Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 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 48 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council February 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 Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: Connie Hoag Dawson announced there was Discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding pending litigation (AB2000 -018) in executive session during Committee of the Whole. There was also a Discussion with Council Clerk Dana Brown -Davis regarding Council policies, by -laws, and parliamentary procedure (AB2000 -017) that was not held in executive session. SPECIAL PRESENTATION WHATCOM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE MICHAEL MOYNIHAN N PRESENTATION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S DRUG COURT (AB2000- 017) Michael Moynihan, Superior Court Judge, gave an explanation of drug court and how well it works. People are getting clean and sober. They are reuniting people with their families and children. People are getting jobs or are being enrolled in school. A lot of jail days are being saved. It is a new idea that began in 1988. The rate of recidivism for those not in drug court runs at about 48 percent. For those in drug court, the recidivism is 17 percent. Most people involved with drug addiction are unemployed. Coming into drug court, 65 percent of the people were unemployed. Leaving drug court, 65 percent were either fully employed or in school. The people involved in drug court are not those who commit serious crimes. The federal government has taken the funding lead. County Employees went to training in Los Angeles and San Bernardino, California and also Lafayette, Louisiana. Drug court started in Whatcom County on July 9, 1999. Nationwide, the failure rate in drug court is about 25 percent. The Whatcom County failure rate is 10 percent. The program is divided into four phases that include, Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 1 1 1. Treatment. The person must be clean and sober and must attend a 2 meeting every day. 3 2. Assimilation into the community through jobs and school, in addition to 4 less frequent treatment. 5 3. Full employment while making payments on restitution and fines, in 6 addition to continued treatment. 7 4. Continued and ongoing support commitment from drug court. 8 9 The program takes anywhere from 12 to 18 months, although it could be 10 longer. Their means for verifying whether the people are clean and sober is regular 11 and random use of urinalysis. Without this, it would be a flop. If the person fails a 12 urinalysis test, they are put into jail for a few days. If they continually fail the test, 13 they are removed from the program. A public defender refers people to the drug 14 court. That name is referred to the Prosecutor. If the Prosecutor doesn't agree, 15 the person doesn't make it to the program. If the Prosecutor refers the person to 16 superior court, he can veto the candidate. They don't let anyone in who has been 17 convicted of a violent offence, a sex offence, or of selling drugs. He introduced 18 Laurie Malone, a person who has been in the drug program. She has done 19 extremely well in the program. St. Joseph's Hospital has hired her to screen 20 candidates for the detoxification program. 21 22 Laurie Malone, Drug Court Program Attendee, stated she started using drugs 23 when she was young and used marijuana and alcohol. As the disease of addiction 24 progressed she began using prescription narcotics and became addicted to heroin. 25 Somehow she kept working, but was miserable for years. Right before joining the 26 program, she was unemployable and homeless. Her family had to let her go. She 27 began committing crimes to support her habit and ended up at the Lighthouse 28 Mission with a cardboard box of dirty clothes. She didn't know how to get out of 29 the spot she was in. She was arrested many times. Before the drug court 30 program, she had been clean for a couple of months. She was offered the 31 opportunity to go to drug court while she was in the recovery house. She accepted 32 the program because she didn't want a felony drug conviction. She had to stay 33 clean. She attended drug court once per week in the beginning, had random 34 urinalysis tests, a treatment component with a drug counselor, and group 35 counseling. The State Department of Corrections is involved. Drug court has 36 offered her much support. She's seen people get their lives back and get their kids 37 back. The 12 -step part of the program is the main reason for success. There are 38 different classes they are required to attend. Drug addicts have low self- esteem. 39 She has been clean a little over a year, and is now working two jobs and plans to 40 go back to school soon. She was grateful to be involved and hoped to continue. 41 42 Brenner questioned whether it was possible to expand drug court to people 43 who sell drugs in small quantities. Moynihan stated it was possible. 44 45 Brenner questioned whether drug court included people with alcohol 46 violations. Moynihan stated it does. They started off with 20 people, and now have 47 approximately 24 people. Eventually, they hope to have three groups of 20 people. 48 He wished there was enough time, money, and energy to cycle the 300 to 500 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 2 1 people in the county who really need it. 2 3 Nelson questioned whether the program has relieved any pressure on the 4 court system. Moynihan stated they have taken their normal Thursday criminal 5 calendar and moved it to 8:30 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. They haven't saved any 6 real time yet. 7 8 Brenner questioned whether there is any effort to develop a night court. 9 Moynihan stated night court is not feasible for Superior Court, but it might be 10 something for traffic court. Most of the night courts are for traffic violations. 11 12 13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 14 15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: 16 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999; REGULAR 17 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 9 AND 23, AND DECEMBER 7, 1999 18 19 Brenner moved approval with the scrivener's errors corrections already given 20 to Council staff. 21 22 Motion carried unanimously. 23 24 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: 25 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 11, 2000 26 27 These minutes were included in the vote for the minutes above. 28 29 30 OPEN SESSION 31 32 The following people spoke: 33 34 Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shore Road, Bellingham, read a letter submitted 35 to the County Council (on file) regarding a meeting that was hosted by Clean Water 36 Alliance and was held in the Council Chambers the previous evening. The meeting 37 appeared to be County endorsed. It gave a false impression. 38 39 Imhof stated this issue was addressed by the Committee of the Whole earlier 40 in the evening. They will get some policy in place to make sure it doesn't happen 41 again. 42 43 Dawson stated the meeting held the previous evening was not sponsored by 44 the County Council. The policy is being developed. 45 46 Ed Sinclair, 4121 Ridgewood Avenue, stated there are currently over 1,100 47 homes planned between the county line and Sudden Valley because of the urban 48 growth designation. There is overwhelming proof that Lake Whatcom's quality is Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 3 1 declining. There is no question that further development will only hasten the 2 decline. Lake Whatcom Boulevard is already a traffic mess during the normal 3 commuting times. The 1,100 new homes will add approximately 1,600 new people 4 to the congestion. These 1,100 new homes will add 125 acres of impervious 5 surface to the watershed zone. The sewage system is inadequate, even with the 6 new detention pond in Sudden Valley. The water supply system is inadequate, 7 forcing installation of a new water tank. The schools are crowded and the fire 8 protection is limited. Water District #10 is already making him pay for the 9 detention pond and the water tank. In the near future, he will be made to pay for 10 the road expansions, the sewer upgrades, new schools, and increased fire 11 protection. He will be paying for all of these when the Taiwanese speculator, who is 12 developing Cedar Hills West, is counting his money. It is time to stop the 13 construction or make the developers pay for the infrastructure. He asked the 14 Council to please change watershed area to a rural designation and slow the 15 explosive growth that its actions have promoted. 16 17 Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 W. Maplewood Avenue, spoke on the drug program. 18 There was an article in the Western Front that goes to the heart of the problem. He 19 began asking for help in the 1970's. Church people will not provide honest help. 20 When people are in trouble people should be honest with them. Honesty will be the 21 only thing to save these people. People have to be religiously unbiased on this 22 issue. 23 24 Steve LeCocq, 673 N. Lake Samish Drive, stated the proposal to downzone 25 areas at Lake Samish is ludicrous. In addition, he thanked Executive Kremen for 26 supporting local soccer. He encouraged people to check out the new Sportsplex. 27 Two people brought forward a proposal to downzoning the area of Lake Samish. 28 Thirty or forty concerned property owners attended the Planning Committee in 29 protest. They want it to be zoned residential, as it has been for a long time. It fits 30 with the Growth Management Act. The taking of property rights by a downzone in 31 the area is a bad idea. The issue has to be killed. 32 33 Jim Malin, 244 Summerland Road, Lake Samish, stated he has been a 34 resident of the area for 18 years. He was opposed to heavy development in the 35 Lake Samish area. This area cannot accommodate any more logging or 36 development without causing more damage to the area. There is already water 37 quality and silt runoff from clear cuts in the region, including one cut by the ALRT 38 Corporation. All of the silt flows into Barrett Creek, which goes into Friday Creek, a 39 salmon spawning ground. He videotaped the damage and will send the tape to 40 state and federal officials. There is a landslide from another clear cut on the east 41 side of the lake. Twenty years ago the water in the lake is clear. Now it is muddy 42 with silt, which is three feet deep in places at the bottom of the lake. The roads 43 cannot accommodate any more traffic. They are narrow and dangerous. 44 Summerland Road cannot accommodate two full -size trucks side by side without 45 one vehicle's wheel on the shoulder. There is a significant amount of logging truck 46 traffic on these roads, which make them hazardous. There have been many 47 accidents in the region due to the narrow roads. Concentrated development will Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 4 1 only aggravate this problem. He urged the Council to put docket item 2000 -B 2 before the Planning Commission. 3 4 Jean Freestone Mach, 3864 Robby Court, Bellingham, spoke about a meeting 5 she attended the previous evening held by the Clean Water Alliance. She 6 questioned how contaminated the Lake Whatcom water is, compared to other 7 areas. Studies done by Western Washington University document that the water 8 quality in basin one dramatically improved when sewers replaced septics. They can 9 look forward to more improvement when sewers are upgraded. Several years ago, 10 the City of Bellingham commissioned a study that compared the Lake Whatcom 11 water supply with nine other water purveyors. Many of the purveyors had totally 12 protected watersheds that are owned by the city or county government. Compared 13 to the most protected watersheds, Lake Whatcom water quality was cleaner and 14 more pure by every measure. They can claim to have one of the best water 15 supplies in the state and in the country. The study concluded that they should not 16 need to worry about having a clean and healthy source of water, even with 17 maximum build out, as long as they take basic precautions. They have mixed use 18 watershed in which 80 percent is forestry use with severe slopes. That limits the 19 amount of buildable land that will ever be available for residential development. 20 They should let facts, not unwarranted fear, guide the public process. She 21 submitted a copy of the study to the clerk (on file). 22 23 Becky O'Brine Willson, 921 W. Lake Samish, stated there is a request that 24 the rezone be added to the packet of Comprehensive Plan amendments at Lake 25 Samish. She asked that the Council vote in favor of that request. In 1986, the 26 zoning was changed to two houses per acre. It has been fourteen years since that 27 rezone, and they know more now about the impact of development in the 28 watershed. Watersheds are a finite, non - renewable resource. The lake is public 29 property. The Council has the responsibility to protect the quality of that lake so it 30 is available in the future for recreation use. If the water quality is degraded, it will 31 not be available. 32 33 Cathy LeCocq, 673 N. Lake Samish Drive, Lake Samish is a good place for 34 residential development at 2 homes per acre. They need to regard the rights of the 35 property owners who purchased the land with that zoning. She read from the 36 Whatcom County Home Rule Charter, which states that individual citizens' rights 37 shall be guaranteed. This downzone would unduly burden a lot of people who have 38 invested much money in their property. They need to be concerned about 39 development impacts. The Lake Samish community needs to be concerned about 40 those impacts. 41 42 Bruce Phillips, 194 Shallow Shore Road, asked the Council to consider 43 rezoning the Lake Samish area. The area cannot support infrastructure for future 44 development. Making it safer for substantial development would impact the people 45 who are already there. Property will have to be taken away from them. Safety is a 46 concern because there are no sidewalks. There are a lot of children in the area. He 47 was concerned about the costs of development to existing citizens in the area. The 48 quality of life is the main issue. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 5 1 2 Craig Cammock, 607 - 1St Street, La Conner, spoke against the Lake Samish 3 issue being docketed for the Planning Commission. He grew up on Lake Samish. 4 He would love it if no growth occurred, but it will. Everyone lives in a watershed, 5 and all watersheds need to be protected. Lake Samish is not unique. He 6 challenged proponents of the item to prove how they are different than any other 7 watershed. He was opposed to suburban sprawl, which is truly damaging the 8 environment. By downzoning the property, all they are doing is creating suburban 9 sprawl. Bigger lots mean more area and fewer people will fit into the same space 10 they had before. The current zoning was given great consideration by the Council 11 in the past. A lot of landowners have bought into that area and spent a lot of 12 money. There are no changed circumstances. 13 14 Warren Hansen, Trigg Road, Bellingham, he experienced most watersheds in 15 the county throughout his life. 16 17 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 18 19 Hansen continued to state that the fish he used to catch were healthy for 20 eating. It is important to have water for people and animals first, and business 21 second. 22 23 Kurt Shelton, 791 Lake Samish Drive, stated he is a renter in the Lake 24 Samish area. He has been there three and a half years. In that time, he has 25 gotten to know the community and fall in love with it. He doesn't have the means 26 to buy waterfront property. The lake area is going to grow, which brings up 27 concerns. He has concerns about traffic. He questioned what will happen to the 28 people who have invested their lives in the lake. Many in the community have 29 invested their livelihood. He asked that the Council look at the guidelines for 30 making the prior rezone of the area. He was not in favor of the rezone and asked 31 for common sense. He has never had or seen any problems with the water quality 32 of the lake. 33 34 James Willson, 921 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated that in the past he has 35 been a contractor and developer. He was asked to help distribute a survey to the 36 residents around the lake to see if they would support a full environmental impact 37 statement for a development going in near the lake. He met a lot of neighbors 38 during the process. The petition ended up having over 300 names on it. While 39 talking to the neighbors, he discovered that a great majority wanted to see more 40 controls. They all had different ideas on how to get there. The people are willing to 41 compromise on the current proposal. The current proposal is not for the entire 42 Lake Samish watershed, but only a small portion. He requested that this proposal 43 be looked at. 44 45 Robert Smith, 618 W. Lake Samish, stated he has lived there since 1968. He 46 has seen the quality of water improve over the years since the sewer system was 47 installed. The watershed needs to be protected, but the concept of a severe 48 downzoning of one house per five acres seems very inappropriate. The major Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 6 1 problem is forestry in the area, not houses. The threat of more regulation and 2 restriction is the impetus to begin development. 3 4 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he has been a realtor for 25 years. He is 5 a property rights proponent. The goal of bringing this forward was the realization 6 that there is a lot of division out at the lake between the residents. There are 7 people on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the newspaper reported only one 8 side of the issue. He wants to reduce restrictions on people being able to sell their 9 vacant land. There is a tense situation in the area that will not go away until there 10 is resolution. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of what the plan is about. 11 He read from the plan on page one of section two. All he was asking was that this 12 go through the public process and let the Planning Department sift through this. 13 This issue is not going to go away, and the battle will increase as development 14 starts to occur. 15 16 Jan Adams, 1709 - 4t" Street, Bellingham, stated she doesn't live in either of 17 the watersheds, but the effects run down hill. The pollution collects in the lake's 18 sediments and in the tributary streams. Those are the most toxic areas of the lake. 19 A water sample from a clean basin in Lake Whatcom doesn't have the pollution that 20 is evident in the sediment and tributary streams. They will deplete the clean water 21 supply. Clean water should be an inalienable right. Globally, there is a problem 22 with clean water. The United States has been blessed. With the increase in 23 population, there need to be stricter standards in taking care of the environment. 24 The children will have to pay for their mistakes in allowing rampant or unplanned 25 growth. They need to plan growth very carefully. Development is the most 26 detrimental activity to water quality. The landowners have the responsibility to 27 ensure the health and safety standards of the water are clear. It is not appropriate 28 to wait until the deterioration is evident to take action. 29 30 Frank Monks, 951 W. Lake Samish Drive, stated he has been a resident for 31 about 40 years. There isn't enough development and land around the lake to make 32 a lot of difference on water quality. There are two issues that have not been 33 addressed. One of the issues has to do with personal watercraft. They have a 34 water system they use for their family, as do many others. There is a difference in 35 the water quality between the winter and the summer, when boaters stir up the 36 lake. Also, maple leaves fall into the lake and get into the filter systems. These 37 issues have not ever been addressed. 38 39 Jeff Monks, 951 W. Lake Samish Drive, challenged county residents to not 40 fertilize their lawns because it ends up in the streams. They should limit the 41 chemicals that can be applied to the lawns. It will help with the sediment problem. 42 Also, he questioned whether anyone notified the residents about the rezone. 43 44 Jamie Curley, 1008 W. Toledo Street, stated she was concerned about the 45 Lake Whatcom watershed. She was upset about water quality. A watershed should 46 be an unpopulated place. She asked the Council to support the legislation that 47 minimized road construction in the watershed. Hopefully they can educate the 48 population about lawn fertilizer use. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 7 1 2 Blaine Landsbury, 2255 Yew Street Road, Bellingham, stated things are 3 changing quickly. She urged the Council to do everything possible to protect the 4 watersheds, especially Lake Whatcom. They need to have planned growth. It is 5 the Council's responsibility to look out for the rights of private property owners, but 6 there are public property rights that impact more people. There has to be a 7 balance. More people will be impacted if Lake Whatcom is not protected. The 8 Council should see the watersheds in Everett and King County. 9 10 Earl Lawson, 3454 Grove Road, Gooseberry Point, stated he was not enjoying 11 the taste of the water he drinks. He is reluctant to drink out of this water source. 12 They should take measures to go to the third basin. It costs the taxpayers when 13 there is development around the lake. As a taxpayer, he didn't want any more 14 development or logging in the watershed. There is substantial runoff and silt in the 15 lake during the rainy season. If the water quality is degraded, property values will 16 go down. 17 18 Mark Johnson, Donald Avenue, stated their grandchildren will not be able to 19 drink, swim, or fish out of Lake Whatcom. They need to stop the damage before 20 they allow more activity that has degraded the lake in the past. There is excellent 21 science they should not ignore. It may hurt economically, but this is a thriving, 22 adaptable economy. The society is rich. They need to have the moral and political 23 backbone to do the right thing. 24 25 Dewey Huston, 3315 Northshore Road, stated he is a retired Georgia Pacific 26 engineer that lives on Lake Whatcom. Twenty years ago he could see the bottom 27 of the lake in 20 feet of water. He used to have to change his water system filter 28 every 3 months, but now he has to change them in three weeks. There is a way to 29 do things differently. In Norway and Finland, they log their land at a sustained 30 yield. They do not destroy their watershed or the purity of the water. They do not 31 wipe out the fisheries or disturb the wildlife. Public and private land should not be 32 used to the detriment of the public welfare. 33 34 35 PUBLIC HEARING 36 37 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING TEXT CHAPTER 38 20.83 AND 20.38 REGARDING NONCONFORMING LOTS AND LOT 39 CONSOLIDATION (AB2000 -075) 40 41 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report. This issue 42 has been under consideration for several years. It was referred to the Planning 43 Commission a year and a half ago. They spent a fair amount of time writing an 44 ordinance that would considerably decrease the number of lots that would be 45 consolidated to make it a much easier process that is administrative approval rather 46 than conditional use. They also decreased the lot size in an urban growth area so 47 that no one would be consolidated unless the lot was smaller than 6,000 square 48 feet or two acres in the rural areas. That ordinance was adopted on December 7, Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 8 1 1999, but was vetoed due to concerns of Planning Department staff who would 2 have to enforce the ordinance. The first concern dealt with the issue of water and 3 sewer. The wording that was amended said that no lot would be consolidated 4 unless the lot was incapable of water and sewer. The effect of that is that the 5 County would be in the position of having to prove that the lot could not be served. 6 With modern engineering, just about any lot could be served. The other concern 7 was about the language that said no buildable portion of a lot would be outside an 8 alluvial fan hazard area or flood plain. They were concerned that each lot should 9 have a site large enough for a house to be built outside of the flood plain or alluvial 10 fan hazard area, but they couldn't interpret it that way as it was written. She 11 provided alternative language that came forward to the Planning and Development 12 Committee at the last meeting on January 25. The committee decided on their 13 options and presented this ordinance. However, today the committee changed its 14 mind. She recommended adoption of the ordinance as it is in the packet. It would 15 be very difficult to determine how many lots would be consolidated under this 16 ordinance. There are probably hundreds of lots that are consolidated, but not more 17 than a couple of thousand. If this ordinance is not an option the Council wants, 18 then she suggested scheduling a discussion during Committee of the Whole to 19 discuss the issue. Referring it back to Planning Commission or the committee may 20 not be the best way to go because the majority of the committee recommended 21 this ordinance. 22 23 Crawford gave a committee report. Councilmember McShane made a motion 24 to forward this to the full Council as written. The committee vote was split. He 25 made a friendly amendment to remove the words "the Lake Whatcom watershed" in 26 section (2)(f) regarding the lands outside of the urban growth areas. Then, the 27 ordinance would be acceptable to him. However, McShane did not accept the 28 friendly amendment. There was no recommendation to Council. There was further 29 discussion regarding repeal of the ordinance. 30 31 Nelson questioned whether the Planning Commission adopted this language. 32 Goodwin stated they did not. This language has been modified to address the 33 concerns raised by the Council on December 7. The ordinance recommended by 34 the Planning Commission was in the Council packet on December 7. The current 35 version is more lenient regarding fewer lot consolidations. The main differences are 36 on Council packet page 349, items five through seven. There were additional areas 37 added for lot consolidation relief if the applicant could show that he or she has 38 water and sewer service, or could get an onsite water and sewer system. The two 39 other changes are that the Planning Commission draft said that the lots would be 40 consolidated if it didn't meet the zoning if any portion of the lot was within the Lake 41 Whatcom watershed 100 -year flood plain, shoreline, alluvial fan hazard area, or 42 agriculture or forestry land. This version specifies more than 50 percent of the 43 area. She suggested another option that each site does not have a building site of 44 at least 1,500 square feet. 45 46 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public 47 hearing. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 9 1 McShane moved to adopt the ordinance as it is. 2 3 Brenner stated that the veto was based on her recommendation. It was 4 clear to her what a buildable lot is. It is a lot that allows something to be built 5 because it has adequate approved water and sewer system of some sort. This 6 ordinance penalized people who have played by the rules. Those are the people 7 who have put their adjoining lots in one name. People have caught onto the 8 loophole and put their adjoining lots in different names so their lots are not 9 consolidated. They cannot selectively downzone people. She wanted to provide 10 incentives for lot consolidation. Any small postage stamp size lot that cannot get 11 services is not a buildable lot. She didn't agree with the opinion that it is a waste of 12 time to figure out all these lots. 13 14 Dawson stated she agreed that people should be left to their own devices to 15 prove they can develop their lot and get services. 16 17 (Clerk's note: End of tape one, side B.) 18 19 Dawson continued to state that they don't need to have an ordinance. 20 21 McShane questioned why the Council, with the exception of Councilmember 22 Crawford, adopted this ordinance originally. The changes were made to reflect the 23 concerns that were brought forward in the amendment. That has been done in a 24 way that would be enforceable. He questioned the reason for the sudden reversal. 25 26 Brenner stated she never reversed her position. She has been against it the 27 entire time. She always voted against it. 28 29 Crawford stated he would always reserve his right to change his opinion 30 based on additional testimony. He hoped he would never be so single- minded 31 about an issue that he would not be flexible in doing that. 32 33 Dawson questioned whether there would be any regulation in place if the 34 ordinance is voted down. Goodwin stated the existing lot consolidation ordinance 35 that was adopted in 1981 would be the regulation. It is much worse than the one 36 they are considering currently. 37 38 Dawson questioned how they do away with both ordinances. Goodwin stated 39 there are several ways. The Council could continue working on a lot consolidation 40 ordinance that is acceptable, or they could direct staff to draw up an ordinance that 41 would repeal lot consolidation entirely. 42 43 Dawson questioned how long that would take. She remembered discussing 44 this six years ago. Goodwin stated they have been working on it since 1981. If 45 they want to declare an emergency, they could repeal it fairly quickly. Otherwise, 46 they could prepare something and put it on the docket for June 30. They could 47 adopt this ordinance and make it an administrative approval process while they are 48 waiting to repeal it. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 10 1 2 Imhof questioned how many there are per year. Goodwin stated there are 3 ten to fifteen. 4 5 Dawson stated they take up a lot of the Hearing Examiner's time. Goodwin 6 stated there have been 42 in ten years. Most of them have been approved. 7 8 Brenner stated she was concerned about what happens to the people 9 between now and June. She questioned whether the people could be told. She 10 questioned how the people come forward. Goodwin stated all the people are 11 already consolidated. Everyone that doesn't meet the criteria is already 12 consolidated. There are half a dozen people that are waiting to find out what the 13 Council is going to do with this ordinance. If the Council approves this ordinance 14 and makes the process and administrative approval process, the applicants can 15 come forward with $125 and proof that they have water and sewer. They would 16 have their two lots back. As it is, it is a more expensive process that goes to the 17 Hearing Examiner. 18 19 Brenner stated the applicants could be told to wait until June. It would be 20 less expensive for them. Goodwin stated that was correct. They could also adopt 21 this ordinance, and then abolish it all in June. 22 23 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance that is before them, and docket the 24 item for Planning Commission and schedule repeal in June. 25 26 Nelson stated that if they are going to act on this, then he would amend the 27 lands partially outside of urban growth areas, and remove sections (f)(i) and (f)(ii) 28 on packet page 348. Goodwin stated the discussion during committee was that 29 they wouldn't want to consolidate someone just because half their lot was in the 30 watershed. 31 32 Brenner stated there are people in urban growth areas, as well as outside of 33 urban growth areas, who will be affected by this. It sounded as if they are trying to 34 make a bad situation less bad, but the problem is forced lot consolidation. They 35 can vote this ordinance down, and have staff tell people that in June the original lot 36 consolidation ordinance will be brought forward. 37 38 Dawson stated they could adopt the ordinance and still bring forward the 39 change in June. 40 41 Imhof stated that lot consolidation will have a lesser chance of being 42 abolished in June if this ordinance is adopted. The realistic choices are to vote this 43 ordinance down and repeal lot consolidation in June or amend this ordinance to an 44 acceptable level. 45 46 Nelson stated he didn't like either ordinance. 47 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 11 1 Goodwin stated they could see the wording of the item as it was originally 2 docketed. If it was broad enough that they are looking to amend the lot 3 consolidation ordinance, the Council may continue to work on this and amend it by 4 abolishing it. When this was initiated by the Council and sent to the Planning 5 Commission, there was direction on what to look at. If that direction is broad 6 enough to allow repeal of the ordinance, then staff could develop such an 7 ordinance. 8 9 Brenner stated it would still take up staff time. Goodwin stated this is taking 10 up a lot of staff time. 11 12 Brenner stated the best thing is to decide whether or not they want forced lot 13 consolidation. It is not a fair way to treat people because they are treating people 14 unequally. 15 16 Nelson withdrew his amendment. 17 18 Motion to adopt the ordinance failed 1 -5 with McShane in favor. 19 20 Imhof moved to ask staff to draft an ordinance to abolish the lot 21 consolidation ordinance. 22 23 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that an incentive ordinance be 24 brought forward for people to consolidate lots. Goodwin explained that there are 25 no viable incentives. She will look into it. She suggested discussion during 26 Committee of the Whole. 27 28 Motion to request action from staff carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed. 29 30 31 CONSENT AGENDA 32 33 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 34 moved approval of consent agenda items one through five. 35 36 Motion carried unanimously. 37 38 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 39 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SOLE SOURCE VENDOR 40 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND 41 SERVICE OF THE COUNTY'S HVAC AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS, IN THE 42 FIVE -YEAR TOTAL AMOUNT OF $73,830, WITH THE COST IN 2000 43 BEING $13,900 (AB2000 -080) 44 45 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 46 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 47 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 48 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT, TO PROVIDE Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 12 1 REVENUE SUPPORTING VARIOUS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2 PROGRAMS, IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDED CONTRACT 3 AMOUNT OF $690,267 (AB2000 -081) 4 5 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 6 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 7 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND REGION 3 AIDS SERVICE NETWORK TO 8 PROVIDE SERVICES FOR HIV /AIDS EDUCATION, TESTING, 9 COUNSELING, PREVENTION PLANNING AND CASE MANAGEMENT 10 SERVICES IN THE STATE FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $126,310 11 (AB2000 -082) 12 13 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 14 AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE 15 NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL 16 SERVICES FOR PHASE II OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAW AND JUSTICE 17 PLAN IN THE AMENDED TOTAL AMOUNT OF $128,957 WITH THE 18 AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $18,957 (AB2000 -083) 19 20 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE UNITY GROUP 22 FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY PROPERTY AND BOILER AND 23 MACHINERY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 20, 24 2000 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2001 (AB2000 -084) 25 26 27 OTHER ITEMS 28 29 1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE 30 LEGISLATURE PASS LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT 31 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS' PILOT PROJECT SB5536 32 ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000 -076) 33 34 McShane reported for Natural Resources Committee. There was one 35 amendment on packet page 93, line 15, "WHEREAS prior timber harvests..." 36 37 Brenner moved approval of the resolution with the text change. 38 39 Motion to amend carried unanimously. 40 41 Nelson stated this has gone through a process already. He moved to include 42 language on packet page 94, "BE IT FURTER RESOLVED that the Whatcom County 43 Council supports the version of the bill that is currently working its way through the 44 State Senate, as Senate Bill 6731 (PSSB 6731)." Nelson stated the current version 45 recognizes the concerns expressed by the committee and the Forestry Forum 46 regarding funding for retrofitting of logging roads in the watershed. Prior to this, 47 forest cuts had to be used to fund the road enhancements. The other issue is the 48 buffer issue. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 13 1 2 Brenner stated she would also support the resolution. She was impressed 3 that a diverse group of people got together to come up with a resolution that 4 everyone can take ownership in. 5 6 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed. 7 8 Brenner questioned why McShane was opposed. 9 10 McShane stated they are backing away from buffering type five streams, 11 which was recommended by the committee. Whatcom County recognizes the 12 protection of type five streams as necessary within the Critical Areas Ordinance 13 (CAO). It is also the stance the State Department of Ecology has taken in Whatcom 14 County when development is done. 15 16 Nelson stated type five streams have more impacts than just in Lake 17 Whatcom or its watershed. 18 19 Dawson stated she didn't support the type five stream buffers because the 20 critical areas are dealt with by function, and the County needs to be consistent. 21 22 McShane stated he would have accepted that as an amendment. 23 24 Brenner stated she supported increasing the type five stream buffers on 25 steep slopes that are located in public lands in the watershed. 26 27 Motion to approve the amended resolution carried unanimously. 28 29 30 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 2 (AB2000- 31 067) 32 33 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services and moved 34 approval. 35 36 Motion to adopt carried unanimously. 37 38 39 3. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 40 AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -065) 41 42 Crawford reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated 43 there are eight proposed docket items. Each item will be voted on individually. 44 45 Docket Item 2000 -A: 46 47 Crawford stated the recommendation from committee was to forward this to 48 the Planning Commission. Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 14 1 2 Motion carried unanimously. 3 4 Docket Item 2000 -B: 5 6 Crawford stated McShane moved to forward to the Planning Commission 7 during Planning Committee, but the vote to move forward failed 1 -1. 8 9 McShane moved to include this item on the Planning Commission docket. 10 11 Brenner stated this is an issue about whether the end justifies the means. 12 She was concerned because the zoning has been the zoning there for a very long 13 time. They need to ensure more restrictions in the area. One of the proponents of 14 the forced downzone brought forward language from the Comprehensive Plan about 15 land use changes being brought about by incentives. In this case, the amount of 16 property in that area is not a large amount of property, and it will never reach its 17 potential build -out. There is an overlay program they just completed for Lake 18 Whatcom. It should extend to Lake Samish. If they are going to take away an 19 individual's right to develop, there has to be compensation. There is a way the 20 community around Lake Samish can work together. She questioned when the 21 overlay standards would come before the Council. 22 23 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that there is a hearing 24 scheduled before the Planning Commission on March 9, 2000. They should be done 25 with the rest of the docket and have the items to the Council by late April. 26 27 Brenner stated the overlay would satisfy a lot of the community's concerns. 28 29 McShane stated there is a problem down there. This is an effort to address 30 that. It is not a complete downzone. That isn't necessarily what the Planning 31 Commission would come up with and might go through in this process. There are 32 problems with water quality and roads. He doubted whether that road could handle 33 a 500 percent increase in population. It should be addressed. If they don't, they 34 are just ignoring the problem. 35 36 Crawford spoke against the motion and concurred with Brenner that he was 37 in favor of seeing the watershed protection overlay addressed in the Lake Samish 38 area. He looked forward to the application of that. 39 40 Dawson stated she attended a regulatory seminar. During the seminar, it 41 was mentioned that if a person's investment was damaged through regulatory 42 taking, then damages would have to be paid. When people purchase property, the 43 predictability of the purchase was that it would increase in density, not decrease. 44 45 Nelson stated the Council looked at this area during the Comprehensive Plan 46 process. They decreased the densities in the Lake Samish area. They restricted 47 additional density requests. They need to have planned growth and look at impacts 48 to water quality and roads. The zones reflect the history of the area. People have Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 15 1 gone through the hearing processes and expressed their opinions. There is 2 legitimacy to the zoning. If the Council changes it again, then they are going to 3 have to look at all the zones. He would much rather develop a protective 4 mechanism for areas of critical need. There are not enough facts that justify these 5 changes. The Council is not voting on a higher or lower density, but the existing 6 density. 7 8 Brenner stated she didn't believe predictability infers higher density. She 9 was concerned that when water and sewer is available, there will be a big push for 10 that. The reason they zoned the area suburban enclave was to contain what was 11 already going on in the smallest area possible, and not allow it to spread out. 12 When the requests come in after this is over and the water and sewer are in, she 13 would not support increasing the density there. 14 15 Dawson stated predictability means staying the same or going up, but not 16 going down. 17 18 Brenner stated it doesn't mean going up. 19 20 Imhof called for the question. 21 22 Motion failed 1 -5 with McShane in favor. 23 24 Docket Item 2000 -C: 25 26 Crawford stated during committee he moved to not docket this item, and 27 that motion carried unanimously. There is no sewer in the area. 28 29 Brenner stated the water table in Point Roberts is extremely high. There is 30 no way they can develop at urban levels. They could put in a community drain 31 field, but that is the last thing they want in Point Roberts at this point. She didn't 32 want requests like this to even come forward. 33 34 The item died for lack of a motion. 35 36 Docket Item 2000 -113: 37 38 Crawford stated this was moved to the full Council from committee with no 39 recommendation. 40 41 Dawson stated this property has steep slopes. 42 43 Crawford moved to forward to Planning Commission. 44 45 Brenner spoke against the motion. The area has very steep slopes. It is well 46 forested and is what they decided they were going to do between commercial 47 forestry and residential development. There is not one reason to convert it to Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 16 1 residential development, but there are a lot of reasons to leave it as the buffer they 2 said they would have to protect the forestry area. 3 4 Motion failed 1 -5 with Crawford in favor. 5 6 Docket Item 2000 -E: 7 8 Crawford stated this is in the Lynden Urban Growth Area. It was 9 recommended to move this forward to forward to the Planning Commission. 10 11 Motion carried unanimously. 12 13 Docket Item 2000 -F: 14 15 Crawford stated it was recommended to move this forward to forward to the 16 Planning Commission. He so moved. 17 18 Motion carried unanimously. 19 20 Docket Item 2000 -G: 21 22 Crawford stated it was recommended to move this forward to forward to the 23 Planning Commission. He so moved. 24 25 Motion carried unanimously. 26 27 Docket Item 2000 -H: 28 29 Crawford stated this comes to Council with a new recommendation. He 30 voted to move it forward to the Planning Commission, but McShane was opposed. 31 32 Nelson stated that means there is no recommendation. 33 34 Crawford moved to add this item on the Planning Commission docket. 35 36 Goodwin stated there was a question about the zoning to the west of this 37 area. The area to the west is Bakerview Valley Industrial Park and is zoned General 38 Manufacturing. Property north of Bakerview is zoned Light Impact Industrial. The 39 area to the south is state lands managed by the State Department of Natural 40 Resources (DNR) and is zoned Urban Residential four units per acre (UR4). 41 42 Imhof questioned the zoning to the southeast of the area. Goodwin stated 43 that is Urban Residential -Mixed (UR -MX). 44 45 Nelson stated he considered not docketing this item. The proponent came 46 forward and was concerned about developing this as residential because there are 47 pipeline considerations. There are pipelines on almost all sides of the area and 48 running through the area. Olympic Pipeline is to the east of the property. Two Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 17 1 pipes run through the middle of the property. One pipe goes to the City of 2 Bellingham. The TransMountain pipeline runs along the western portion of the 3 property. The City of Bellingham recommended that it be residential. 4 5 Brenner stated there may be a substantial portion on each side that is 6 developable for residential properties. She wanted to hold the item and ask the 7 City of Bellingham if they considered the pipeline issue. If they change this zoning, 8 they are going to lose 96 residential development sites. When the majority of the 9 Council voted on Gateway Industrial, language allowed that area to be developed 10 commercially if that was the highest use for the developer. When that came in, 11 they heard repeatedly that there was not a need for light industrial. If there is not 12 a need for light industrial, the Council should wait and see if the city considered 13 that before they make a decision. 14 15 Nelson stated Light Industrial is also a buffer between General Manufacturing 16 and housing developments. This area would serve as a buffer. 17 18 Crawford stated they are not voting whether or not to rezone the area. 19 There is enough debate on this, and this is the purpose of sending it to the Planning 20 Commission. He strongly encouraged the Council to put this on the docket. 21 22 Dawson questioned whether the city will provide their input at the Planning 23 Commission. 24 25 Dawson stated they would. 26 27 McShane stated he generally believed it could be zoned Light Impact 28 Industrial. They are going to run into the same issue of concurrency with the city. 29 They are creating a false hope for the proponent at a cost for the proponent. If 30 they put this forward, the proponent will have to pay at least $1,900. In addition, 31 the County has to pay for staff time on this issue. In the end, he might get turned 32 down anyway, unless they are going to ignore the city's input. Also, they should 33 have considered the pipeline issue on Lake Samish because Olympic Pipeline goes 34 right through some of that rezone area. 35 36 Dawson stated the proponent knows about the costs, and is willing to take 37 that risk. 38 39 Brenner moved to refer to the next Council meeting, so the city will have 40 time to respond to the pipeline question. If they didn't consider it, they may want 41 to consider it and may work with the Council. 42 43 Motion to refer to committee failed 2 -4 with Brenner and McShane in favor. 44 45 Goodwin stated the city was probably aware of the pipelines because the 46 applicant said he showed a map to the City Council that showed the location of the 47 pipelines. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 18 1 Motion to docket the item carried 4 -2 with Brenner and McShane opposed. 2 3 (Clerk's Note: Motion and vote on the resolution occurred later in the 4 meeting. See below.) 5 6 4. RESOLUTION CREATING THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000 -085) 8 9 Crawford reported for Planning and Development Committee and moved 10 approval. 11 12 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she had one correction to 13 the resolution. During the Planning and Development Committee, there was 14 discussion regarding the procedure for appointing the committee. If the committee 15 is going to have twelve voting members, it is not conventional to have the County 16 Council vote on them and then have the Executive confirm the appointments. It 17 generally works the other way around. She will correct that in the final ordinance. 18 19 Nelson questioned why they would appoint twelve members. Goodwin stated 20 the number 12 was recommended by the Conservation District because they had 12 21 people in mind to recommend be on the committee. 22 23 Brenner moved to amend the membership to 13 members. 24 25 Motion failed 3 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in favor. 26 27 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 28 29 3. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING 30 AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -065) 31 32 (Clerk's Note: Continued from above.) 33 34 Crawford moved to forward the docket to the Planning Commission, as 35 amended. 36 37 Motion carried unanimously. 38 39 S. APPOINTMENT OF JOHN APPEL TO DIKING DISTRICT #3 BOARD OF 40 COMMISSIONERS (AB2000 -077) 41 42 Imhof moved to appoint Appel. 43 44 Motion carried unanimously. 45 46 6. APPROVAL OF HEALTH BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2000 47 (AB2000 -079) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 19 1 Imhof moved approval. 2 3 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated the Public 4 Health Advisory Board recommended the Council hold their first Board of Health 5 meeting on March 28, 2000 instead of in April. They will also use that date to 6 develop a twelve -month work plan jointly with the Board of Health and the Public 7 Health Advisory Board regarding which issues the Board of Health wanted to 8 review. 9 10 Imhof restated his motion for approval, and specified the March 28, 2000 11 date. 12 13 Motion carried unanimously. 14 15 7. APPROVAL OF WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 16 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2000 (AB2000 -079A) 17 18 Imhof moved approval. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously. 21 22 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW 23 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE AGATE BAY GOURMET, 2530 24 NORTH SHORE ROAD, BELLINGHAM (AB2000 -086) 25 26 Nelson stated this is the old Agate Bay store. It has been vacant and an 27 eyesore. The owners have done a nice job putting this together. They are trying to 28 make it a local community store and business. He moved approval. 29 30 Motion carried unanimously. 31 32 9. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF 33 BARBARA CORY, WHATCOM COUNTY TREASURER, TO HER SECOND 34 FULL TERM ON THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 35 COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE (AB2000 -087) 36 37 Nelson moved approval. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 42 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 43 44 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items, including addendum items 45 two and three. 46 47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 20 1 Motion carried unanimously. 2 3 1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INEZ HOYT 4 AND S.P.I.E. OPEN SPACE APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -088) 5 6 2. RECEIPT OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A 7 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON WERE FOR 8 "HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99- 0003)(AB2000 -089) 9 10 3. RECEIPT OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A 11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY JACK LAIRD FOR "TOAD 12 CREEK VISTA" (PUD99- 0001)(AB2000 -090) 13 14 15 OTHER BUSINESS 16 17 Brenner asked the Council to change the next regular Council meeting date 18 due to spring break in the schools. 19 20 Dawson stated there was no interest by the councilmembers. 21 22 23 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 24 25 Nelson stated there were two items discussed during the Finance Committee. 26 One item was regarding reconsideration of the multiple dog license fee. They 27 debated the issue, but there was no motion. 28 29 Crawford recommended that someone come forward with a proposal, rather 30 than having general discussion at this point. 31 32 Nelson agreed. If they have some specifics, they would have something to 33 work on. 34 35 Brenner moved to ask staff to come up with an ordinance to allow working 36 farm dog licenses, and all other multiple dog uses to be single -dog licensed. 37 38 Imhof stated it is not the administration's job to develop something like that. 39 40 Brenner stated they could get a definition of working farm dogs from the 41 Agricultural Preservation Committee. 42 43 Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor. 44 45 Nelson stated there was also discussion during Finance Committee on the 46 1999 Nooksack Salmon Recovery Enforcement Team. This was discussed also at 47 the last work session. It came to Finance Committee. Finance Committee wanted 48 it addressed at the next work session. There was no staff at the committee Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 21 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 meeting to discuss the issue. Also, the timing of the issue will have to be discussed with all involved parties. McShane stated there was a draft version of the Shorelines Management Program guidelines. They discussed it during Natural Resources Committee. Several suggestions were put forward. He will draft a letter. Any other suggestions should be given to him. McShane also stated that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee was cranky because the infectious waste ordinance didn't come before them. Brenner stated she was cranky that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee never dealt with that issue in all the times it was brought up. Brenner also stated that the Sustainable Connections people are going to have a workshop on ecological businesses and the use of recycled materials. It will be held at the YWCA from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on February 10. Crawford stated the Economic Development Council (EDC) is still looking for the County's $15,000. Dawson stated that will be addressed during the next Finance Committee. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on March 7 , 2000. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Marlene Dawson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 2/8/2000, Page 22