HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 26 20021
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
March 26, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION ON THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2002 -132)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the Agriculture Advisory Committee was
established to assist the Council on agricultural related issues. It has been involved
in the rewrite of Title 24. The work plan is a list of the key areas the committee
feels need to be addressed to positively impact agriculture in Whatcom County. He
will go through a proposed three -year plan.
Chuck Antholt, Agriculture Advisory Committee Chairman, stated the
committee took a strategic view of agriculture in Whatcom County. He hears over
and over that agriculture in Whatcom County is dead. However, Whatcom County
is in the top three percent of agricultural counties in the United States. A $250
million industry is not dead. He is concerned about the ownership of Agriculture
Advisory Committee. He is not sure of what the Council wants the committee to do
or that the Council knows what the committee can do. They need to interface to
make decisions easier. Without the staff assistance of people like Mr. Olason of the
Planning Department, the committee can't exist. The committee members are all
farmers. They depend heavily on Mr. Olason's help.
The committee has met with people to discuss the agricultural protection
overlay (APO). It seems that it is not working. He asked how the Council wants
the committee to respond to that. The committee has talked to the assessor.
There are anomalies in the way the tax code is implemented in the county. They've
also been talking about the right -to -farm laws in the county. The committee can
work on that. He asked the Council to think about how the committee can help and
respond to the Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 1
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The committee spent 300 hours over a year on the conditional use issues.
There has been good input from the farm community on those issues. The
committee provides a valuable asset. They are there to be of assistance to the
Council.
McShane asked why the APO is not working. Antholt stated there is one
situation on Smith Road. A cluster development was put together. The covenants
of the homeowners' association overwhelmed the intention of the Comprehensive
Plan. The owner of the land was willing to sell to a nursery owner, who wanted to
expand his nursery. The nursery owner couldn't expand because of the covenants.
Olason stated that was one specific case of a person trying to use the reserve
parcel for agriculture. He will analyze the rural parcelization to see how many of
the remainder parcels are farmable. Another problem with the APO is that it isn't
dependent upon active farming activities. It is based on the open space tax
designation and soils criteria. They can't count on it to protect the agricultural
resource base. When they determine how much land they need to maintain to
preserve the industry, they have to rely on rural lands to make up the difference
between what is zoned for agriculture and what is farmed. There are 110,000
acres that have agricultural practices. The total of what is farmed in the
agricultural zone is about 67,000 acres. To come up with the 110,000 acres, they
have to go elsewhere to find it. A lot of those other areas are remote, industrial, or
urban. The only long -term source for farmland is rural. The committee wants to
protect the agricultural land that is in rural zoning. Find lots with big enough
acreage to be worthwhile, such as at least 100 acres, to be feasible for commercial
agriculture.
Antholt stated value -added agriculture, such as organic farming, can operate
at a different scale.
Fleetwood asked if the conclusion that the APO wasn't working was based on
that one example. Antholt stated they've heard rumors of other cases, but that
was the first actual case.
Olason stated the situation is a 15 -acre parcel with a $250,000 house on it.
The land becomes unaffordable to lease, and the homeowner doesn't want an
agricultural use near the house. It becomes a hobby farm. For high value crops,
five acres may be okay, but that land base is already there. The parcels with larger
acreages are diminishing.
Nelson stated an issue is defining commercial agriculture. He asked if
commercial agriculture would include someone who works part time at it. Antholt
stated about 300,000 U.S. farmers provide 85 percent of the agricultural gross
national product. Eighty five percent of those 300,000 farmers have a spouse
working off the farm. The biggest and most productive farms in the country
depend in part on income from off the farm.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Olason stated they look at the land base. If they have the land base, the
changing agricultural climate can make it viable or not viable. If they don't have
the land base, they lose that option. Farms having over $100,000 in gross receipts
were about 25 percent of the farms. Farms with under $10,000 in gross receipts
were about 50 percent of the farms. There are about 700 fulltime farmers out of
1,300 farmers total. In general, they have a few people who manage the bulk of
the land and make the bulk of the money. When they run out of commercial
farming is when they have five -acre lots in agriculture /open space tax designation
doesn't produce anything.
The committee has chosen a list of things they have to do and can do.
Beginning the process of developing a purchase of development rights (PDR) is one
thing. This work plan takes those issues and programs them out over three years.
The proposal looks at impacts of conversion, which affects schools, county budgets,
and other things. The proposal is to also look at impacts of a reduced land base on
agriculture sustainability in Whatcom County. A number of these things aren't
going to be done by the committee and aren't just for agriculture. It proposes a
more stable approach to dealing with land use matters.
He submitted the three -year plan (on file). The first thing is the Purchase of
Development Rights program. The committee will receive a draft from the
consultant soon. They have to figure out how to deal with implementation of the
program.
The committee is working on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
committee helped the staff with it. They will also look at the Sumas urban growth
area (UGA) amendment and the Parks Department amendment.
The committee hopes to have a draft Agriculture Mitigation Plan this fall.
There are limited agricultural resources. If there is a legitimate proposal that will
take away farmland, they have to address the loss in farmland. They want a
program that maintains the agricultural base. They've looked at models from other
parts of the country. There aren't a lot of models out there. That program will
require implementation in some form.
There is a series of studies the committee will work on. They are working
with the American Farmland Trust (AFT) on a mapping project. He had preferred to
do the project in- house, but they are now working on it with the University of
Massachusetts over the phone. It was a pilot project from AFT, who gave the
County a great deal. When they get the map, it will show a projection of land
development patterns that they will see over time. The County provided the
contractor building permit information so they can look at where things are
developing.
Antholt stated they put up $25,000 of their own money to do this. They are
going to run simulations on it.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 3
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Olason stated it would be helpful to work with. It may tie into other studies.
They are working with the Port of Bellingham on the Economic Profile of the
agricultural sector. The Economic Impact Analysis of the agricultural sector is
another study that will look at impacts on the County budget. This is part of the
Port's overall study. He wanted to make sure they looked at agriculture.
Antholt stated one study is on the physical impacts and one is on the
economic impact to the County's budget.
Olason stated the simulation model will give them an opportunity to develop
a model to determine costs. The Port also funds it. Farms pay more taxes than
they use in terms of services. The study will look at the costs of conversion based
on taking land out of production. They will use that information to encourage
better planning in the UGA's and working with the cities so they can have a transfer
of development rights (TDR) program that will help offload some density.
The Rural Parcel Study is another project they are working on in- house. The
staff is updating the parcel layer. One problem is that the Assessor maintains the
parcel, but it's not electronic. The geographic information system (GIS) base map
is never up -to -date. There is an existing base map they've used since 1996, which
they update periodically. The updates produce historical change information.
The County might want to consider the outreach project. Get a dialog going
between the cities and the County regarding the concept of UGA development,
particularly TDR receiving areas.
Rural lands are the in- between lands between resource lands and urban
growth lands. Rural lands didn't get the best evaluation back in the Comprehensive
Plan. A lot of things in rural lands could have been in agriculture lands, urban
growth areas, or forestry areas. The committee will look at things like resource
rural and secondary agricultural lands, which are areas that are still large enough to
do some good. The committee will also look at cluster development requirements
for rural lands, where there is a more concentrated development, so there isn't as
much problem with the five -acre parcels spread across rural areas. They looked at
the cluster design ordinance. There aren't design standards, which is an internal
problem. The committee looked at Title 21 gift exemptions. The amount of gift
exemptions and development that has occurred is important to know. It is a way to
divide property without much review.
McShane asked if the issue of gift exemptions is being driven from the
committee or from staff. Olason stated everything that impacts rural will indirectly
impact agriculture. The PDR Committee had to questioned whether it should focus
exclusively on rural lands because it is immediately convertible, or try to buffer
agricultural land from UGA expansion. The gift expansion divides twenty acres into
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
four five -acre parcels in five minutes. They need to look at if they are going to
retain parcels.
McShane stated the Finance Committee might be discussing budget issues as
well. Olason stated the parcel study would hopefully provide information on what
the development pattern will look at.
A lot of what the committee is talking about in the context of a fiscal
program is to figure out ways to develop that are cost effective. A couple of areas
are important. The development impact issue keeps coming up. Urban service
providers, such as schools, are struggling because the only source of income is
from residential properties.
Another question the committee faces is that of open space taxation. There
are properties that have a marginal amount of farm value and are being subsidized.
The Assessor says the average is $800 for five acres that is written off annually for
the open space tax credit. One question is whether that development pattern
meets the Comprehensive Plan policy goals and objectives. Another question is
whether the County is rewarding people for not doing that, and if the County is
receiving any benefit for the tax break.
Nelson stated he would like to see this issue discussed sooner. He
questioned why they are giving tax exemptions to people with five or ten acres. If
they want to curtail this type of development, then don't provide the exemption.
There is a point where the County can have a secondary agricultural protection, but
they have to assess that carefully.
Olason stated they are looking at the work program today with the idea that
studies completed by the fall will be helpful to analyze rural lands. He showed
drawings (on file) of the rural parcel update of the Grandview area and the Smith
Road /Hannegan Road area, since 1995. These areas are very parcelized. In the
Grandview area, 84 percent of the parcels cannot be further subdivided. It's hard
to find the farms in that area. However, many of the parcels are receiving the
agricultural /open space tax break.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason continued to state that the average parcel size in the Smith
Road /Hannegan Road area is 6.8 acres. In addition, accessory dwellings are
allowed in this area. There are Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerns here also.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated a cluster subdivision can't
be done as quickly as a gift exemption. A gift exemption can be done for no charge
in five minutes. That's why the County doesn't see clusters anymore. There is a
disincentive to cluster.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Olason stated the 20 -acre parcels are what can be divided quickly. Through
the process of looking at the rural areas, they want to decide whether there are any
areas remaining that they should protect and whether they want to have
permanence in the agriculture and rural zoning.
Roy asked if these two areas are samples of what is happening throughout
the county. Olason stated the area at Grandview Road is an extreme case, but not
that much compared to other areas.
McShane stated the work plan looks good. All the projects make sense and
tie together.
Nelson stated it's been said that just preserving land won't preserve
agriculture in the community. A significant issue is going to be water rights. The
committee needs to evaluate what they need to keep agriculture functioning. He
asked if discussing impact fees is something that the administration proposes.
Olason stated it is coming strictly from the advisory committee. They are looking at
subsidizing costs. If they want to discourage development, they shouldn't subsidize
the costs.
Nelson stated they need to understand what they are trying to accomplish
with impact fees, what the current costs are, and what they currently take.
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recently discussed the
Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and how to fund some of these
proposals. The Commission will recommend that the County begin to look seriously
at impact fees. The staff has had several discussions with the administration about
balancing the County's budget. Impact fees keep coming up as an option,
particularly transportation impact fees. The Mount Baker, Nooksack Valley, and
Meridian school districts are really suffering from lack of revenues. Impact fees
could help out with that.
Antholt stated that, regarding water, they would all put water issues at the
top of the priority list. However, they have to address what they can have an
impact on. A lot of the water issues are State and federal jurisdiction.
McShane stated the County Council needs to play a major role in water
issues. Without the County participating to make sure there is water for farmers,
agricultural uses will lose water. It competes with a group of people who are not
cohesive and who are working in different fields, versus municipal corporations that
put a lot of money and time into it.
Roy asked if the committee has a sense of direction resulting from this
conversation, or if they need further discussion. Antholt stated both are true. The
issue of open space taxes and defining agriculture is important.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated every issue on the list is important. She asked how the volunteer
committee gets the work in the plan done. Antholt stated it doesn't. It causes the
work to be done by others.
Olason stated they would engage as many agencies as possible. That is an
example of how much people are behind these issues.
McShane stated he questioned whether there is the political will to get these
things done. He suggested that the committee talks to the councilmembers
individually to see if there is support, as the items come forward.
Olason stated they would outreach to the cities to get them engaged in
TDR's.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated there is a pattern
of development that concerns him. The issue is preservation of agricultural land. It
is a concern because of development taking place in that area. The BIA would like
to be involved in discussions on impact fees and how to remedy the pattern of
development. The more isolated that people are, the higher the impact fees, and
the higher the cost of housing. BIA efforts are to promote affordable housing. The
cluster plan makes sense to him, and it would make sense to builders and
developers if they understand it. There is an education process for the builders that
the BIA can help with.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PROJECT (AB2002 -085)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he needs direction on
three items. The first is about instream flows. They have been spending time and
resources to collect scientific information to evaluate instream flows. The next part
is to take the science and create a management strategy for the entire water
resource inventory area (WRIA).
John Thompson, Resources Planner - Endangered Species Act (ESA), stated
the instream flow component has been technically focused. To gather data, they
worked with local fisheries folks to get information on flows and topography. A
computer model will model what sort of fish habitat would be at different flow
levels.
Instream flow analyses look at the minimum low flow. Here, they are looking
at an ecological flow regime, which is a minimum flow level, the amount of flow it
takes to maintain the channel and fish habitat, and the flow necessary for healthy
riparian zones. One extrapolation workshop is to discuss the data to determine the
most appropriate way to extrapolate data from one area to another area without
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
detailed data. From that workshop, there will be a technical paper providing those
recommendations. That leads to the second workshop, the instream flow selection
methodology symposium. It's not focused on technical data, but on making
management decisions from the data. The objective of the symposium is to discuss
technical, legal, and policy issues. They want to learn from others' experiences.
Members will brainstorm and offer solutions.
Nelson asked how they derived the panel participants. Thompson stated the
various participants in the watershed management project, including the Initiating
Governments, the Planning Unit, and caucus members, suggested them. They
opened it up to whomever they knew of that were qualified.
Nelson stated the selection of participants is excellent. He would like to see
County staff as representatives.
Roy stated the tribal representatives are not included in the technical or legal
panel discussions. Thompson stated there are representatives on the legal panel
from the two tribes. On the technical panel, they are focusing strictly on those who
have technical expertise.
The outcome of the workshop will not be a set of instream flows in the basin.
The outcome is to educate the community on what needs to be done. They are
going to turn this discussion into an issue paper or proposal on how to recommend
going about selecting flows. Typically, flow selection is focused on fisheries issues,
which will be a major emphasis. Other beneficial uses for instream flows include
the City of Bellingham's middle fork division. If they don't divert, then no water is
available for Lynden, the Public Utility District (PUD) 1, or for agricultural withdraw.
They are trying to set up a process to select flows. With the fish flows, they will
come up with a range of flows, one point being the optimum flow, that are ideal.
He encouraged the councilmembers to participate.
Fleetwood asked if the term "management decisions" refers to the process of
setting the flows. Thompson stated it refers to management options.
Fleetwood asked what happens when the management options and decisions
are made. Thompson stated instream flows are set for many streams in the basin.
Part of the technical evaluation includes looking at the flows they've been modeling
and comparing them to what the flows have already been set at. The selection
process allows them to evaluate the best flow regime for a stream. Then there is
an opportunity to go to the State Department of Ecology (DOE) to reset the
established flows. It is a community -based negotiation to set instream flows
without going through adjudication.
Fleetwood asked if the State would be obligated to reset the flows. Roll
stated the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for plan development requires a
consensus of the governments. The County Council would ultimately approve the
plan. The instream flow process follows a similar process, which would obligate
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
DOE to go through the necessary rulemaking to establish new instream flows for
the basin. He's not sure about the relationship between the Council's engagement
on the instream flow component. The plan goes through the Council. If there is
plan approval, DOE is obligated in the RCW to go through the process and make the
changes.
McShane asked if they considered including the Bureau of Reclamation.
Thompson stated they discussed it, but he wasn't sure they were available. He will
invite them.
McShane stated they are a neutral organization with water expertise.
John Sproul, Program Specialist - Watershed, stated there are three action
items for which the staff needs a decision. The first item is the Utah State
University (USU) surface water quantity report. It is a batch of four reports. They
are all to integrate with the other elements of the phase II deliverables. This is the
first batch of the phase II reports that have reached this stage. The background
work for phase II leads to development and integration of the models for the
decision - support system and related work. The Water Quantity Technical Team
recommends approval as the final product.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Sproul continued to state that the four water quantity deliverables
complement one another. The first is USU's technical assessment, which looked at
all the stream flow gauges, identified what information is available, and how to best
use it in the context of watershed planning. The next deliverable was the estimate
of long -term mean monthly runoff. That estimate was a component of the third
deliverable, which was estimation of surface water quantity for the water balance.
The fourth deliverable was to determine how to best utilize that existing information
to address watershed management concerns. They looked at decision - support
system questions and made recommendations for some specific models.
Fleetwood asked for an explanation of "estimation of long -term mean
monthly runoff for the water balance calculation." Sproul stated it is the amount of
water flowing off a particular surface - delineated area. The second deliverable looks
at the mean monthly runoff for all 181 drainages. The modeling exercise for
surface water quantity will be drainage -by- drainage.
Roy asked if the model is based on sampling. Sproul stated the very first
deliverable refers to the assessment of stream flow. It looks at actual stream
gauges. It is the data that the runoff estimates were built upon.
McShane stated one way to describe it is that it's a model to predict runoff
based on the amount of precipitation in an area and the land use. In some
instances, they actually measure the amount to see how well the model is working.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Sproul stated it's important to know that management decisions include
relative comparisons where they recognize data limitations. They will pursue long-
term data collection efforts that can populate this modeling exercise. When using
comparison analysis, they will have statistical inferences to let them know a range
of defensibility. They've attempted to have the decision support system visual, so
the user can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the data throughout the
different components.
Nelson asked if New Zealand is the only area that has applied this model
system. Sproul stated it is not the only area. He doesn't know the details, but it is
a widely accepted model. They are adding detailed specifics to this model to make
it more applicable to this area. It is a widely accepted and highly recognized
model.
Roll stated the technical teams have made sure that the models used are out
of common literature and used commonly. One task in phase II is model selection.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council of the surface
water quantity deliverables one through four.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sproul stated the second item for approval is the Watershed Solutions
Subcommittee materials. One of the products of the WRIA process was an overall
scope of work. A part of that overall scope of work included process pieces. They
identified categories of criteria for looking at management solutions as they move
toward development of the plan. The outline of the criteria is already approved
through the final scope of work. The subcommittee worked on flushing it out. The
latest version of the effort is included in the Council packet. Parametrix will run a
test to see if it works, refine it, and then recommend working criteria. This is a
draft that will be revised. The second piece that accompanies that includes the
criteria for applying it.
Nelson stated this is the most important thing that needs to be developed
correctly. He is concerned that the criteria are not weighted. Sproul stated the
subcommittee felt they wanted to get the draft out to the participants to work over.
They did not want to weight one over the other at this stage. This is a first step.
The next step is for Parametrix to apply draft criteria to management solution
options to see how it works. The Planning Unit caucuses would then address these
concerns.
Roll stated this is the first draft. The goal is to move it forward to refine it if
the group has problems with it. Councilmember Nelson's concern is a good
recommendation for the group to work on. The goal is to get incremental buy -in.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated the process makes sense if they are working for consensus. If
they put too much weight on the criteria in the beginning, they will not achieve
consensus. Eventually, they will need the weights.
Sproul stated the subcommittee had this same conversation.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the draft proposed general
evaluation criteria for proposed watershed solutions and the proposed process and
protocol for application of general evaluation criteria.
Nelson stated he needs to know the next step in the process. He asked how
they are going to support the decisions. Sproul stated the information is in element
five on Council packet page 30. The criteria will act as a general guide while the
consultant will provide more detailed versions of their criteria and specify data sets,
which are needed for performing evaluations. The Parametrix scope of work lays
out the timetable explicitly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sproul stated Dr. Roll would talk about the last item needing approval.
Roll stated the process has been successful because they have separated
issues from positions. They spend most of their time and energy addressing the
issues, and then craft solutions. The process and procedural document that they all
approved talks about how they operate in the decision - making process. They
agreed not to tag comments to a specific caucus in the meeting summaries. There
is a desire by one or two caucuses to identify those comments. At any decision
point, the summaries recognize who is in support and who is not in support of an
option.
Also, the Council was concerned about making sure the group agreed that
the summaries represent actually what transpired. At the beginning of every
meeting, there was approval of the previous meeting's summary. The purpose of
making comments more generic is to keep the issues on the table. Staff
recommends keeping the format the way it is in the summaries so people are
allowed to speak freely. Decision points are documented, and people know who is
voting for what. In this case, they are looking for the desire of the Planning Unit to
stay with the status quo or to make the change. The water utilities caucus
proposed this.
McShane stated he preferred the staff's recommendation to keep it as it is.
The group has held together this long and has gotten a lot of work done. The
County's role is facilitative in addition to technical. He would defer to the
recommendation of the County technical staff.
Nelson asked the caucus's concern. Role stated certain caucuses desire to
know who said what.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council that the comments in the
WRIA 1 Planning Unit summaries continue in the same format as previously
identified.
Fleetwood stated they are talking about how the group works and interact
best together. The group should make that decision on how best they work.
McShane stated the County is part of that group.
Nelson asked if the summaries are legal documents. Roll stated they are
available for public disclosure. He didn't know how they fit into the definition of a
legal document.
Nelson asked if the documents being legal documents is a concern of the
caucus. Roll state that hasn't been expressed. There is a published list of
representatives for each caucus.
Fleetwood stated it is a public process, so there shouldn't be any privacy
concern. That shouldn't be a concern.
Roy stated she supported the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/26/2002, Page 12