District supports the proposal. He has
39 not heard from many of the others in the area.
40
41 Hoag stated they don't know if those in the area are aware of it.
42
43 Imhof called for the question.
44
45 Motion to postpone failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Dawson in favor.
46
47 Motion to amend the letter failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Dawson in favor.
48
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 25
1
Motion to send the letter as presented carried 4 -2 with Hoag and Dawson
2
opposed.
3
4
Hoag stated she supported the project, but it is not timely.
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
8
9
Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Item.
10
11
Motion carried unanimously.
12
13
1.
RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
14
FILE NO. APL2001 -0007, FILED BY CONCERNED NEIGHBORS OF LAKE
15
SAMISH, REGARDING " "SLEEPY HOLLOW" SUBDIVISION (AB2001-
16
283)
17
18
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.10
19
SOLID WASTE AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION (AB2001-
20
306)
21
22
3.
ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS
23
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF (AB2001 -307)
24
25
4.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF TO DEVELOP INMATE WORK
26
CREWS (AB2001 -308)
27
28
S.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST #9 (AB2001-
29
309)
30
31
6.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
32
PLAN RELATING TO THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
33
(AB2001 -310A)
34
35
7.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
36
MAP, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND THE
37
TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
38
ESTABLISH A PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA AT SUDDEN
39
VALLEY (AB2001 -310B)
40
41
8.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
42
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
43
SOUTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN AND THE COUNTY
44
(AB2001 -310C)
45
46
9.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
47
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO BRING CONSISTENCY TO THE
48
NORTHERN UGA BOUNDARY FOR FERNDALE AND THE COUNTY
49
(AB2001 -310D)
50
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 26
1 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING AND UPDATING THE 1990 POINT ROBERTS
2 SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
3 ZONING MAP, THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
4 AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2001 -310E)
6
7 11. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM
8 RURAL FORESTRY (RF) TO RURAL AND THE ZONING MAP FROM RF TO
9 RURAL -ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (RSA) FOR
10 APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES NEAR MAPLE FALLS (AB2001 -310F)
11
12 12. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
13 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
14 SYSTEMS WITHIN SMALL TOWNS, RESORT/ RECREATIONAL
15 SUBDIVISIONS AND THE GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION
16 CORRIDOR (AB2001 -310G)
17
18 13. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT,
19 REASONS FOR ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MRL-
20 MINAKER ROAD — AS NUMBER EIGHT OF THE INITIATED TEN
21 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED
22 ZONING CHANGES FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2001 (AB2001 -310H)
23
24 14. ORDINANCE ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF COTTONWOOD DRIVE AT
25 MORGAN DRIVE BETWEEN BIRCH BAY DRIVE AND BIRCH BAY - LYNDEN
26 ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (AB2001 -303)
27
28
29 OTHER BUSINESS
30
31 Imhof moved to add page 14 of the Planning Commission minutes dated June
32 8, 2000 to the Council packet between pages 86 and 87.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 McShane moved to send a letter to Representative Rick Larsen regarding the
37 Marine Resource Committee. The letter asks that the committee continue to be
38 funded with federal money.
39
40 Motion carried 5 -1 with Hoag abstaining.
41
42
43 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
44
45 Hoag stated she was shocked and stunned at the events of the day. People
46 should pray for the nation leaders, that cool heads will prevail, for comfort to those
47 who are hurt, for families who have lost loved ones, and for the safety of the people
48 and the children.
49
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 27
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
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Council packet is now on the
County's website.
Nelson stated it takes too long to download. It is a PDF file. Adobe Acrobat
is not the fastest process. Desler stated the courthouse is involved in upgrading
the infrastructure, so it will speed the process.
Crawford stated the PDF files are coming out very light. He questioned
whether they will be able to get the new budget proposal with the full Adobe
Acrobat, not just the reader.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September 25 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Regular County Council, 9/11/2001, Page 28