HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil August 8 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
August 8, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Dawson announced there was consideration of an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision on APL00 -0007, filed by Robert McCracken (AB2000-
257) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Nelson moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Dawson also announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy
Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation (AB2000 -018) in
executive session during Committee of the Whole.
The Council also had a discussion with Greg Rustand regarding jail
expansion (AB2000 -017) in Committee of the Whole.
13. JOINT CITY /COUNTY RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WORK THE
BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE (AB2000 -303)
Dawson read the resolution into the record.
Crawford moved approval.
Motion to approve carried unanimously.
Nelson explained that he was dressed in his military uniform for the day's
opening ceremony of the Moving Wall, in memory and honor of the Vietnam
Veterans who gave their lives during the war. He encouraged all to attend the
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 1
1 event and take the opportunity for remembrance. He asked everyone to reflect on
2 the history and the lives given to the United States in protecting the Constitution.
3
4 Dawson stated this is a wonderful opportunity. The County Executive did an
5 outstanding job in presenting the County's concerns in recognizing people who were
6 in attendance.
7
8 Nelson stated the Harbor Lions sponsored the event. Executive Kremen's
9 Assistant, Francine Kincaid, organized the event for the Lions.
10
11 Dawson stated an interesting statistic was that the average age of the
12 casualties was 23 years of age.
13
14 Imhof stated it was quite an emotional experience seeing some of the names
15 of the people who he served with in the Marine Corps. It would be a benefit to
16 everyone to walk through there and think about what those lives mean to the
17 people of this country.
18
19 Hoag stated that the opening ceremonies were very well done. They had a
20 fly -over and a mock air strike. A reconnaissance helicopter came in to check out
21 the area. There was a mock troop landing with follow -up helicopters. Her brother
22 served in Vietnam. Her mother had a map on the back of the bedroom door with a
23 pin showing where he was located. This ceremony brought it all back. It was a
24 wonderful, moving ceremony. She thanked the people who brought it to the
25 County.
26
27
28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
29
30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
31 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 25, 2000; REGULAR COUNTY
32 COUNCIL FOR JULY 11 AND 25, 2000; SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL
33 (JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL) FOR JUNE 26, 2000; SPECIAL
34 COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION) FOR JULY
35 18, 2000
36
37 Imhof moved approval.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41
42 OPEN SESSION
43
44 The following people spoke:
45
46 Paul Guppy, Washington Institute Foundation Vice - President for Research,
47 stated they are an independent public policy research organization. He gave the
48 Council the "Friend of the Taxpayer" award. It is based on a study they did of
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 2
1 property taxes across the state. Most people remember that the people of
2 Washington State passed Referendum 47, which said that counties, cities, and
3 other jurisdictions should not raise property taxes by more than the rate of
4 inflation. There was also a provision that said a governing body could go above
5 that rate if it identified substantial need. As a research organization, they did a
6 study to find out which counties and cities did or did not follow that advice from the
7 voters. Referendum 47 was tremendously popular. It passed in Whatcom County
8 by 67 percent. They were disappointed to find out that most counties actually took
9 the exception or ignored the advice and raised property taxes by more than the
10 inflation rate. Whatcom County did not. It stuck with the inflation recommendation
11 from the voters every year since the referendum passed. Whatcom County did
12 better than the recommendation and has held the property tax levy at zero.
13 Whatcom County is one of only two counties in the state to have done that.
14
15 Dawson thanked Mr. Guppy. The County works hard to stay within their
16 limits. They take a great deal of pride in that, and it was nice to know that people
17 appreciate that. Guppy stated he had the interesting assignment of actually
18 reading every single county property tax ordinance from all the counties for each of
19 the three years. He was impressed by the work of the councils that were trying to
20 stay under the limit. It made an interesting comparison with councils who clearly
21 did not make any kind of effort to do that.
22
23 Nelson thanked the administration. It takes the work of the Executive
24 branch, working with the Council, to make this happen. The award should be
25 shared equally with the administration. Guppy stated the award was carefully
26 worded to note the elected leaders, so they wouldn't exclude anyone who was part
27 of the effort.
28
29 Mark Beckwith, Beacon Battery Industries, 8666 Delta Line Road, stated he
30 has run his business from that location since May 1984. They sell batteries, tires,
31 and used cars. They were licensed in May 1984. In 1986, they rezoned the
32 property. Now, he is being asked to remove the signs. There is a sign at Birch
33 Bay - Lynden Road and a sign in front of the house. Initially, he had a place of
34 business certificate from the Department of Licensing that gives him a motor
35 vehicle dealer's license. The permit requires a sign that displays the name and
36 nature of the business. In the new agricultural zone, a cottage industry is limited
37 to a sign of no more than four square feet. One can't state what his or her
38 business is or draw in customers with a sign of that size. They were in business
39 since May 1984, two years before the rezone. They were allowed permits to go in
40 and establish the business. He has been awarded recycling awards. He is properly
41 licensed, bonded, and insured. The business adds to the County tax revenue by
42 about $2,000 per year, and has for many years. The Whatcom County Code allows
43 a non - illuminated sign, not to exceed four square feet. His sign is 16 square feet,
44 and is barely adequate for his needs. That business supports his family and the
45 families of his two employees.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 3
1 Dawson stated businesses are grandfathered in. One of the councilmembers
2 on the Public Works Committee would be willing to discuss the issue. She also
3 suggested that he work with the County staff.
4
5 McShane stated that the Planning and Development Committee are
6 addressing the issue.
7
8 Beckwith stated there is no light on Delta Line Road. His sign is reflective,
9 and his neighbors like it because of the safety issue. Many neighbors have signed a
10 petition to keep the sign. He read the petition into the record.
11
12 Hoag questioned whether the language Mr. Beckwith read was from the
13 proposed changes or the existing language. Beckwith stated it is the existing
14 language.
15
16 Hoag stated there are changes in the Planning and Development Committee.
17 He needed to talk to staff regarding whether or not the use is grandfathered. If he
18 didn't get a satisfactory answer from staff, he could bring it forward to the Council
19 again.
20
21
22 PUBLIC HEARING
23
24 1. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 4, TOWN OF
25 GLACIER, FILED BY SAVAGE (AB2000 -234)
26
27 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
28 they received a petition from George and Ann Savage to vacant an open alley in the
29 town of Glacier. The compensation is estimated at $2,042. The alley is within a
30 platted subdivision. Vacating this would eliminate the possibility of an additional
31 access onto the Mt. Baker Highway. He recommended granting the vacation
32 request.
33
34 Nelson questioned where in Glacier it is located. Mills stated it is in the
35 downtown area. Portland Street is another name for the Mt. Baker Highway.
36
37 Nelson stated Maple Falls also has many of these small plats. He questioned
38 whether they still exist. Mills stated they could be. There are access points on
39 each side.
40
41 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
42
43 Jack Swanson, attorney, filed the petition on behalf of the Savages, and he
44 offered to answer questions. It is located in downtown Glacier, and is about one
45 half of a block west of Graham's store.
46
47 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 4
1 Imhof moved approval.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4
5 2. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THAT PORTION OF JAMES WAY
6 LYING WESTERLY OF BIRCH BAY DRIVE, FILED BY HANSEN (AB2000-
7 235)
8
9 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
10 the right -of -way does not extend to the beach and tidelands. Right now, a
11 residence is being constructed waterward of where this stub of land is located. In
12 exchange for the vacation, Mr. Hansen is willing to grant Whatcom County clear
13 title to the westerly projection of Alderson Road, which is north, along with
14 dedicating the tidelands that go adjacent to the property. There is a map on
15 Council packet page 466.
16
17 Nelson stated a letter was sent from Puget Sound Energy regarding its right -
18 of -way existence. He questioned whether that would be impacted. Mills stated any
19 easements rights would be maintained.
20
21 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
22
23 Patricia Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the people who owned
24 the property downhill from Sunset, in a triangle between the creek and Alderson
25 Road, were told that there would be a public space there that would be public
26 access for them when they purchased their property. It was a spot that was left for
27 the public that went with all of their properties. They were to have access from
28 Morrison Avenue to the creek, and access from the other side of the creek to Birch
29 Bay (James Way). The vacation would eliminate access to the beach. Because of
30 County decisions made along the way, that public access has been reduced from
31 being a full road to being ten feet wide. At this point, it still allows for a public
32 access that goes to the water, using James Way as a portion of the access. The
33 neighborhood hopes that a footbridge would be rebuilt across the creek. This
34 vacation would extinguish that hope. The public access to the beach has been
35 reduced over the 30 years she has been there. Part of the reason is from use.
36 Privately owned land was opened to the public, but has become privately used.
37 Birch Bay is an asset to the County because it is a place the public can enjoy. If
38 they don't protect the public access to the beach, they diminish that asset. The
39 property being offered in trade is part of a County park.
40
41 Kerry Gabato, 7564 Birch Bay Drive, stated she lives directly across from the
42 property to be vacated. The County told her that the property would never be
43 vacated and that the tidelands were not buildable when she purchased her property
44 in 1996. In March of 1994, she owned part of the James Way access with the ten -
45 foot easement for foot traffic to the beach. She worked with the County. There is
46 a letter that states the land could never be vacated and would always be for public
47 foot traffic. There is a lot of confusion of the ownership of beach rights. All the
48 property in all the maps prior to this lot adjustment show no ownership in front of
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 5
1 that right -of -way. It showed public access. There is a SEPA report for the
2 condominium development that says the owner would provide a ten -foot easement
3 in front of Alderson for public access. He is offering to provide a trade for easement
4 property he has already negotiated on. He also negotiated a ten -foot easement on
5 lot F, which is in front of James Way, for public access that is now fenced. Birch
6 Bay lacks parking. To give this to a private person instead of providing more
7 parking access hinders what the public needs. She asked that the Council provide a
8 means to make a clear decision on the ownership of the lots and what should be
9 properly done with James Way.
10
11 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the trade is not
12 equitable. The developer has some sort of claim from Alderson Road in, and may
13 be doing this to make it convenient for the Prosecutor's Office. Now, that road in is
14 hope for a lot of people that something right will happen in Birch Bay. There is an
15 access that goes from the road, across the creek, and to Birch Bay Drive. The
16 bridge is gone. On the other side of the creek is access that runs to Morrison. This
17 area would provide parking for two cars right now. There is a park that has ten -
18 minute parking for bathroom use. They need parking in that area. There are
19 condominiums there that will need overflow parking in the future. The Council
20 needs to look carefully at this. They don't have the information to make a decision
21 now. People are angry about what is happening to James Way, but they lose hope
22 and give up after a while. This is very important.
23
24 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
25
26 Imhof moved to put this into Public Works Committee.
27
28 Nelson questioned whether the footbridge was part of a covenant. Patrick
29 Alesse stated it is part of a covenant, but he wasn't sure. It is difficult to find, but it
30 is there. Several years ago, a County employee person admitted that the County
31 made a mistake with the other end of James Way. Dodd sold it to Josey, or the
32 Palms, for $10 and other considerations. He sold his right to go across it.
33
34 Nelson stated the committee needs to address the footbridge and the relation
35 of the other end. It also needs to address whether the property is parking or part
36 of the pathway.
37
38 McShane requested that the issue be scheduled for the September 26 Public
39 Works Committee meeting.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
44 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
45 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
46 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 6
1 McShane stated the committee made some significant changes during its
2 meeting earlier in the day. There may be some people who want to comment, and
3 the Council may want to extend the comment period.
4
5 Crawford agreed that this should be held over until September.
6
7 Hoag read changes made in committee into the record:
8
9 1. Packet pages 145 [section 21.04.080(3)], 154 [section 20.05.070(3)],
10 and 167 [section 20.07.070(3)] to add the suggested language at the
11 end of, "The owners of the subservient estates are not entitled to rely
12 upon the County to enforce the limitations of the easements so granted,
13 and no cause of action shall lie against the county for errors or omissions
14 occurring in connection with the administration of, or issuance of permits
15 for development of properties that burden the easements referred to
16 herein"
17
18 McShane stated it takes the liability off of the County.
19
20 2. Packet pages 155 [section 21.05.080(1)] and 167 (section 21.07.080),
21 add language, "...Health and Human Services Department, provided that
22 it does not exceed 5,000 gallons per day, per subdivision unless the
23 applicant holds a water right permit to withdraw more." The concern
24 was about the use of six -pack wells.
25
26 McShane stated that six -pack wells occur in a situation where a development
27 can't obtain a water right, so it puts in exempt wells, which can serve six homes. A
28 subdivision with eighteen developable lots could put in three exempt wells, hence
29 the term "six- pack." It is a way to get water without getting a water right, for
30 significantly large developments.
31
32 Hoag stated this language change includes the long -plat portion and binding
33 site plan portions of the code. Exempt wells are meant to be exempt from water
34 rights for individual homeowners. If they allow abuse of that exemption, the
35 individual exempt well owners would lose their privileges. The state Department of
36 Ecology is already coming after them. Past proposed legislation was to tightly
37 restrict exempt wells.
38
39 3. Packet page 136, section 21.03.020(4)(c), "...shall have access onto...."
40 Language was added for clarification.
41
42 4. Packet page 136, section 21.03.020(4)(d), "...maintained public collector
43 or arterial pub++e roads... frontage abutting maintained public minor,
44 local..."
45
46 All of the changes came out of committee with unanimous approval. Title 21
47 was recommended for approval.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 7
1 McShane stated there was one other amendment that they didn't have the
2 language for, which he now has, on packet page 158, section 21.05.130, regarding
3 historical agricultural uses and the soils and /or geological report, "Soil testing
4 results for pesticides for subdivisions on land historically used for row crops." The
5 Health Board had that discussion at one time.
6
7 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
8
9 Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, stated he has worked on this since its
10 inception. He attended all the meetings. He requested that the ordinance be
11 moved forward. It is a reasonable set of rules and regulations for land
12 development in Whatcom County. Senior Planner Matt Aamot went out of his way
13 to make sure he was always kept informed of any changes.
14
15 Tim Reid, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, stated an
16 amendment was brought forward during the afternoon meeting, after 4:30 p.m.
17 They need to be reviewed further. He submitted proposed changes. One of the
18 amendments was related to water, which states that water use is not to exceed
19 5,000 gallons per day per subdivision unless the applicant holds a valid water right
20 to withdraw more. His understanding is that the DOE hasn't provided a water right
21 permit in a good deal of time. He questioned whether, in the last three hours, a
22 thorough analysis and review of the affects of this amendment have been
23 completed by County staff.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
26
27 Reid continued to question whether the amount of land and number of units
28 that would be affected have been determined. There is a Technical Advisory
29 Committee that spent an enormous amount of time advising the Council in land use
30 situations. He questioned whether that Committee has been advised of the
31 changes. The negative side affect is that the County is using water as a tool to
32 control zoning. He understood that isn't the way the County has a history of doing
33 business. He asked that another public hearing be held on September 26.
34
35 Richard Rogness, 6345 Blackfoot Place, Sumas, stated he would like to see a
36 Sheriff's Office station in Kendall.
37
38 Dawson explained that the open session portion of the meeting is over but he
39 can leave a written suggestion in the suggestion box.
40
41 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, spoke about the impacts on
42 staff. The Technical Advisory Committee was in favor of the burdening of the
43 easements being optional instead of required. They didn't believe it was wise, even
44 though there is liability language. It is always open to the courts. There is a
45 potential that this could cause additional staffing requirements to monitor the
46 burdening capacities.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 8
1 McShane questioned which staff would handle that monitoring, Public Works
2 or the permit center. Mills stated both departments look at it.
3
4 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
5
6 Imhof asked to hold the public hearing open until the end of August.
7
8 Hoag stated they made the changes prior to 4:30 p.m. This was discussion
9 that took place more than six weeks ago. It was discussed at length. She was
10 surprised to find out that language wasn't in the proposed ordinance. Members of
11 the Technical Advisory Committee were present during those discussions. She was
12 not opposed to holding the public hearing open. Public comment and public process
13 is always beneficial. She would support the motion, but the comments questioned
14 whether it has been analyzed. The Technical Advisory Committee had this for three
15 years. The Planning Commission had it for six months, and the County Council has
16 had it for a number of months. It is not something that just came up. If they hold
17 the hearing until the second meeting in September, they can introduce the revised
18 ordinance at the first meeting in September. If they want to have the hearing at
19 the first meeting in September, they have to introduce the revised ordinance during
20 this meeting.
21
22 Imhof questioned whether there are sufficient changes.
23
24 Hoag recommended that they introduce it at the first meeting in September.
25
26 Imhof withdrew the motion.
27
28 Hoag moved to introduce the revised ordinance at the first Council meeting
29 in September, with a public hearing to be held on September 26.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 4. ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING A CHANGE IN CONTROL
34 OF BLACK ROCK CABLE, INC. FROM PRESENT OWNER TO SEREN
35 INNOVATIONS, INC. (AB2000 -285)
36
37 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
38 hearing.
39
40 Imhof moved to approve.
41
42 Nelson questioned where the cable operator would be located.
43
44 The Black Rock Cable representative stated that it most likely would be
45 located centrally in the market area, which extends from Bothell to Blaine. He
46 guessed it would be located in Skagit County. They are not going to lose out in
47 highly technical jobs. There would still be a number of highly technical jobs in the
48 area commensurate with AT &T's highly technical jobs. This company would provide
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 9
1 the same sort of services that AT &T provides. The Economic Development Council
2 (EDC) has been apprised of the situation and they approve. It will be a positive
3 change.
4
5 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
6
7 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
8 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20 TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
9 ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S, REVISE RV STANDARDS
10 IN THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE R, RF
11 AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
12 ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
13 RV'S (AB2000 -215A)
14
15 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
16 the ordinance before the Council is similar to the one the Council adopted on July
17 11. A chart shows the differences between the two, and is on packet page 486. It
18 also summarizes the provisions of the ordinance. The ordinance adopted July 11
19 was vetoed by the County Executive because the ordinance adopted expanded
20 beyond the scope of the notice. It needed to be vetoed for procedural reasons.
21 The revisions proposed by staff make it more internally consistent between different
22 zoning districts.
23
24 The July 11 ordinance allowed one guest recreational vehicle (RV) to remain
25 on the property in Point Roberts for 60 days. The other recreational subdivisions in
26 the Foothills area did not include a provision for any guest. Staff recommended a
27 provision for one additional guest RV in the Foothills area. If the Council doesn't
28 want to do that, then it needs to add a finding that explains why or how Point
29 Roberts is different than the Foothills area. When the staff tries to administer an
30 ordinance, people frequently asked why it is different between two areas. There
31 should be a logical reason that should be documented in the ordinance.
32
33 There is a similar issue regarding sewer or septic hook -up. If someone is
34 going to be on a lot in Point Roberts for 14 days, he or she is required to hook -up,
35 under this ordinance. However, they've been having health and sanitation
36 problems in some of the Foothills subdivisions that don't have sewer or adequate
37 septic systems. It seemed logical that they would have the same requirement to
38 hook up to a sewer or septic system if a person would be on a lot for more than 14
39 days in the Foothills area.
40
41 A similar issue is the number of guest RV's allowed in the Rural and Rural
42 Forestry zones that were changed to be consistent with each other. The only other
43 change was the issue of the number of guest RV's associated with a single - family
44 house. That was added at the July 11 meeting so that anyone who owned a house
45 could have one vacant RV in their yard and could have a guest staying in an RV for
46 no more than 14 days. That was what made the ordinance no longer consistent
47 with the notice. She recommended that the Council remain silent on the issue of
48 guest RV's. If someone owns two RV's, they shouldn't have to decide which is
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 10
1 going to be parked in the yard and which has to be stored in a storage unit. If the
2 code is silent, they wouldn't need to address guest RV's unless there are so many
3 that someone complains.
4
5 Imhof questioned the Rural and Rural Forestry zones occupancy for 120 days
6 because they aren't required to have sewer or septic systems. Goodwin stated that
7 is correct. The difference between those areas and the small lots in Point Roberts
8 and in the Foothills is that these rural areas are generally five to twenty acres.
9 There are occasions when there is a small lot in a rural area.
10
11 Imhof questioned what an RV owner would do with this after 120 days.
12 Goodwin stated they are not going to leave the RV on the lot for 120 days. They
13 are going to come for the weekend, take the RV home with them, and dump the
14 waste at the dump station on the way.
15
16 Hoag questioned the difference the lot size would make. Goodwin stated
17 that in the Point Roberts and Foothills areas, they are allowed to leave the RV on
18 the lot throughout the year. The other areas are only allowed to have the RV on
19 the lot for 120 days.
20
21 Imhof stated 120 days is a long time to leave it without dumping the waste.
22 Goodwin stated that is true. If the Council wanted, they could add the 14 -day
23 requirement for all areas.
24
25 Hoag stated there is language that covers that. It says that the owner has to
26 have a permitted onsite sewage system, public sewer, or shall dispose of all
27 sewage, including gray water, at an RV dumpsite, or have such sewage and
28 wastewater removed by a licensed sanitary disposal service. Goodwin stated that is
29 correct for the Rural and Rural Forestry zones.
30
31 Goodwin continued to state that there are two other issues. She's had a lot
32 of telephone calls from people in Point Roberts. One issue is the recreational
33 subdivision at the South Beach. There are three plats that have private covenants
34 that don't allow RV's. If the Council wants to address that issue, she could provide
35 a revised map and revised description that the Council could use to eliminate those
36 areas.
37
38 Dawson stated that covenants supercede County zoning. Goodwin agreed,
39 but citizens have been concerned about enforcing it privately. The County does not
40 enforce private covenants. Also, other people have talked to her about
41 grandfathering the existing RV's at Point Roberts. If the Council wants to do
42 something like that, then it has to become an administrative approval and have the
43 Point Roberts portion of the ordinance sunset in six months so it is no longer on the
44 books. If the Council wants to address that, she could write it up.
45
46 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 11
1 Nate Jackson, 457 Greenwood Drive, Point Roberts, stated he was against
2 the RV amendments that were approved. Consideration should be given to other
3 property owners. If his neighboring lot owners decide to bring in recreational
4 vehicles, it would affect the value of his property and his quality of life.
5
6 Tom Hollett, 380 West Bluff Road, Point Roberts, stated he is a resident and
7 a member of the Voters' Association. He couldn't see how regulations could be
8 enforced. In the 1920's and 1930's, the Canadians came over and used Point
9 Roberts as a recreational area. It is tradition with a lot of them to keep coming
10 back. They had both trailers and homes. In those days, the regulations on the
11 Point were very lax. They brought trailers in and were there prior to the
12 regulations. They've been there for five to thirty years, and no one said anything
13 to them. He suggested grandfathering all existing RV's, and making them hook up
14 to sewer or septic within six months. If they don't, they would have to be
15 removed. Stop any additional trailers. In the future, confine them to the two
16 designated areas they spoke of.
17
18 Sheila Olivier, 263 Mill Road, stated that in her immediate area there are four
19 different RV's in violation. There are no septic tanks. They do have water on their
20 lot. She had to call the police at 12:30 three weeks ago because of a wild party
21 and lots of noise coming from a travel trailer on the next lot. There have been as
22 many as five RV's there at one time. The RV's foster this type of abuse of the
23 property. The people behind her have been there for 12 years, there is no septic
24 because the property would not support it. She questioned how the County is
25 going to enforce more laws when it can't enforce what exists now.
26
27 Bob Farr, 710 Kendor Drive, stated he is Chairman /President of the Waters
28 Plat Owners Association. He discussed the covenants of Waters Plat and Crystal
29 Waters with Sylvia Goodwin and a County attorney. He didn't want the South
30 Beach area to allow RV's. All they are going to do is cause a legal fight. He asked
31 the Council to leave it the way it is.
32
33 Irene Waters, 720 South Beach Road, stated she had land at Waters Plat.
34 She supported Mr. Farr's comment. She asked the Council to remove allowance of
35 RV's on the South Beach Road east. There are covenants against them.
36
37 Tod Manrell, 311 Marina Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is co -chair of the
38 Economic Development Committee for Point Roberts, referred to as the Point
39 Roberts Marketing Committee. They are very involved in the future of Point
40 Roberts. They have 16 members, selected from various community organizations,
41 business organizations, and residential organizations who have worked on this
42 committee for almost two years. He read a letter authored by the committee and
43 sent to the Council on August 3 (on file). The letter was unanimously passed by
44 the committee.
45
46 Jerry Biers, Delta, British Columbia, stated he is a property owner and land
47 developer in Point Roberts. He has been coming to Point Roberts since 1977. His
48 family was instrumental in getting the marina built at the Point. He also
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 12
1 development Boundary View Estates and Whelan Drive. He always does a quality
2 development. He envisioned the Point as a Leavenworth, Winthrop, and LaConner,
3 all in one place with much more to offer. If a developer proposed a year round RV
4 park on the Point, the County would tell him it wasn't allowed. The people of Point
5 Roberts don't want that. That is what is happening.
6
7 Frederick Culver, 1965 Holiday Lane, Point Roberts, stated he is Director of
8 the Crystal Water Beach Community Association. They are a nonprofit corporation.
9 The association was formed 50 years ago. His father constructed the first house in
10 Crystal Beach, post -war. At the moment, they have 80 lots, and 90 percent have
11 been purchased. His association administers the covenants placed on the lands by
12 the Thorstenson family, who are members of the association. The Thorstenson
13 family settled these lands in 1896. Crystal Water Beach covenants say no RV's and
14 trailers are allowed. They also only allow one -story buildings. Accordingly, they
15 oppose the amendments to this ordinance. They are partners with the Thorstenson
16 family in this. They stand for good development and appropriate governance.
17 Crystal Waters Beach is similar to Waters Plat. However, they have a unique
18 situation. They have an undivided interest in reserve A. They also have an
19 undivided interest in the lanes and alleys in the plat. With that, comes
20 responsibility. They contract and pay for certain infrastructure, such as roads and
21 drainage. Over the last three years, they've spent $20,000 on this type of work.
22 In doing this, they work in concert with and have a very cooperative situation with
23 the County's Public Works Department. His members pay approximately $140,000
24 per year in property taxes. They must be the perfect constituents. They pay taxes,
25 can't vote, have a minimum use of infrastructure, and pay in part for all of their
26 services. He urged the County to respect the community.
27
28 Gene McClossey, 1594 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is a resident,
29 homeowner, and taxpayer. The Council is ignoring the wishes of the citizens in the
30 community. The proposed changes seem to be for the benefit of non - resident
31 property owners. It is to the detriment of their entire community. This is nothing
32 more than a circumvention of the public process. He is appalled by this proposal.
33 Non - resident property owners should not take precedence over residents.
34
35 Bruno Morris, 1597 Harbor Seal Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is president
36 of the Voters Association. He presented evidence of the loss of property values due
37 to RV's (on file). Exhibit One is a historical home that was restored and is in
38 excellent condition. The grounds are immaculate. The owners are elderly. The
39 homestead was originally built in the 1920's, using lumber from the old APA
40 Cannery. During the past ten months, due to the suspension of the RV laws, there
41 are now permanently stored RV's in two neighboring vacant lots. One RV is a
42 partially - tarped boat. The owners live in it during the weekends. These boat
43 dwellers were expelled from the local RV storage park for improper conduct. The
44 homeowners are upset about this happening next to their home. They are afraid to
45 complain for fear of retribution. The Council has been careful to protect the
46 historical property rights of RV visitors to Point Roberts. He asked the Council to
47 stand up for the property rights of the homeowners.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 13
1 Faye McClossey, 1594 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated she was opposed
2 to the proposed zoning changes. Her first thought when she listened to this
3 discussion was about what the RV owners do with the black water and gray water.
4 Those terms refer to the toilet waste and water from the sinks and the bath. She
5 and her husband own a fifth wheel trailer, and are familiar with the problems of the
6 disposal of wastewater. Most holding tanks are sufficient for three to four days,
7 maximum. At the July 11 Council meeting, there was discussion about trailers
8 staying for 14 days or 120 days. She questioned where these holding tanks would
9 be emptied after three to four days. The closest dump station is ten miles away in
10 Ladner, British Columbia. She questioned whether the owners have done perk tests
11 and obtained permits for septic systems. She is a nurse. The thought of
12 improperly disposed of wastewater makes her feel ill. They have children and
13 grandchildren that visit them at the Point. She hoped animal waste is all she has to
14 worry about when they go for a walk in the woods. She asked the Council to
15 consider the health and welfare of the people of Point Roberts who live there
16 permanently.
17
18 Dan Levy, 2106 Wayland Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is a representative
19 of the Point Roberts Fire District #5. He is chairman of the commission. Usually,
20 when a zoning change or a subdivision is proposed, it is circulated through the fire
21 district. In this case, the ordinance was not circulated. The fire district has two
22 concerns with the rezoning. The first concern is that it creates a class of
23 development that doesn't increase any tax revenue, but does increase costs to the
24 fire district. Approximately 90 percent of their calls are medical calls, not fire calls.
25 This proposal would increase their costs for responding and transporting, and yet
26 they get no revenue out of it. They will have to ask the taxpayers to fund the
27 services provided to the part -time residents. Second, sewage and water hookups
28 are required, but permits with a site plan are not required. Site plans would show
29 locations of where the fire trucks and ambulances could have access. Because they
30 are allowing multiple vehicles on one site, it is possible the access could be blocked.
31 They would like to see a permitting arrangement so that designated locations in the
32 site plan are approved and allow for fire access to the buildings.
33
34 Ruby White, 1783 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated that Point Roberts
35 hasn't had much respect from the County. She has devoted 33 years to trying to
36 make Point Roberts a desirable permanent resident community. They've had a
37 large influx of people coming in the area and building nice homes. No one wants to
38 tie up his or her life savings in a nice home, and then have someone bring in an RV.
39 She has been in real estate for 33 years in Point Roberts. People have been unable
40 to sell their homes for anywhere near what they should get because there is a
41 junky trailer with a junky car nearby. The County couldn't enforce the current
42 regulations. She didn't know how to enforce the proposed changes.
43
44 Margaret Morris, 1597 Harbor Seal Drive, Point Roberts, spoke in opposition
45 of the ordinance. This has gone on since the spring of 1999. They still haven't
46 come to a resolution on the issue. The current proposal is an enforcement
47 nightmare, worse than what was there before. It is also a violation of the Growth
48 Management Act. Regarding enforcement, she's heard that it is complaint- driven.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 14
1 If enforcement is to be complaint- driven, she has complained many times about an
2 RV at 145 Tyee Drive. The occupant of that RV has been in it for eight to ten years.
3
4 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
5
6 Margaret Morris continued to state there is no septic at that RV. She
7 provided photographs (on file). This is one of the violations submitted by the Voters
8 Association.
9
10 Bill Furnival, 1570 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is a U.S. citizen
11 and registered voter. On March 6, 1999, the Point Roberts Registered Voters
12 Association, on behalf of its membership, submitted a listing of some 90 RV
13 violations to County enforcement staff. Corrective notices were posted in October
14 1999 and suspended shortly thereafter when the violators protested the action. A
15 review of the protests, in the form of petitions and letters, revealed the following:
16 136 protests, 38 of which were duplicates, for a total of 98 names. These protests
17 covered 65 properties. Eight of the 98 are Point Roberts residents and four are
18 registered voters. Petitions to maintain the existing law and enforce it were
19 submitted by the Voters Association on April 8, 2000. There were 507 petitioners.
20 Of these, 202 were registered voters representing 44 percent of all the Point
21 Roberts Voters, 90 full -time residents, 218 property owners who are part -time
22 residents. The comparisons are eight residents for changing the law versus 292 for
23 maintaining the existing law, four registered voters for changing the law and 202
24 for maintaining the existing law, 90 visitors for changing the law and 218 visitors
25 for maintaining the existing law. This is a clear position, but Council has ignored
26 the voters and residents of Point Roberts and has chosen to create an RV ordinance
27 against their petitioned position, choosing instead to support the interests of a
28 minority of non - resident visitors. This is wrong. Voters and residents signed these
29 petitions of their free will for various individual reasons. This is the United States.
30 Listen to the voters and the citizens, and reject this ordinance so they can develop
31 the community in line with the character plan.
32
33 Joan Roberts, 1876 Washington Drive, stated she owns property on Point
34 Roberts. She owns and operates a business at 1379 Gulf Road. The Council is
35 overlooking the fact that they are not a rural area, but a community made up of
36 members who care about the direction of this community. They've been active
37 over the years in developing a character plan for the future development in Point
38 Roberts. They have been active in the subarea plan development. They are also
39 very active in the Economic Development Strategy in Point Roberts. All of this work
40 is for naught if the ordinance is adopted. She's lived in the community for 22
41 years. Over the last ten years, she's seen the community change from a seasonal
42 cottage community by attracting more year round residents. Much of the new
43 construction over the past ten years has been high -end residential homes,
44 providing much needed jobs in the construction industry. The people moving into
45 the community support the businesses on a year round basis, and support the
46 County through a higher tax base. She owns a business in Point Roberts that
47 employs 25 people seasonally. Due to a seasonal slow -down of business, she is
48 forced to lay off half of her employees in the winter. In the winter of 1998, close to
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 15
1 ten percent of Point Roberts residents were on public assistance. The Council must
2 look at way to increase the year round residency and to increase the economic base
3 to keep the people off public assistance. On July 20, her son was involved in a very
4 serious accident in Point Roberts. He lost control of his vehicle and slammed into a
5 trailer hitch on a fifth -wheel trailer, parked on a trailer support in the County's
6 easement. The fifth wheel is owned and registered to Canadians and is
7 permanently stored in Point Roberts. Although the passengers in the car sustained
8 injuries, they will fortunately not have any long -term injuries.
9
10 John McFarland, 1444 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated he is a citizen of
11 the U.S. and lives in Point Roberts. This is his only home. The Council works for
12 the citizens of Whatcom County. He didn't want the law changed. He wanted the
13 law enforced. He welcomed people to Point Roberts, but as guests in his country,
14 he expected them to obey all of their laws and ordinances. Owning a piece of
15 property does not give the Canadians a right to try to have the ordinance changes.
16 They are guests in Point Roberts and should not be considered when considering
17 changes affecting the U.S. residents. They should be thankful that the citizens of
18 the U.S. allow them to visit and own property. He didn't want RV's or house
19 trailers. The County Council must listen to the people who live there.
20
21 Amelia McFarland, 1444 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, stated she has lived in
22 Point Roberts 14 years. She agreed with all the previous speakers. She has seen
23 Point Roberts change from a weekend and summer get -away place to a more
24 permanent residential area. She opposed any changes to the ordinance. Enforce
25 the existing ordinance.
26
27 Nuala Maddox, 1484 Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, asked the Council to not
28 make changes to the existing ordinance. Leave it as it is and enforce it. The
29 majority of the U.S. citizens and permanent residents of Point Roberts don't want
30 the proposed changes, and have told them so. She questioned whether the Council
31 placed any importance on the petition that was signed by 500 concerned people.
32
33 Sterling Kolskag, 1966 Raleigh Drive, Point Roberts, stated he didn't want
34 the new RV amendment to pass because it makes an intolerable situation worse.
35 His residence has been subjected to an non - permitted shed in excess of 120 square
36 feet, with no residence on the lot. He submitted photographs (on file). This shed
37 was built since the RV situation developed a month ago. He talked to Jim
38 Thompson with Code Enforcement. People are already trying to find ways around
39 the ordinance. He made an investment in a nice home and did not want sheds and
40 RV's being put on nearby property. Enforce the old regulations.
41
42 Frank Lucci, 1785 Heather Way, Point Roberts, stated he read the old
43 ordinances, which are very good. He submitted written testimony (on file).
44
45 Mario Boeger 1721 Benson #101, Point Roberts, stated it is an enforcement
46 issue more than anything else. What they are proposing would cause people to
47 snitch on each other. The County needs to fund a full -time code enforcement
48 person for the Point.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 16
1
2 Chip Geoesse, stated he is the fourth generation in Whatcom County and
3 third generation in Point Roberts. He's been on half of the committees in Point
4 Roberts and started the other half. Over the last 30 years, they have been
5 redesigning and rezoning to improve Point Roberts. The people they elected are
6 sabotaging Point Roberts.
7
8 Mary Jane Anderson, stated she owns property on Point Roberts that has
9 been in her family for four generations. It is vacant land. Her family has an RV on
10 her property. She appreciated the time the Council has taken to study the issues
11 and the ordinance they've come up with. The ordinance addresses the septic
12 problems because the RV's could be removed if they don't have it. When this all
13 started, she tried to approach the Voters Association to reach an agreement with
14 them and talk to her about her issues, as an American citizen. She was also happy
15 to represent the Canadian owners at Point Roberts. She suggested that existing
16 uses that meet the criteria of septic, water, and screening, should be allowed to
17 stay. If they don't want to allow any more, it is okay. She supported the ordinance
18 as it is, but if they want to make any adjustments, they should allow existing RV's
19 to stay there if they meet the restrictions. It would satisfy the majority of Point
20 Roberts. This was brought up at one of the Voters Association meeting, but it was
21 turned down. If they don't allow any RV's, then people can't even spend one night
22 on their property. She questioned who would maintain the property.
23
24 David Niles, 254 Elizabeth Drive, Point Roberts, stated that there was
25 concern by some councilmembers, expressed at the June 13 Council meeting in
26 Point Roberts, that more U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and property owners
27 did not express their opposition to the Council's RV proposal. He suggested that
28 the opposition to the RV ordinance is very clear, as stated in the petition. The
29 Council could clearly see that the disapproval of the amendment was not the
30 narrow agenda of one small community board, the Voters Association, which was
31 suggested.
32
33 Barbara Schultz, 7897 Santa Fe Trail, Sumas, stated she lives in the Foothills
34 area. The people in her area feel the same way that the people from Point Roberts
35 feel. They can't enforce the regulations that they have now. She supported the
36 Point Roberts people and asked them to support the Foothills people because they
37 are facing the same problem.
38
39 Sid Wallace, 528 South Beach Road, Point Roberts, read the mission
40 statement of the County Planning Department. This ordinance is not about what is
41 stated in the mission statement. Point Roberts brings a lot of property taxes into
42 Whatcom County. It's assessed value is greater than Nooksack, Everson, and
43 Sumas put together. He is a member of the Point Roberts Advisory Committee on
44 the subarea update. The County ought to hire a consultant to assist in updating
45 this subarea plan. An RV ordinance preempts any action by the committee or the
46 consultant. This ordinance makes a mockery of planning.
47
48 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 17
1
2 Dawson stated that a lot of people don't understand the implications. She
3 suggested throwing out the entire thing and letting the Comprehensive Subarea
4 revisions address the issue as it comes to it. In the meantime, enforce the laws.
5 Allow those that have been grandfathered. In short of that, she would ask to have
6 the Point Roberts section removed.
7
8 Hoag spoke against throwing out the whole ordinance. The County had
9 trouble enforcing the current ordinances. There is a lot of misunderstanding about
10 what the ordinance consists of. People were asking for certain types of
11 enforcement, not understanding that full enforcement means losing the desirable
12 neighbors. The testimony made it obvious that there is much confusion about the
13 existing rules. One example is a letter that referred to a petition of over 500
14 signatures, which would allow for grandfathering rights for present RV's, but would
15 clear out derelict units that need to be removed. That is not what it did, but that is
16 what the people think it did. The two issues that they were asked to address were
17 derelict units that needed to be removed while preserving historic vacation use by
18 families over generations. She recommended a change to the proposed ordinance,
19 section 20.72.051 on packet page 481, which would do that. In that section, she
20 suggested amending language, "...and one accessory guest RV per lot, where such
21 lot has historically been used for recreational vehicle use;..." That way, in the areas
22 where families have been going for generations, the County would preserve the
23 historical use without turning Point Roberts into a trailer park. It would restrict that
24 to areas where RV's have been used historically. All of the other conditions and
25 restrictions would apply.
26
27 Dawson moved to delete the ordinance.
28
29 Nelson called point of order to explain that one cannot delete an ordinance
30 that has not been voted on. Either the ordinance is not voted on and it dies,
31 someone makes an alternative motion in its place, it is amended, or it is voted
32 down.
33
34 Dawson stated she moved to vote down the entire ordinance.
35
36 Nelson stated there is nothing to vote down. It hasn't been moved forward.
37
38 Dawson stated she would move the ordinance forward with the idea that they
39 need to vote it down. Each of the subdivisions are going through a review and they
40 should be addressed.
41
42 Imhof explained that if Councilmember Dawson doesn't want the ordinance
43 adopted, she shouldn't bring it forward in the first place. If there is no motion, then
44 there is no vote.
45
46 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented in the Council packet.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 18
1 Dawson stated she would speak against the motion. Each subarea plan
2 would review the needs of their respective areas. The majority of the people in the
3 County don't understand the effects of the RV ordinance. Each time they liberalize
4 something, the mess gets worse than it already is. That is the reality of the
5 situation. If people want to grandfather their properties and they've been there for
6 generations, then they have every opportunity to do that.
7
8 Nelson moved to amend the Urban Residential and Point Roberts
9 Recreational Subdivision sections that the number of days an RV could remain
10 onsite be changed from 360 days per year to 120 days per year to match the other
11 zones. All the other zones are only allowed 120 days for recreational use. It
12 should be the same with these areas as well. Because of the smaller lot sizes, it is
13 appropriate that they be required to hook up to sewer and water.
14
15 Hoag spoke against the amendment. The County Council mission is to
16 preserve life and health. That is their main thing. As a conservative, she believed
17 in a minimum amount of government, but enough to preserve the rights of the
18 individual and prevent abuse of one against another. This opens a big can of
19 worms. Many restrictions have been added. People used to be able to camp in the
20 Forestry zone for a month at a time and it wasn't a problem. She questioned why it
21 is a problem now. It is not a problem. They are getting too carried away. The two
22 issues that the County Council was asked to address specifically in Point Roberts
23 were derelict RV's and preserving historic use for people who have used them over
24 the years. These changes were suggested to help comply with the Growth
25 Management Act, which asks that historic uses be honored. Her suggested wording
26 grandfathers the uses that are already there. Under the typical grandfathering
27 allowances, only one or two owners would be eligible.
28
29 Dawson considered what is considered historical.
30
31 Hoag stated historical is that it has been used for RV's, not vacant lots.
32 When the Council looked at this the last time, it looked at each district individually
33 to determine the needs of each particular area. Point Roberts is a very unique
34 area. The Foothills subdivision is a unique area. They tailored each one of these
35 sections to what the respective area required. She was offended by the wording in
36 the County Executive's veto that said a "perfected" ordinance was submitted. The
37 Executive did not attend all the hearings. The Executive did not hear all the
38 testimony and the confusion among people about what the actual ordinances were.
39 They've gone through a lot of work. The reason these areas are all treated
40 separately is because people from the areas spelled out the individual uniqueness
41 of each area and said what they need.
42
43 Dawson stated it is difficult for the Council to address the uniqueness. That
44 is why it needs to be addressed with the revisions of the subarea plans.
45
46 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he has been at all the public
47 hearings. He did veto the ordinance because it was improperly processed by the
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 19
1 Council. He was unable to sign an ordinance that was not legal. That was the
2 reason for the veto.
3
4 Hoag stated she did not object to the veto. She objected to the wording
5 about a "perfected" ordinance. The reason it was vetoed legally was because the
6 Council went beyond what was in the public notice. She was not quibbling with the
7 veto. However, when he vetoed the ordinance, he didn't advise the Council to
8 correct the notice. He said he wanted the zones to be standardized and submitted
9 a perfected ordinance for the review. She questioned whether he was at the
10 hearing in Point Roberts.
11
12 Kremen stated he was at that hearing.
13
14 Crawford spoke against the amendment to the motion. They are talking
15 about the recreational subdivisions only in Point Roberts. To leave the RV on the
16 lot all year long with septic hookup and being fully screened is appropriate.
17
18 Kremen stated this has been an issue that has been emotional, sometimes
19 heated, and even personal. All of the proponents and opponents have had good
20 intentions. Staff has worked diligently, hard, and long in trying to come up with an
21 ordinance that the Council wanted. He's gone to great lengths to stay away from
22 the legislative aspects of this. He took pride in that. Councilmember Hoag has
23 worked hard and understood a lot of what has gone into the perfecting of the
24 ordinance. The time has come for the Council to consider the ordinance before it.
25 There are a lot of good things in the ordinance. There is going to be a substantial
26 increase in problems associated with enforcement. If the Council intends to pass
27 an ordinance similar to what was and is before it, there needs to be strong
28 consideration for strengthening enforcement. It is essential not only for the Point
29 Roberts area, but also countywide. As they work on this ordinance, which has
30 some thoughtful and appropriate items such as screening and septic, include a
31 provision which would allow RV's to apply for administrative approval in Point
32 Roberts for a six -month period. After that period of time, the ordinance would
33 sunset and no more RV's would be allowed. This is something that seems to be,
34 right from the outside, a fair and equitable thing. There also seems to be an
35 acceptance of this on both sides. The rigorous enforcement needs to be applied.
36
37 Nelson withdrew his motion.
38
39 Imhof spoke about the 1974 ordinance, which addresses the issue of derelict
40 vehicles quite adequately. To protect the quality of suburban neighborhoods and to
41 maintain individual property values, the indiscriminant deposition of discarded
42 vehicles, equipment, appliances, and assorted junk shall be prohibited. Derelict or
43 abandoned vehicles and trailers, or parts thereof, shall be removed at the property
44 owner's expense after 14 days of official notification. This shall include vehicles and
45 trailers parked in private driveways, public streets, roads, and rights -of way
46 adjacent to property owner's property. It shall also be unlawful to retain
47 inoperative abandoned farming equipment, logging equipment, industrial
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 20
1 machinery, and other mechanical and structural apparatus. He read the remaining
2 portion of the 1974 ordinance.
3
4 Hoag stated they've been over that language a number of times. One of the
5 problems with it is that there are a lot of RV's that don't fit that description and are
6 not derelict, but are on lots that are technically illegal. The owners and neighbors
7 were not aware of that. The current ordinance would be an enforcement
8 nightmare. The administrative approval with a sunset date is a nice idea, but she
9 had questions. She questioned whether a new RV in a few years would be allowed
10 if a person got an approval for a particular RV. Goodwin stated the Whatcom
11 County Code on non - conforming uses discusses taking one non - conforming use and
12 changing it to another non - conforming use. It is the same as remodeling an
13 existing building. They need interpretation from the Land Use Division. They could
14 write the code to allow replacement with a new RV.
15
16 Hoag stated her concern about that language is that, for the next six months,
17 it would be open season on new RV locations in Point Roberts. Anyone who wanted
18 to could put an RV on a lot. If they use her suggested language, they would avoid
19 that problem. Goodwin agreed. Some people would do that, but not a lot of people
20 would buy an RV and bring it to the lot to establish their use. The problem with
21 Hoag's language is that there is nowhere in Point Roberts where an RV has legally
22 been historically used. It is different for a County Council to recognize an illegal
23 use and have to have someone prove that he or she was doing something illegal to
24 be vested.
25
26 Hoag stated that at one time they were legal. Goodwin stated they haven't
27 been legal for over 25 years. Those people can already come under the
28 grandfather clause.
29
30 Imhof proposed allowing the residents of Point Roberts to write their own
31 subarea plan and let the Council enforce it.
32
33 Nelson stated he felt the significant issue is enforcement.
34
35 Hoag moved to refer to committee and not have any more public hearings.
36 They've been hearing the same people say the same things, depending on where
37 they go and what they hear. It is late, and she had problems with the current,
38 revised text, yet some of the things are what people have been asking for. The
39 baby should not be tossed out with the bath water. If there are not enough votes
40 to bring it forward from committee, it can die in committee. After all the testimony
41 they've heard and the work that has been put into it, they should see if they could
42 come up with something that can work. Now is not a good time to do it.
43
44 Motion to refer to committee failed 2 -4 with Hoag and McShane in favor.
45
46 Dawson restated the motion to approve the ordinance as it is.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 21
1 Hoag requested that a straw poll be taken on the ordinance to see if there is
2 any support for it. If there is support, she would like to amend it. If not, she
3 wouldn't waste anyone's time.
4
5 Seeing no support for the ordinance, a vote was taken.
6
7 Hoag stated they should have honored Councilmember Brenner's request to
8 hold it until she could be present.
9
10 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
11
12 Motion to adopt failed 3 -2 -1 with Crawford and McShane in favor and Hoag
13 abstaining.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a short break from 9 :25 to 9 :30 p.m.)
16
17
18 CONSENT AGENDA
19
20 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
21 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through nine.
22
23 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine carried 5 -0 with
24 Crawford out of the room.
25
26 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
27 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL AND
28 QWEST CORPORATION TO PROVIDE INMATE PHONE SERVICES WITH
29 PROJECTED REVENUE TO BE $109,530 (AB2000 -289)
30
31 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE
32 PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF GUARDRAIL USING THE
33 WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT LOWEST RESPONSIVE VENDOR,
34 CORAL SALES COMPANY, IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $75,000
35 (AB2000 -290)
36
37 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
38 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
39 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND NORTHWEST EDUCATIONAL
40 SERVICES DISTRICT #189 TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT TO
41 WHATCOM COUNTY FOR SCHOOL NURSE SERVICES FOR THE
42 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,800 (AB2000-
43 291)
44
45 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
46 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
47 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WIZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL
48 CONSULTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT IN
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 22
1
RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SHELLFISH CLOSURE
2
RESPONSE STRATEGIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,500 FOR A NEW
3
CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $96,676 (AB2000 -292)
4
5
5.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
7
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONSERVATION CORPS TO
8
PROVIDE A SIX - PERSON CREW TO IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN
9
RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROJECTS, A CREW VEHICLE AND BASIC
10
TOOLS, FOR A DOE AMOUNT OF $94,000 AND WHATCOM COUNTY'S
11
SHARE OF $50,000 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 144,000 (AB2000 -293)
12
13
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
14
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
15
ANVIL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE CLERICAL SUPPORT OF WRIA 1
16
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2000-
17
294)
18
19
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
20
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
21
SERVICES AND WHATCOM DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER FOR THE
22
IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDIATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
23
SERVICES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES, IN
24
THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 WHEREIN THE COUNTY RETAINS INDIRECT
25
COSTS OF $3,000 (AB2000 -295)
26
27
S.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
28
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND DR.
29
GRANT DEGER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS IN
30
THE WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2000 THROUGH
31
DECEMBER 31, 2001, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $35,000
32
(AB2000 -296)
33
34
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
35
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
36
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WASHINGTON STATE
37
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE 100% REIMBURSEMENT FOR
38
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTIGATING SITES BELIEVED TO BE
39
RELEASING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, IN A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
40
$115,559 (AB2000 -297)
41
42
43
OTHER ITEMS
44
45
1.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONCERNS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE
46
WHATCOM COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD (AB1999 -389B)
''m
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 23
1 McShane reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
2 stated several members of the Conservancy Board are concerned about personal
3 liability in the decisions they would make. They are looking at insurance. The
4 recommendation was for the Conservancy Board members to bring forward their
5 estimated start up costs and costs for an insurance policy. It would be scheduled
6 before the Finance Committee.
7
8 Imhof questioned whether the County could indemnify the board members.
9
10 McShane stated it couldn't. The problem is from the state law. No
11 indemnification was provided for. Other boards are up and operating. The Council
12 could make the choice, if the board can't get insurance, to reappoint board
13 members who would be willing to serve with that risk.
14
15 Imhof questioned whether they are making recommendations or decisions.
16
17 McShane stated water transfers are done at the state Department of Ecology
18 (DOE) on a first come -first served basis. DOE has argued that they don't have the
19 funds to do these things. The legislature has never given them money. The idea
20 with the conservancy board is that they would pick out ones that are non -
21 controversial and not lead to lawsuits. Despite all that, there are members who are
22 uncomfortable. They talked about taking money from the County as start -up
23 money because they don't want to take money from any other entity that might
24 cause a conflict of interest.
25
26 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST # 9 (AB2000-
27 286)
28
29 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
30 moved approval.
31
32 Motion to adopt carried 5 -0 with Hoag out of the room.
33
34 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND
35 GOVERNMENTAL TELEVISION ACCESS (AB2000 -131)
36
37 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
38 stated this would be held in committee for the first meeting in September.
39
40 Crawford stated it is his understanding that, using the same franchise fee
41 arrangement, they have gone from supplying only cable television service to also
42 providing internet access, and telephone service through the same cable. It did
43 require an upgrade on their part, but the net result to the County financially was
44 identical, while exponentially increasing the revenue and potential revenue that
45 AT &T could generate. That makes him all the more concerned that they work with
46 the County rather than saying they are going to drop the Council broadcast. He
47 hoped AT &T would be a little more acquiescing. The Council ought to pursue its
48 legal remedies.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 24
1
2 McShane questioned whether the administration is going to look closely at
3 this agreement.
4
5 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that was correct.
6
7 Nelson stated they are going to continue airing the Council tapes until this is
8 finalized.
9
10 Desler stated he expected that the City and AT &T would continue to
11 cooperate with the County to ensure that it is handled. The administration has
12 questions regarding the franchise agreement. He read the last sentence of the
13 franchise agreement, which is a clear statement.
14
15 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
16 AGREEMENT FOR POINT ROBERTS SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
17 CONSULTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE #99 -084 (AB2000-
18 288)
19
20 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
21 moved approval.
22
23 Motion carried 5 -0 with Hoag out of the room.
24
25 S. 2001 INTEGRATED ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
26 (AB2000 -298)
27
28 McShane reported for the Public Works Committee and stated it was
29 approved unanimously. It does not need review and approval by the full Council.
30 Next year, it will be substantially different and will require an updated ordinance
31 due to stormwater and Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance.
32
33 Hoag stated the Council had expressed concerns about the amount of
34 Roundup that was used. She questioned whether that was changed.
35
36 McShane stated it wasn't discussed in committee. He asked Jeff Monsen
37 about any changes that were made. There have been minor changes made to
38 pesticide application. When they use it is addressed. He was comfortable with
39 what they brought forward.
40
41 Hoag stated that when it came up from last year, they mentioned it. The
42 Public Works Department provided information from the manufacturer of the
43 chemicals saying it was safe, which didn't surprise her. She discussed it with a
44 farmer after that who applied it to a field, and all seven of their cats died within the
45 next week.
46
47 Nelson stated the problem could have been slug bait.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 25
1 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
2 TITLE 20, TO REVISE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
3 HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS
4 ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADD A NEW CATEGORY OF " "RURAL
5 BUSINESS" TO THE CODE (AB2000 -251)
6
7 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this item
8 was held in committee. The committee received a lot of testimony. The change is
9 going a completely different direction than the direction given to the Planning
10 Commission on that. They will also set up workshop dates in the future because
11 the committee needs to get through this stuff.
12
13 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
14 TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY CHAPTER 20.04.030 INTERPRETATION AND
15 CONFLICT (AB2000 -253)
16
17 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this was
18 held in committee.
19
20 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
21 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY UR -MX ZONING TEXT
22 REGARDING COMMERCIAL CENTERS, BUILDING SETBACKS, THE
23 CALCULATIONS OF THE PERCENT ALLOWABLE MULTI - FAMILY
24 STRUCTURES AND TO PROVIDE FOR SIGN REGULATIONS IN THIS
25 ZONE (AB2000 -254)
26
27 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this was
28 held in committee.
29
30 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
31 ORDINANCE, SECTION 20.92.210, GRANTING THE HEARING
32 EXAMINER THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE COORDINATED WATER
33 SYSTEM PLAN APPEALS (AB2000 -284)
34
35 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this was
36 held in committee.
37
38 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
39 DECISION ON APL00 -0007, FILED BY ROBERT MCCRACKEN (AB2000-
40 257)
41
42 See "Announcements."
43
44 12. APPOINTMENT OF PETER TASSONI TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY
45 COMMITTEE (AB2000 -51B)
46
47 Imhof moved to approve.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 26
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 13. JOINT CITY /COUNTY RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WORK THE
4 BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC
5 VIOLENCE (AB2000 -303)
6
7 See "Announcements."
8
9 14. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT TERRI R.
10 HANSEN TO A PARTIAL TERM ON THE DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES
11 BOARD, WITH A TERM EXPIRATION OF DECEMBER 31, 2001
12 (AB2000 -299)
13
14 Imhof moved approval.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
19
20 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
25 ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.10 AND 20.97, TO MODIFY THE
26 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
27 AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -300)
28
29 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
30 ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATING TO NONCONFORMING
31 SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE MINING IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL,
32 RURAL FORESTRY AND COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2000-
33 301)
34
35 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #10 (AB2000-
36 302)
37
38 OTHER BUSINESS
39
40 Nelson moved to approve a joint resolution creating the Lake Whatcom
41 Watershed Forestry Advisory Forum to act as a subcommittee of the Lake Whatcom
42 Management Committee. The Lake Whatcom Management Committee and the
43 Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum approved the resolution. Serving on the Forestry
44 Forum has been an honor because it is one of the few committees they have that
45 has a diverse group of individuals. The Forestry Forum recognized that there are
46 things for which they can provide their expertise and possibly change. They
47 developed this resolution. He also asked for nominations for the councilmember
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 27
1 whom the Council wants to serve on the Forestry Advisory Forum as the Council
2 representative.
3
4 Hoag nominated Councilmember Nelson.
5
6 Hoag stated there were very few citizens on the membership. She
7 questioned whether this was an existing forum that has been functioning or if they
8 selected certain members from the Forum to put on this.
9
10 Nelson stated the Forestry Forum made the membership recommendations.
11 There are citizens that participate, such as the Sudden Valley Homeowner
12 Association, people from the environmental groups, people from the timber
13 industry, and the Farm Forestry Association.
14
15 Hoag stated it is talking about the Lake Whatcom Watershed Forestry Forum,
16 yet there is only one citizen who resides within the unincorporated area of the
17 watershed and one citizen of Bellingham who resides within the watershed.
18 Everyone else is a timber holder except one representative among those
19 organizations currently involved in addressing environmental concerns or issues
20 regarding Lake Whatcom. That seems there isn't enough citizen representation.
21
22 Nelson stated these are people within the watershed with concerns about
23 preserving forest practices.
24
25 Hoag stated they want to preserve forest practices and the lake at the same
26 time. That is the whole purpose of the Forum.
27
28 Nelson stated there is another group that is preserving the lake. This is a
29 subcommittee of the Lake Whatcom Management Committee regarding forest
30 practices within the watershed. There are other committees that deal with Lake
31 Whatcom water quality, runoff, and other water issues. These people are
32 concerned about preserving forest practices and preventing the demise of the
33 forestlands as well as the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) forestlands.
34
35 Hoag questioned where the membership numbers came from.
36
37 Nelson stated these are the recommendations of the Lake Whatcom
38 Management Committee and the Lake Whatcom Watershed Forestry Forum that
39 currently exists, which is a very diverse group of people. They looked at what the
40 current membership is. They don't want a group that is too large or too small.
41 They are trying to get representation of all elements.
42
43 Dawson stated the watershed is being represented in another group.
44
45 Nelson stated other watershed issues have subcommittees that the Lake
46 Whatcom Management Committee can form and have formed.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 28
1 Hoag moved to add additional citizens under Exhibit A, item three of the
2 membership.
3
4 Nelson stated that the resolution is of the Lake Whatcom Management
5 Committee and the three local governments. They can't really amend the
6 agreement. They can vote for it, vote it down, and vote for the member that they
7 would want to participate.
8
9 Hoag stated they keep going through this when they are involved in other
10 government entities. Everyone else gets to put what they want into it, but the
11 County Council gets told it can't change it because everyone else agreed to it. It
12 seemed that if there is a concern they want to change, they should be able to
13 change it.
14
15 Hoag restated her motion to increase the citizen membership, item three, to
16 two citizens who reside within the unincorporated areas of the Lake Whatcom
17 watershed because that is where the majority of the forestry is located.
18
19 Motion to amend failed 1 -5 with Hoag in favor.
20
21 McShane expressed a concern with the relationship between the Forestry
22 Advisory Forum and the DNR committee created under state law.
23
24 Nelson stated the two would work together. He discussed it with DNR earlier
25 that day. They want representation on their committee from the Forestry Forum.
26 They already have two citizens that are working on that. The Forestry Advisory
27 Forum will relate directly with that committee.
28
29 McShane questioned the level of communication.
30
31 Nelson stated DNR's main concern was that there was not a lot of different
32 groups out of that committee because they don't have the ability to address
33 different groups on forest practices in the watershed. This resolution would provide
34 one group with the expertise, knowledge, and concerns to this advisory board that
35 was developed under the legislative bill from Harriet Spanel and Georgia Gardner.
36 They are also asking to see if there is anyone from the Forestry Forum who is
37 willing to serve.
38
39 McShane questioned whether the DNR has been primarily setting up the
40 state's committee.
41
42 Nelson stated their charge is to collect the names of the people who wish to
43 serve. He received a letter from Jennifer Belcher requesting names of people who
44 would be interested in serving. Jennifer Belcher would make the decision.
45
46 McShane stated there is a heavy representation on the Forestry Advisory
47 Forum of forest owners. The DNR committee would be charged with looking only at
48 state land. He wanted to maintain that separation. It is very important to keep
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 29
1 that separation for the protection of the forest owner lands. They don't want to put
2 blanket regulations on private land versus state owned land.
3
4 Nelson stated state owned would be looking at landscape plans only. That
5 would be on DNR land. That could have ramifications on the private lands as well.
6 That is why they want to make sure there are people who represent forestry
7 practices, landowners, and property owners within the watershed. The DNR
8 committee would probably have questions and concerns for the people on the
9 watershed here. They are probably going to be charged with other items in
10 addition to the Lake Whatcom watershed landscape plan.
11
12 Motion to approve the resolution carried 5 -1 with Hoag opposed.
13
14 Motion to appoint Nelson carried unanimously.
15
16
17 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
18
19 Hoag stated the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC) completed
20 two weeks of public hearings. Whatcom County received compliments on the
21 quality of its witnesses. She suggested sending thank you notes to the witnesses
22 for Whatcom County. The County staff had to add that testimony to their current
23 workloads. They did an excellent job. Also, world famous, top experts testified for
24 Whatcom County, and only asked that their expenses be covered.
25
26 Dawson asked for a list of names and addresses.
27
28 Imhof suggested giving some form of gratitude to Councilmember McShane
29 for the time he's taken, after this is all over.
30
31 McShane stated after ten days of hearings, all committee members are
32 reimbursed for any additional days. He will get reimbursement for one day. The
33 expert witnesses that the County brought forward, including some of the County
34 staff, were outstanding. He spoke with Paula Cooper and told her she made a very
35 complicated issue understandable to the Council.
36
37 Hoag also wanted to thank Dave Grant, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney.
38
39 Nelson explained that What -Comm, the 911 emergency service, would be
40 requesting a nearly $200,000 additional budget appropriation during its budget
41 hearing. He asked for any concerns or comments from the Councilmembers by
42 Thursday.
43
44 Hoag stated they will need other County elected officials to serve on the
45 EFSEC with other pipeline approvals coming up. It is important to have an elected
46 official serve because important decisions would be made and, and they need to be
47 held accountable to the public. The elected officials should be compensated. The
48 County should set up a fund or find out if it is possible to do so.
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Crawford asked everyone to have a great vacation.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September 12 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 8/8/2000, Page 31