HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works June 12 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
June 12, 2001
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.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTHWEST
AIR POLLUTION AUTHORITY (NWAPA) AND WHATCOM, SKAGIT, AND
ISLAND COUNTIES FOR AN OUTDOOR FIRE PERMIT WARDEN
(AB2001 -164A)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Council passed an
agreement with the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA). Today, the
committee must discuss the extent to which the County develops a response to the
NWAPA agreement. Until now, Whatcom County and NWAPA worked with fire
wardens who are state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employees. The
state, through DNR, has withdrawn that kind of staff support. The County is left
with a choice of whether or not it wants to try to maintain a fire permitting system.
If not, the choice would limit the citizens' ability to burn to no more than eight days
per year. The administration is concerned about leaving the County with an
unfunded responsibility to carry that activity forward. Today, they want to talk
about who has which roles and responsibilities, if the Council wants to move
forward with a permitting responsibility, and at what level they would want to do
that.
The administration reluctantly recommends moving forward with a limited
permitting activity in conjunction with as much support as they can get from fire
departments and NWAPA.
Brenner suggested assigning these duties to the fire districts, and paying the
districts a percentage. The fire districts have a responsibility. This is what they do.
She didn't like the idea of the County hiring someone. She would rather let the fire
districts do it.
Warner Webb, Deputy Fire Marshal, stated the problem is that at least 75
percent of the stations have no personnel. It is mostly a volunteer system. Many
of the current fire districts have paid personnel that are administrators and are not
in the office much. He would hesitate to ask the fire districts to be a part of the
permitting process because of the issue of interpretation of the law. Also, the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
48
question is whether it is a public service to send someone to an unmanned station,
where he or she may not be able to get a permit, which may slow down the
development of a project. Regarding the districts that currently do their own
permitting, the County gets quite a few phone calls from the public, who are
frustrated at trying to obtain a permit from those districts.
Brenner stated these guys are charged with fighting fires, which is a higher
priority. The County has confidence in the fire districts to fight fires. Permitting
isn't that difficult. The fire district personnel would not have to know much. Webb
stated there are many laws in the Unified Fire Code and the Clean Air Act. Fire
districts will say that 75 to 90 percent of the calls they go on are more of a smoke -
refereeing situation than a fire suppression situation.
Dawson stated it was also mentioned that this would get fire districts
involved in neighborhood conflicts. However, that is not true. The district
personnel would be like a police officer who gets to know the people and learns how
to communicate with the people. It sounds like the County has not even discussed
the idea with the fire districts. Webb stated he discussed the issue with the
president of the Fire Chiefs Association, Mike Campbell. Mr. Campbell, from the
Point Roberts district, currently writes his own permits. However, Mr. Campbell is
getting feedback from other fire chiefs that they don't want to do that because of
the coordination it would take to do that. Permitting falls under the County's
jurisdiction because the state has made it clear that the authority having
jurisdiction is the fire marshal's office, which is the office that ought to be
permitting.
Dawson stated she would understand that if they were unpaid. However, the
County can use the money to compensate them for their time, based on the
number of permits issued. Webb stated the Clean Air Act allows the fire districts to
charge a fee for their cost. The funding mechanism is already there. However, the
fees and the interpretations of the law could vary greatly from one district to
another. The citizens will question what each person is and is not allowed to do.
McShane stated another option is to just allow the eight -day rule burn. He
asked about the downside of that option. Webb stated the cities of Bellingham,
Lynden, and Ferndale and their urban growth areas (UGA's) have an open burn
ban. He's received many phone calls about it. The eight -day rule ban would
hamper development, and people's opinion is that it is their property right to
dispose of materials that way. There would be many people left trying to answer
the question of why that decision was made.
McShane asked where the eight -day rule burn came from. Webb stated the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) says that if a County with a population of
50,000 or more does not have a permitting program in place that is approved by
the state Department of Ecology, then the county has to have the rule burn. The
rule burn allows people to burn on eight days in a year, four days in a row in March,
and four more days a few months later in August or September.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
48
McShane stated that, no matter what the County does, the DOE would have
to approve the County's agreement. Webb stated that is correct. According to the
WAC, the program has to be approved by NWAPA, as the representative of DOE. It
has to make sure it is an approved program to make sure the County is not writing
permits for unlawful activities. NWAPA would look at the County's program and
approve it.
McShane asked if NWAPA provides guidance. Webb stated there are specific
rules and regulations to be followed. The Uniform Fire Code deals with fire safety
rather than pollution issues.
Hoag stated the point of having a burn permit program is to allow developers
and builders to dispose of their materials in a way that has the least impact on
people in the area and the environment. An eight -day rule burn does not
accomplish those objectives. All that burning in a small amount of time affects the
air quality. Those episodes have a tremendous impact on people's health. From a
health standpoint, the rule burn is undesirable. From the standpoint of the
constituents, it is undesirable because they have to store that material. The Clean
Air Act will eventually not allow any burning. The transition to that requires
infrastructure and education. The current educational program has been great.
Webb stated NWAPA provides information on the alternatives to open
burning. Under the Clean Air Act, NWAPA is required to review those alternates
every three years before making any major changes to proceed on a total ban.
Right now, the next ban is in 2006 for the rest of the small cities and their urban
growth boundaries. Currently, cities with a population of 5,000 or more, including
the UGA, are banned from burning. Smaller cities and their UGA's will be banned
from burning in 2006. The County, in areas with a low population density, will still
be allowed to burn.
McShane asked how the fire districts would oversee this program. Webb
stated that is a question better asked of the fire districts. There would be many
inconsistencies between the districts. There would be enough inconsistencies so
that, compared to the current program that has reduced the number of complaints,
the program developed would not be as good. The number of complaints would go
back up because the fire districts would not have time to take care of them all.
Permitting would be an impact on the districts. Some districts don't have enough
people to respond to calls. Having the fire districts do the program would be more
of a hassle than what it is worth.
Hoag asked for an explanation of the revenue line item of billable revenue at
$200 per week. Webb stated that includes doing education or enforcement activity
that can be billed to NWAPA for the County's time and effort. All the time, the fire
marshal's office sees activity for which staff could stop and do that education effort,
but they just don't have the time now.
Hoag stated billing for recovery from NWAPA makes sense. The County has
the ability to set its permit fees at whatever they feel they need to recover costs.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
The County doesn't have to take a financial hit. Fees may encourage people to use
alternative methods. She doesn't want to hire a fulltime employee. A half -time
person is more appropriate. The fire districts are not geared up for people calling
them. They would have to set up a system. It is more efficient to have a person in
the County doing this. That is basically what they've been doing, with the person
from DNR.
Brenner stated the fire districts have volunteers and paid people. There is a
fire chief and administration. The fire districts that don't have staff have the option
of consolidating, which the County has been encouraging them to do. The districts
can bill the people for their cost. She only would support adding County employees
when there is no alternative. They have alternatives. The County will get to a
position in which it has less money to operate with. Once the County hires an
employee, the employee won't leave if the program goes away.
Hoag suggested setting it up as a pilot project.
Brenner stated she didn't support doing the program that way. She
supported the fire districts doing it. She found that the fire chiefs like being in
charge of what's going on, as long as there is money to go with it. Webb stated the
County has asked the fire districts to take this on. Three districts currently issue
their own burn permits. The rest of the districts are not interested. The laws are
currently written so that the districts can take over the burn program at any time.
The law has been that way for a long time. Districts five, three, and thirteen all
just voted to consolidate. Consolidation of the districts is happening; however, it
doesn't take away the fire marshal's responsibility to see that there is enforcement
for the County codes. He would love to see all the fire districts consolidate. There
are currently 18 fire chiefs in addition to the small cities. It is confusing. They
need one person to make the decision, or it will get uglier.
Hoag questioned whether the $24,000 coming in from permits would go
away if the fire districts took over the permitting. Webb stated the General fund
would take a hit of $24,000. The $24,000 has only been in the General fund for
one year.
Hoag stated the system works so well that others are holding it up as a
model. She urged the Committee to go with what is working.
Brenner moved to request that the administration work with fire districts to
set up a program locally that the fire districts would be in charge of. The revenue
from NWAPA would be divvied up between the fire districts for their costs.
Dawson stated she wanted to hear from the fire chiefs first.
Hoag stated DNR is pulling out by June 30, and the County needs to have an
ordinance in place.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
48
Desler stated an option is to let existing staff issue permits for a short time,
until the Council makes a decision. If the County decides to move forward with
issuing permits, then the County should have a modest ability to issue permits. If
the County wants to use the fire districts, then the County would use existing staff
to help make that happen. The County would lose the revenue, but the way the
budget is built, they would lose the revenue anyway.
Dawson stated she wanted to table the issue. She wanted to decide between
the options of hiring a half -time employee or going with the fire districts, based on
the recommendations of the fire districts.
McShane stated the fire districts are not the way to go. His concern is with
the cost to the County. The reason he is concerned about the cost to the County is
because of the cost to the citizens of the county. This may financially harm the
County, but they are the very same citizens from fire district to fire district who
could be hit hard with this. Within those fire districts are taxpayers to that fire
district. The only thing the County has done is the exact same thing the state has
done to the County by passing the responsibility along. There is money for it, but
he is not comfortable foisting that responsibility onto them when many of these
departments are made up of volunteers. They are lucky to have these volunteers
at all.
Brenner stated her concern is not with the cost. Her concern is with the
extra added costs related to hiring another County employee. The fire districts do
not have those same costs. The County has a lot of indirect costs to employees.
Districts don't have those costs. It is not the same amount of money.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
McShane moved to recommend a half -time position.
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
Dawson stated she would support Councilmember McShane's motion after
hearing from the fire districts. She moved to table the issue for two weeks until
they could talk to the fire chiefs. Based on the fire chiefs' responses, the County
could go ahead with approving a part time person.
Hoag stated the half -time employee would generate more revenue than it
would cost in its second year. It would not hurt the County's budget or services to
constituents.
Brenner stated her concern is not the budget amount, but the permanence of
a hired employee. She didn't like the idea that they are charging more than their
costs. She would not support it. Webb stated a few things are not funded, such as
the permit staff people who issue permits, computer programming, and other
things. There are a lot of amounts that don't show up and that the NWAPA and
DNR have calculated into their figures, and have made their costs quite high. There
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
47
are too many unknown costs that they haven't calculated yet. The County tried to
hit the mark as close as possible with the permit fees supporting the program.
When they compare the open burning to other programs, the County could certainly
increase the costs for the larger burns.
Brenner stated she is outraged that the state is dumping this on the County
and is trying to regulate the burns in a rural area. It should have more to do with
the size of the county. Webb stated there are three different regulations. DNR
leaving the program eliminates one of those three sets of regulations. When the
County takes over the program, it will have to set up a telephonic permit system for
a small, residential burn. The law preventing rural burns was passed in 1990, but
did not take affect until this year. DNR and NWAPA are not enforcing it.
Brenner restated the motion to table for two weeks to get input from all fire
districts.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MAY 13 VANDALISM AT GOOSEBERRY
POINT (AB2001 -190)
Brenner stated citizens want to know what the County is doing about the
incident.
Dustin Hurlbut, Chief Deputy, stated someone unknown damaged 15 vehicles
between midnight and 6 a.m. One vehicle was stolen from the scene. It was used
to do damage to the other vehicles. It was later found burned. The County is
investigating the incident jointly with the Lummi Tribal Police. They have developed
a person or persons of interest, though there is not enough probable cause to make
an arrest yet. They have spoken to one person of interest, and are seeking other
witnesses. The total damage was $2,000 to 14 vehicles, plus $6,000 worth of
damage to the vehicle burned. It was extensive vandalism.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated he hired a local
security firm for the parking lot between the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven days
per week. They are in the process of proposing parking area changes to tribal
representatives. This is an interim measure. Hopefully, they will have a contract
award before the County Council in July.
Brenner asked if the cost comes from the Road fund or the General fund.
Prieve stated the funding source was discussed in the Finance Committee. Right
now, the cost of security would cost $.42 per car on the ferry.
Brenner asked if they are looking at installing a fence. Prieve stated they are
working with the Lummi Island Transportation Committee. If they leave security in
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
48
place, they may not need fencing. The confidence level is increasing. Many more
people are parking at the area than did before the incident.
Brenner asked for information on the ongoing cost of security and cost of
fencing. If they are doing a long -term solution, fencing may turn out to be
cheaper. Prieve stated there is still a personnel issue to lock and unlock the fences.
Brenner suggested working something out with Lummi Law and Order.
3. UPDATE REGARDING THE BEACON BATTERY PROPERTY (AB2001-
191)
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor - Solid Waste Program,
stated that in 1990, the state Department of Ecology (DOE) conducted an
investigation of the site in response to a complaint. Sampling showed levels of lead
near cement pads outside of the battery receiving operation. The lead levels were
above standards. The site was added to the state's suspected and confirmed
contaminated site list in 1991, awaiting site hazard assessment. Since then,
improvements to the site include spill containment, a drainage collection system for
the shop runoff, installation of an acid - resistant storage tank, a acid - resistant
containment tub for after -hours battery drop -off, and addition to the asphalt of a
parking lot driveway. Improvements were done because of issues surrounding a
conditional use permit through the Planning and Development Services
Department. In 1997, the Health and Human Services Department performed soil
sampling at the site. They noted elevated lead levels near the Delta Line Road.
They performed additional sampling in 1999 through the new site hazard
assessment program. They noted elevated levels along the easement that leads to
the neighboring property. Based upon the historic site and sampling information,
the site was ranked according to the Washington State ranking method. It received
rank of five, the lowest rank that indicates a low potential for public health
exposure.
In April 2000, the state Department of Health (DOH) performed a draft
health assessment, and concluded that the site posed a low risk to the public's
health from contact to soil and drinking water from a well. The neighboring
property, the Seaman property, was added to the contaminated site list in July of
last year. The County performed a site hazard assessment in April 2001 and found
an elevated lead level in the surface water on the easement leading to the
neighboring property.
Brenner asked if the County had ever done sampling there before. Chesson
stated they had done soil sampling, but not surface water sampling. DOE took all
samples and re- ranked the site. It again received a rating of five. In July 2000,
DOE performed a hazardous waste site inspection and found no violations of the
state dangerous waste regulations in response to battery handling practices on the
site. In October 2000, the County responded to a complaint regarding handling of
used tires on the site. He found no violation of the state's solid waste regulations.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
Brenner asked if they know how elevated the samples are. Chesson stated
there is a broad range of samples. The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) level for
requiring clean up of the soil is 250 parts per million (ppm). Samples they've taken
range from 18 to 849 ppm.
Brenner asked when the 849 ppm sample was done. Chesson stated it was
taken in 1997. They have also done sampling for the site hazard assessment
program in 1999, and results ranged from 21 to 425 ppm. They also did some
drinking water sampling on wells. Limits were below the clean up levels. The most
recent sampling was for the drinking water well and noted a non - detect for lead.
The sample results ranged from 60 parts per billion (ppb) to 174 ppb, which are
below the MTCA levels. They recently took a sample of surface water. The surface
water quality regulation standard is 82 parts per billion, and the sample result was
263 parts per billion. The surface water result is over the standard.
Brenner questioned whether it is reasonable to assume the lead will get into
the water if they are getting recent sample results above standards. Chesson
stated they also deal with water pathways. During sampling, there wasn't much
water in the ditch. Lead would be more concentrated in less water. They have to
look at where the water is going and the risk of exposure. The highest result of the
first sample taken in 1997 was along the Delta Line Road.
Hoag asked where that water goes. Chesson stated it goes to Dakota Creek.
Mindy Miller, Environmental Health Specialist, stated they sampled the two
ditches on either side of Mr. Seaman's driveway easement. They took those
samples in conjunction with the Beacon Battery site hazard assessment and when
they did samples in April. The samples were at the corner of the pavement from
Beacon Battery.
Brenner stated Mr. Seaman has raised many concerns about lead
contamination. She wanted to get information from the Health Department about
his issue.
Brenner questioned whether the sampling was done in the same locations.
Miller stated certain areas were sampled three times. Sample results have gone up
since 1997. Lead does not travel well, and adheres to the soil. Even if one takes a
sample in a general area, it is difficult to sample the exact same spot. Since lead
does not travel, they assume that it doesn't travel into surface water.
Dawson stated that paving over the soil is a type of mitigation.
Hoag questioned how they know the surface water is not carrying the lead
downstream and that there is not new lead contamination. Miller stated that lead
adheres to soil. It would have to be carried with the soil in the water. The surface
water sample was collected in shallow water, so using one sample to determine the
contamination isn't very valid because there could have been soil in that water.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
When the surface water quality regulation is used, one is supposed to also do a
hardness test along with the surface water sample analysis. They did not do that.
McShane stated the standard varies depends on the hardness. It also
depends on the class of stream and the receiving water body. Surface water
standards are set for discharge.
Hoag questioned how they know if they've fixed the source of the
contamination. Miller stated they look at air, surface water, and groundwater.
Even if they didn't include those results, the rank wouldn't change. They assume
that this is a valid sample. They've taken all the variables into account, and the
result is still a rank of five.
Brenner questioned whether anyone has done sampling on Mr. Seamen's
property, other than at the driveway. Miller stated they only sampled the well.
Brenner asked why the site still ranked low, with high spikes. Miller stated
many things go into the rating factor.
Brenner asked how high the water table is.
Bob Seamen, 8670 Delta Line Road, stated the groundwater becomes surface
water at times.
Brenner asked if the Health Department has any plans to do ongoing
monitoring at the location. Miller stated they chose the sampling locations they did
because of the flow of water out to Delta Line Road, then south to Dakota Creek.
Brenner asked if there has been any testing downstream of Dakota Creek.
Miller stated there has not. Seamen stated this surface water issue just arose this
spring. They will have to test the water in the winter when the ditches are flooded.
Normal background lead in the Puget Sound region is 24 parts per million. All these
hits in the hundreds and thousands come from Beacon Battery.
Chesson stated photos show that there appears to be batteries outside of the
covered area.
Brenner stated these complaints have been going on a long time. The Health
Department is supposed to monitor this. She questioned what they are supposed
to do. Chesson stated the Health Department does not issue Beacon Battery a
permit. They are exempt from the solid waste rules, so their permitting is through
the Planning Department.
Brenner stated this is a health issue. She was confused about who is in
charge. Chesson stated he would have to look at the permit. He didn't know if the
photo depicts a daily occurrence or an isolated occurrence. Their role is to figure
out if the site is contaminated, which is the process through the site hazard
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
46
47
48
assessment program. If it is contaminated to a level of concern, then they rank it.
DOE is responsible for clean up if there is a level of concern.
Brenner asked who is responsible for oversight and monitoring of the
conditional use permit. Chesson stated the Planning Department is responsible for
that type of permit, but he would respond by going by and looking at the location
and reporting to the responsible agency.
Mark Beckwith, Beacon Battery owner, stated the lead stays where it falls.
There is a question of how there was contamination of lead along Delta Line Road.
For many years, cars used leaded gas, and the sides of the roadways have lead
accumulation on them. That is why there is lead contamination at the site along
Delta Line Road. He purchased a strip of property for Mr. Seamen to use as his
own easement, but Mr. Seaman refused. Mr. Seamen was present when each of
the samples was taken, and orchestrated those activities. Batteries are recycled
more than aluminum cans. Recycling keeps the batteries out of the environment.
He would like to put an in- ground catch basin at the low part of his asphalt
property, with a swale to prevent any groundwater surface water runoff from
reaching Mr. Seamen's property and roadway. That would prevent any fluid from
running off his property.
Brenner asked why there is migrating lead at all.
McShane stated batteries have high acidity, and as long as there is high
acidity, the lead is mobile. Mr. Beckwith needs to be prepared to do a stormwater
system and ship contaminated soil off the property on occasion. Other than that
suggestion, the administration is handling this. He is not interested much more on
this issue, unless there is some change the Council is going to make in its own
health rules. The Health Department has assessed the risk, and it is considered
low. He doesn't have any more concerns. He understands Mr. Seamen's concern
because Mr. Seaman may have contamination on his property. He was not sure
what role the County should play other than seeing if conditions have been violated.
Brenner agreed that this is an administrative problem. She got the call on
this, and the councilmembers represent the citizens. If the rules don't work, the
Council needs to work with them. She questioned whether Councilmember
McShane would be concerned about having his family live next door, given the lead
levels.
McShane stated he would not be concerned from strictly a public health
standpoint. He would be concerned if he tried to sell his property because that soil
would have to be dug up and hauled out. That is typically how it works. The clean
ups that he's worked on are when properties are being transferred. People don't
want to buy property that is contaminated because they get stuck with that liability
issue.
Brenner asked why there is liability if there is no health risk.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
McShane stated there is a health risk. MTCA sets the standard of 250 parts
per million for lead. The standard is set with conservative assumptions that
someone would eat that remarkably large volume of dirt, a child most likely, and
there may be impacts on the child's health. He would not want his child crawling
around eating the dirt out there. That is where the risk is. There is also risk to
construction workers in the future. If the soil has been paved over, the site will
always be on the list for DOE. If the soil is covered up, it is not a health risk for the
time being, but will be for the future.
Seamen stated his concern is for the surface water. The lead is leaching out
from underneath the pavement. One sample result indicates that. The lead is not
locked up in the soil.
Brenner stated it sounds like the kind of problem Mr. Seamen has is a civil
matter with the neighbor. Seaman stated the County said in 1993 that it would
enforce the solid waste permit if Mr. Beckwith didn't follow safe practices.
Chesson stated Beacon Battery might be exempt from the solid waste
permit. He would clarify whether or not they are exempt. Beacon Battery does not
have a conditional use permit. It is designated as a cottage industry.
Sam Ryan, Building Services Manager, stated Beacon Battery is in
compliance, with exception of the sign size, with their non - conforming uses. They
originally had a conditional use permit. If they were to expand the operation, they
would be non - conforming. They may have an existing conditional use permit. The
business has some form of approval from the Planning Department. That method
of approval is the question. Beacon Battery has met their conditions of approval.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Hoag questioned whether a condition of their permit would be that they must
store batteries inside. Ryan stated she didn't know. She would check on it.
Hoag stated a question of contamination is a County matter.
Brenner stated the Health Department has done its testing, and the levels
are not significant. At a certain level, if it is not significant to the County, then it is
a civil matter.
Hoag stated she did not agree. Lead is a persistent toxin that builds up over
time in anyone who is exposed to it. There is not a safe level of lead. Chesson
stated that one must ingest the lead in order for it to be unsafe. One must eat the
soil that is contaminated with lead, and he or she must eat a lot of it.
Hoag stated one could also drink the water that is contaminated.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
48
Brenner stated the drinking water was tested, and there is no detectable
level of lead in the drinking water. She didn't hear any information that gives the
Committee a handle to do something with.
Hoag stated that if the lead is picked up in the surface water and in the soil,
and if one is not assured that the contamination is not continuing, then it stands to
reason that the lead poses a threat.
Brenner asked how they are assured the contamination is not continuing. It
sounds like repeated testing does not work.
Hoag questioned whether the owner of Beacon Battery is responsible for
cleaning up Mr. Seamen's property. Miller stated the owner of Beacon Battery is
responsible for clean up.
Hoag questioned why they are still getting samples showing contamination.
Miller stated they are not still getting contaminated samples. The County
completed its site hazard assessment. It is done. After the assessment and
contamination is confirmed, a site is listed as a hazardous site. Once a site is
ranked, it is not removed from the list until they do something to remove it from
the list. Being on the list is a motivator for an owner to clean up his or her
property.
Hoag asked why it is an incentive for an owner to clean up his or her
property. Miller stated the list is published and available to anyone.
McShane stated there are three incentives. One incentive is what Ms. Miller
said. The second incentive is to do a property transaction. Third, DOE could do
enforcement. However, hundreds of sites are listed all over the state. With a rank
of five, DOE won't enforce this site right away.
Hoag stated there is no incentive if Beacon Battery doesn't sell their
property. The County doesn't require the owner to clean up the contamination.
Miller stated the ranking is to help DOE set priorities and determine who to talk to
first about clean up.
Brenner stated many agencies have a piece of the responsibility, but no one
is following it through.
Hoag stated the County issued the permit in the first place.
Brenner asked for information on the kind of permit Beacon Battery has and
whether the Council has any legal standing.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated Beacon Battery
has a nonconforming use that has been there for many years. Under today's code,
it is an existing use. It does not have a conditional use permit. Under today's
code, if the owner came in for a permit, the use could be approved conditionally or
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, 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
administratively. The use was permitted under a different system. The Planning
Department permitted the structures on the site. The fire marshal would evaluate
the fire safety.
Hoag asked if there is just a building permit, not an operating permit. Hart
stated they would also look at the signs.
Brenner stated the County just didn't have any kind of permit policy at the
time that allowed for enforcement. Any enforcement is done through DOE, not
through the County.
Hoag questioned whether there is anything in the code that says the owner
of a grandfathered or nonconforming use that is causing contamination would be
required to go through some process, if this is an operation approved prior to
requiring such permits. Hart stated he would look into it.
McShane stated that once a site is listed, that liability is with that property
and the owner of that property. He had one experience in which one party went
after an offsite source of contamination and successfully got money through a civil
action from that person who caused the contamination.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he recycled batteries at Beacon
Battery. He was impressed with the operation. The Council is making it difficult for
all business owners in the County.
Brenner stated she would be concerned if someone found elevated levels of
lead on her property. Wiesen stated that is what the Department of Ecology is to
do. Let it deal with the problem.
Beckwith stated a recent surface water test was an invalid test because a
hardness test was not done. Miller stated she didn't have the hardness information
when they collected the test. They cannot compare the result to the standard limit
because they didn't analyze it correctly. There was lead in the water, they just
can't validate the level to the standard.
Shawna Beckwith, Beacon Battery owner, stated they are not storing
batteries outside in the rain other than for the few minutes it takes to move them
around. All the batteries are inside and contained.
S. DISCUSSION REGARDING PT. ROBERTS RECYCLING OPTIONS
(AB2001 -198)
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated the administration
conducted a town hall meeting in Point Roberts. People would like mandatory pick
up and recycling, and for everyone to participate. Since then, he met with Arthur
Wilkowski. The County's goal is to continue mandatory recycling in Point Roberts,
and also set up a separate voluntary system to encourage seasonal users to
recycle. There are 1,200 exempt citizens in Point Roberts, which is 50 percent of
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, Page 13
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
all the exemptions the county. There are 539 yearly residents, which is 29 percent
of the total residents. There are 430 summer customers and 295 winter customers.
Fifty tons of solid waste materials come into his location, which is one -third of what
he hauls away.
Citizens believe litter is a problem, and that there is illegal transportation of
solid waste across the border. A solution is to create a two - tiered system. Sell
pre -paid garbage pickup tags for seasonal residents only. The cost would be
around $4.50 for each 32- gallon can, or $2.70 for each 20- gallon can.
Brenner stated a resident would have three methods for garbage pick -up.
There would be regular pickup for full -time residents, tickets for summer residents,
and drop off. Prieve stated that is correct. They have to amend the County Code
to add a definition of a summer resident, and modify the regulation for Point
Roberts only. They need the County Executive and County Council approval.
Brenner asked if the County does this in other areas. Prieve stated no. They
would have to have the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC) approval. Also, administration proposes this as a two -year pilot program
for Point Roberts and to require the franchise holder to report to the County
quarterly to track this program.
Brenner asked why they have to do so much reporting and a pilot program.
Prieve stated they don't need to do that. It is proposed to alleviate any
nervousness about the arrangement.
Dawson asked how the ticket books work. Prieve stated that a seasonal
resident would buy a book of tickets, and put a ticket on the garbage can.
Brenner stated it sounds wonderful. With these three options, the franchiser
will pick up less on a regular basis because the options give people several methods
of disposing of their solid waste. Prieve stated the franchiser has applied for a
conditional use permit to replace the existing shelter with a larger facility, and to
bring in some scales.
McShane questioned whether administering the application process is
problematic. Prieve stated he didn't think so. A memorandum of understanding
between the County and franchise holder would be created. The franchise owner's
goal is to encourage more people to properly dispose of their waste. The owner is
trying to work with the citizens on this system.
Gene Eckhart, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC),
stated jurisdiction on solid waste is clear. It is up to a county to decide what it
wants to do. His job is to ensure that the haulers comply with the solid waste
management plan and implementing ordinances. The compromise sounds fine.
They still need to approve the rate level, which is WUTC jurisdiction. He will make
suggestions to the solid waste staff for changes to the ordinance.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, Page 14
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
Brenner questioned whether the County has the legal right to require
mandatory curbside recycling on all developed lots on the Point. Eckhart stated he
was not an attorney, and could not give legal advice, but the County is responsible
for setting its standards.
4. WORK SESSION FOR PROPOSED 2002 -2007 SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (AB2001 -197)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated he only wanted to
introduce this item, and requested comments from the councilmembers in the next
eight days. He will take comments and put them in a final draft that would be
mailed to everyone interested. A public hearing will be scheduled for July 24. His
memo lists projects that have permits and new projects.
A new item includes a cost -share project for signalization of Slater and Rural
with the City of Ferndale. Eighty percent of this cost is paid for with federal funds.
The County is splitting the local share.
The City of Everson has a project through the Transportation Improvement
Board (TIB) to do Robinson Street between Pole Road and Mission Road. The
County's interest is that the old County maintenance facility is on this road. The
city is going to widen the road. The County is helping with a part of the local match,
in the amount of $16,000.
Dawson asked how many fish barrier removals have been done so far. Mills
stated the Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Division has done several. One large
one is planned on North Shore Road this year. Several others are being designed,
but they will not get the permit until next year.
Mills stated the next new item is the shoulder widening for pedestrian and
bike use. It is recommended by Executive Pete Kremen for the Coast Millennium
Trail. The County doesn't spend money on the smaller roads for bicycle use. The
trail organizers want to put several of the smaller roads on the bike route. The
Council just established the Bicycle /Pedestrian Advisory Committee, which will have
ideas about where to establish shoulders and bikeways along County roads.
Dawson suggested having the bike path on the other side of the culvert,
away from the lane of traffic, for safety reasons.
Brenner stated that would be prohibitively expensive.
Mills stated the plan is to put $250,000 in the six -year plan each year. They
can get a couple of miles of road shoulders done for this use.
Brenner asked if there is any state or federal money available. Mills stated
there is some. It is very limited. One usually has to show that there are many
commuters using the route.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, Page 15
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
Brenner questioned whether the County could work with the City of Ferndale
to work on road shoulder improvements on Axton Road, which is used by children.
Mills stated the County can't use its money in the city limits. The County overlaid
Axton Road. Because the road ended at the city limits, which is in the curve, the
County asked the city if it wanted to participate in finishing the road around the
curve. The city said it was not interested.
Dawson questioned whether it would be less expensive to build the bike path
on the other side of the ditch than to expand the shoulder. Mills stated it depends
on the amount of right -of -way. They could do that for certain routes. The ultimate
goal of the bike committee is to have separated paths that are not along the road.
This is something to get some of the routes going.
Mills continued to state that he added a couple of resurfacing projects in
areas that are getting rough on Lakeway Drive and Samish Way. In addition, he
added overlay projects that are easier to permit. Resurfacing involves asphalt, not
chip -seal.
Brenner stated she hoped they don't have to do chip -seal except where they
absolutely have to. Roads are much nicer without it.
Brenner questioned whether the County is backing off of doing chip sealing.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Mills stated there are 1,000 miles of road in the County. About 350 of those
miles are arterial roads, where there is a lot of traffic. The County normally tries to
asphalt those roads. The local access and rural roads are often surfaced with chip -
seal, which is very cost effective.
Hannegan Road traffic has increased, so they want to add four more turn
sections. They added three turn lanes last year, including a signal at Smith Road.
The Lincoln Road extension is different. They changed their recommendation
to extend Lincoln Road between Harborview and Blaine Road. They would like to do
that even though wetlands are associated with the area. It doesn't have the
environmental issues that Drayton Harbor has. It would be nearly impossible to
widen and improve Drayton Harbor Road. The extension is one mile.
Another new project is the Birch Bay- Lynden Road Bridge number 56. It is
over Bertrand Creek. The road was improved and the shoulders were widened, but
the bridge still has very narrow shoulders. They will widen the bridge to get more
shoulder width.
He added a project on Birch Bay Drive to build a sidewalk on the east side of
Birch Bay Drive between Harborview and Alderson roads. It is the central business
district. He put it on the list to see if they can get some matching funds from the
state, which has sidewalk programs. That area gets heavy pedestrian use.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 6/12/2001, Page 16
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
Bruce Road is added to the list. The County did a project a few years ago.
The road used to be 16 feet wide, concrete, and with no shoulders. The project
added some width, but the concrete road needs to be resurfaced. They will lay
gravel underneath the overlay and on top of the current concrete surface.
Hoag questioned whether anything has been done on the extension of West
Illinois Street. Mills stated he just received information on that issue. He met with
City of Bellingham staff. That is an area they are looking at to annex. If the
County improved the road before the area was annexed, the County would receive
the cost, minus depreciation.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 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, 6/12/2001, Page 17