HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 8 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
October 8, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, CAPITAL FACILITIES CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AB2002 -084V)
Crawford asked if this is the first time the Council has looked at this.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated this is the first time the Council has
looked at it this year.
Crawford stated they are always expanding the six -year window one year at
a time. Aamot stated it is updated every two years.
Brenner stated she wanted to hear the thoughts of the planning
commissioners. This document is extensive.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the amount of parkland the County has currently
includes undeveloped parkland.
Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Department Director, indicated that is
correct.
Brenner asked if they are supposed to determine the amount of developed
useable parkland per person. Undeveloped parkland is not useable.
DeSpain stated there is not a lot of parkland that can't be accessed. During
certain times of the year, a few parklands can't be accessed. Most of the developed
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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.
parkland is for those who use the facility, and the undeveloped is there to develop
when the population gets to that point when they need to develop more. They
can't develop them all at the same time.
Brenner asked if there is enough developed parkland for the population right
now. Aamot stated the County will need an additional 221 acres by the year 2008.
Projects would add 225 acres.
Brenner stated some of the existing parks are not real accessible. She asked
if the County has, right now, the supply of developed parkland for the population.
DeSpain stated they are a little under the necessary amount right now.
Brenner asked if developed parklands are fairly easily accessible parklands.
DeSpain stated they are.
Brenner asked if they've done a lot with the north Lake Whatcom property.
DeSpain stated a trail is there now on 240 acres. They only have the trailhead
there now. He hopes to develop that park into a more extensive park in the future.
Brenner asked about the levies referenced on Council packet page 138.
DeSpain stated those would be future levies that they historically use to fund park
development. They would only do the levy when everyone knows that a levy is
timely and would work. The Council would have to agree to the levy.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County is not allowed to include city parks in
the acreage count for the county. DeSpain stated that is correct.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a trend in King County is to turn parks back over to
the local areas. She asked if this is a trend that Whatcom County would get into.
DeSpain stated he it is. As a city annexes property, the city needs to take over
those properties.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would have to keep increasing its
parkland as a city takes over parkland areas that it would annex. DeSpain stated
he didn't know about that. As the cities grow, those responsibilities become the
cities' responsibilities. There is some discussion of developing a metropolitan park
district. Other regions have done similar things.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they try to balance the locations of the parklands.
She's not near any parks, and she lives in the central part of the county. DeSpain
stated they've tried to find a decent property in the middle of the county. They've
concentrated on salt and freshwater access before those are gone. After that, they
will concentrate on the central parts of the county.
Brenner stated she would like the population and projected growth
information included in the relevant sections. Aamot stated that information is
included, but he could include it in each section it is referenced. A county
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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.
population projection study was done in May, which developed the high, medium,
and low population growth projections. The numbers in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) are the medium projection. Next year, the County Council will be
asked to approve official population projections over the 20 -year planning period.
These population projections could change at that point. The County and cities
hired a consultant to prepare population projects. They don't exactly match the
Office of Financial Management (OFM) numbers.
Brenner asked that all projection rates be included. She may want to
support the low or high projections instead. She's not sure that they have to stay
with .41 square feet of parkland per person. She asked when they would look at
that amount. Aamot stated they can look at that when the master facility plan is
finished next year. There will be data on that. They can reevaluate the level of
service established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner asked about Council packet page 146 regarding government office
spaces. It looks like the amount of office space is a net decrease. Aamot stated
that if those spaces were improved, there would be a net increase in office space.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that if the County got rid of
several small buildings and moved to one larger building, there would be a net
increase.
Brenner asked about space serving only the unincorporated area. The
courthouse and the civic center serve all people. Desler stated many of the
services that the County provides serve the entire population of the county. The
exceptions are some of the Public Works operations, Planning and Development
Services, and the Hearing Examiner. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
the County to designate space that specifically serves unincorporated areas.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 149, the bottom paragraph. She
stated she has a problem with it. The County should not be doing all of these
Sheriff's Office improvements until they have some of the answers from the Master
Facility Plan. The Council has said many times that it wants satellite stations. The
County should diversify, instead of moving the Sheriff's Office from one place to
another. The County needs to determine where it needs those satellite stations.
Put them where they are needed, not necessarily where the jail is located. Desler
stated the administration supports satellite stations. The Sheriff has not been
supportive, other than in certain circumstances. The material about location can
come out in the master planning process because they can decide where to place
people most effectively. If a separate building is constructed at some point in the
future to house criminal justice operations, it may well include a jail, some courts,
and possibly Sheriff's Office facilities.
Brenner stated there is no place that the jail would be more efficient or
accepted than the downtown area. People are nervous about where the County
government is going to stick criminals. Don't keep the public in suspense. She
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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
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.
doesn't know why they would ever put a jail anywhere other than where it is now.
The Council needs to have that discussion before it adopts something like this.
Roy asked whether the councilmembers could make amendments to this
document.
Brenner stated she would prefer to give concerns to the administration. She
has no intention of approving this tonight. She wants there to be strong support
for satellite stations, keeping the jail facilities where they are now, and some other
things.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the paragraph on page 149 is ambiguous. She
hopes the consultants they've hired will come forward with recommendations.
She's not sure what she is supporting if she approves this paragraph as written.
Desler stated this is a series of recommendations from Planning staff and the
Planning Commission. The Council can make changes.
Brenner asked what kind of discussion was held at the Planning Commission,
and why the Planning Commission minutes are not in the packet. Aamot stated the
Planning Commission felt it didn't have the background financial information for the
County. However, they did vote for this.
Crawford stated the Planning Commission generally has a focus on land use
issues. Locating future facilities could be a land use issue, but the Planning
Commission generally accepts what the staff recommends for financial matters
because there is no point of reference. There are certain issues they deal with
effectively. Other issues, such as facilities planning, are more under the purview of
the Council.
Desler stated the County is being cautious about moving forward with major
facility needs decisions until they finish some more detailed analysis work that the
Council already authorized. At that point, there will be many opportunities for
discussion with the County Council and the community.
Brenner asked why the Council can't adopt the six -year Capital Improvement
Plan as status quo until it gets the information it needs. It seems like they are
doing the same thing over and over. The councilmembers don't have the
information they need to make these decisions right now. Aamot stated this is a
GMA requirement, but staff is trying to communicate that there are other processes
going on that may modify this recommendation in time.
Brenner stated she doesn't remember deciding on a consolidated services
building at the Smith Road and Northwest Road intersection. Aamot stated it is
listed in past CIPs.
Brenner stated it works its way in the plan incrementally, rather than the
County Council making a commitment to do it. That is what is happening with
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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
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.
every little bit of new language. This plan is getting a life of its own. She was
never clear that they'd made a commitment to a consolidated services building.
They've talked about it before conceptually. The Council did make a commitment
to develop satellite stations, which are not in the plan.
The plan includes a consolidated services building at the Smith and
Northwest Road interstection, but there is nothing in the transportation section
about road improvements at the Smith and Northwest intersection. This plan
seems disjointed. Aamot stated there would be mitigation associated with
developing a consolidated services building at that location. They haven't got to
the point of determining what that mitigation would be. This is a six -year plan.
Brenner stated it's not even mentioned. She referenced Council packet page
158. This page is where there should be the improvements to the Smith and
Northwest road intersection. They haven't anticipated the improvements they will
need to make for a consolidated services building.
Caskey- Schreiber stated three priority road projects are listed on Council
packet page 158, one of which is the Whatcom Connector. The Whatcom
Connector is last on the Council's priority list of 67 projects. Aamot stated staff is
highlighting the proposed new road projects. Everything else in the six -year plan is
to improve or widen roads. Out of all the projects, there are only three new roads.
There are preliminary engineering studies for these roads. They won't necessarily
be built within six years.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the commitment that the County is making by
including these three roads in this plan. Aamot stated the commitment would be
consistent with the six -year transportation improvement plan (TIP), which is a plan
to do studies on these projects to see if they are feasible within the six -year
planning period.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that, the way these roads are written in the plan,
one can't tell that they are prioritized. Aamot stated staff can include the priority
number.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that would make her feel better. the Whatcom
Connector is the last road on the six -year TIP, so it doesn't necessarily merit being
identified in the transportation chapter. Desler stated staff is only trying to make it
consistent with the six -year TIP. In the TIP, they talked about doing the
engineering work associated with the Whatcom Connector. They are trying to make
the County documents internally consistent. It doesn't mean that the County is
going to build it. All it means is that the County will do some engineering work
associated with project feasibility at some point in the next six years, which is
consistent with what the County Council already approved.
(Clerks' Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the language in the CIP is not clear that this is a low
priority.
McShane stated the difficulty here is comparing the six -year TIP to what
actually happens within that six -year time frame. If a project is below a certain
level on the priority list, then nothing will happen on the project at all. That is not
clear in the CIP, although it is the financial reality. He suggested that other
language be added to make it clearer. The Council should look far into the future,
so it's good to have the Whatcom Connector in the CIP.
Brenner suggested language on Council packet page 158, "...The three
proposed new road projects for consideration are:"
Nelson stated these are the three road projects that have received
considerable public opinion in the past 15 years. The Council can't answer the
public in any intelligent manner until they have done some engineering.
Brenner asked that staff change the language on Council packet page 158 so
it's clearer that these new roads are not approved.
Brenner referenced the level of service for the Lummi Island Ferry. She
asked why they would change the level of service before they know what they need
out there. Aamot stated staff is withdrawing that request on Council packet pages
159 -160.
Brenner stated she is not comfortable moving in the direction they are going
with the Sheriff's Office facilities and Civic Center building. She didn't vote for the
master facilities planning. Since the money is being spent on it, the County should
wait for the final recommendation before it does anything with the Civic Center
building. She asked if they are deciding to move the County seat to the Smith and
Northwest Road location. That looks like the direction in which the County is going.
Nelson asked if there is a specific site in place yet for capital facility
implementation. Desler stated there is not.
Brenner stated this is premature. She asked why they don't say that the
County will continue status quo until it hears from the consultant. Desler stated
that is what this plan says.
Brenner stated things have been added to this plan. Desler stated the plan
includes language that makes it clear that recommendations from the master
facilities plan, Law and Justice Council, and County's Essential Public Facilities
Advisory Committee will guide the siting, size, and program elements of proposed
new corrections facilities. The Council can use that same language for anything
else in the plan.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 6
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.
1 Brenner stated the Council should say that for everything, and not make any
2 changes. Desler stated there are changes that guide the capital facilities. The
3 County anticipates costs for existing facilities. They are dealing with the problem of
4 system control in the jail, for example. That needs to be in the plan.
5
6 Nelson stated the total costs are listed on Council packet page 161. One
7 category is for new structures. He's asked earlier if there are any new capital
8 facility structures with specific sites, and the response was that there was not.
9 However, the total costs include specific funding for sites that they have not yet
10 chosen. The sites are specifically identified on the map in the plan on Council
11 packet page 171. The consolidated service building is identified on Northwest and
12 Smith Road. Desler stated the administration is adjusting the previous versions of
13 the Capital Improvement Plan.
14
15 Nelson asked if the administration wants to be locked into the Northwest and
16 Smith Road site for the consolidated services building. Desler stated it does not
17 want to be locked in, but it is an option. They are talking about it in general
18 because the Council has talked about it generally in the past.
19
20 Nelson stated he doubts that they will see any of these projects completed in
21 the near future. The study will evaluate what is most cost effective for the County.
22
23 Brenner stated the problem is that things start off as placeholders. Down the
24 road, they become approved projects. She would like to start making decisions
25 about where the County wants facilities before it gets into the plans.
26
27 Nelson stated that they may need a certain budget and outline for the plan
28 before they pick a site location.
29
30 Brenner stated the administration is spending $350,000 on master facilities
31 planning. She asked why the County is doing this at all until it receives the
32 information from the master facilities planning process.
33
34 Roy asked if there is a happy medium between needing to meet the
35 requirements of the law by having a six -year comprehensive plan and putting such
36 specific information in the plan that implies the decisions have been made. Desler
37 stated he doesn't prefer to use this particular format, but they are trying to comply
38 with State law. The County is in a process to generate the information and options
39 that allow the Council to make specific decisions on how the County approaches its
40 capital facilities and programs in the future.
41
42 Aamot stated the GMA, in Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
43 36.70A.070(3), talks about having a capital facility element in the Comprehensive
44 Plan. That element is supposed to show proposed locations and capacities of
45 expanded or new capital facilities. Council packet page 135 talks about master
46 facility planning and that it may result in significant changes to future six -year CIPs.
47 Staff could add in there "and locations of proposed buildings."
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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.
Brenner stated the language in the RCW doesn't mean the County has to
know the specific location. The County has to have proposed ideas. If the County
is not committed to a specific location, it should not be in the CIP. She keeps
hearing that the GMA act is the reason for doing so many things. The GMA can be
interpreted in many ways. Desler stated the Council can take the specific location
out of the plan.
Brenner moved that the specified location for the consolidated services
building be removed from the Capital Improvement Plan update.
Crawford stated he is opposed. The Council has identified or suggested this
location for a long time. The County does not own property in any other
developable area where it can do this without purchasing new land. Taking the
location out of the plan is a step backwards. The idea that they need to consolidate
facilities doesn't make sense or seem efficient.
Brenner stated that's a good point, but the courthouse was built so more
floors could be added to it. The County may decide to build up from the courthouse
instead of build new buildings. It's not consolidated when there are County offices
around the county.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her reservation with this is that the County just
hired people for $350,000 to come up with some ideas about how and where the
County should grow, and here they are already projecting that out. The point of
the study was for the consultant to figure out what is best for the County. This
paragraph should have a statement making it clear that the locations depend on
the outcome of the master facilities plan.
Brenner amended her motion that they take out any language about a
location for the consolidated services building, and put in language that the County
will determine the location pending the outcome of the master facilities plan.
Desler stated language in the Master Facilities Planning section of this plan
makes it clear that the result of the planning effort may result in significant changes
to the six -year CIP. Earlier versions of the six -year CIP specified the possible
location of a consolidated services building at the Northwest and Smith Road
campus.
Brenner amended her motion again to amend language on page 135 so that
they take out any language about a location for the consolidated services building,
and put in language that the County will determine the location pending the
outcome of the master facilities plan and receipt of input from the public.
Nelson stated they should not lock themselves into a particular property right
now. They should keep their minds open, but they should also identify for the
public that they are beginning this process.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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.
Brenner stated she wanted to tell the master facilities planning consultants
that they ought to make the jail work right where it is.
In addition, she objects to the North Lake Whatcom Trail being named after
Ken Hertz. He's not an historical figure. This was a political favor. They could
have named it for a pioneer of that area. None of the other existing trails are
named after someone because of a political favor.
Brenner restated her motion to amend language on page 135 so that they
take out any language about a location for the consolidated services building, and
put in language that the County will determine the location pending the outcome of
the master facilities plan and receipt of public input.
Brenner amended her motion to amend the Consolidated Services Building
section on Council packet page 135, "One of the proposed projects in this six -year
Capital Improvement Program is a t-4e consolidated services building, that weUld
located at, the carnpus at the corner of the Smith Read and Northwest Drove in a
location yet to be determined after recommendations from the master facilities
planning process and public input are received. This building would provide...." In
addition, the location for the consolidated services building would be removed from
the maps and anywhere else in the plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated the document references, in several locations, a $5 million
anticipated expenditure for the consolidated services building. He asked if the
intent is to also remove that reference. The outcome of the master facilities
planning study will provide the County with some ideas and options that the Council
can move forward on. There isn't any harm in saying that the County needs to look
to the future if there are going to be significant expenses, for which funding is yet
to be determined.
Brenner asked where the County is going to get the money for the
consolidated building and the jail. Desler stated the real estate excise tax can be
used for capital facilities work. The County collects money from the public facilities
tax rebate. The County can also do a bond or seek voter approval for certain
levies. Every ten years, the County needs to reexamine where it is going with
facilities, and then it does some significant things. They are at that point.
Crawford stated it makes sense to leave the funding amounts in.
Brenner asked when the master facilities plan is to be done. Desler stated it
should be done in ten or eleven months. Then there will be an active effort in
getting the community involved in the choices. The Council will probably direct the
administration to move forward on certain projects.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, 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
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 she has a difficult time separating facilities from programs. How
the County delivers its services to the public should dictate where the facilities are
located. She's concerned that they tie it together. Desler stated that is how the
process will be done.
Brenner moved to hold this item in committee for two weeks for more
discussion.
Aamot asked if they would bring up the issue of the satellite stations in two
weeks.
Brenner stated she would. She asked councilmembers to submit their
comments on the plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 10/8/2002, Page 10