HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 11 20001 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 January 11, 2000
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
7 Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Dan McShane None
11 L. Ward Nelson
12 Connie Hoag
13 Barbara Brenner
14 Sam Crawford
15 Robert Imhof
16
17 ANNOUNCEMENTS
18
19 Dawson announced there was discussion during Committee of the Whole
20 regarding Consideration of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on
21 file no. CUP95 -0056, filed by Rick and Debra Benner (AB99 -402),
22
23 (Clerk's Note: Because of a malfunction with the audiotape, the following
24 motion is transcribed from Councilmember Hoag's notes.)
25
26 Hoag moved to remand to the Hearing Examiner to consider new information
27 not in the record that may affect the outcome of the case. Because of this, the
28 record was not sufficient to make a decision.
29
30 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
31
32 Dawson also announced there was Discussion with Civil Deputy
33 Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation (AB2000 -018), and
34 Discussion with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts regarding
35 pending litigation (AB2000 -018)
36
37 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
38
39 ANNUAL REORGANIZATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
40 (AB2000 -023)
41
42 Dawson opened nominations for the position of County Council Chair.
43
44 Hoag nominated Councilmember Dawson, McShane nominated Councilmember
45 Imhof, and Brenner nominated Councilmember Crawford.
46
47 Dawson closed the nominations.
48
49 Hoag appreciated the job Councilmember Dawson has done in the last year. She
50 has run the meetings well and has represented the County all over the state. There has
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 1
1 been a big improvement in how the Council has run.
2
3 Councilmembers Nelson, McShane, and Imhof voted for Imhof.
4
5 Councilmembers Dawson and Hoag voted for Dawson.
6
7 Councilmembers Crawford and Brenner voted for Crawford.
8
9 Due to lack of a majority, a new vote was taken.
10
11 Dawson opened the nominations again for County Council Chair.
12
13 Brenner nominated Councilmember Crawford.
14
15 Hoag nominated Councilmember Dawson.
16
17 McShane nominated Councilmember McShane.
18
19 Hoag stated the Council had problems last year with the way fellow
20 councilmembers and citizens were treated. She was concerned about having
21 Councilmember Imhof as chair again. She asked the councilmembers to consider that.
22
23 Brenner withdrew her nomination for Crawford.
24
25 Councilmembers Dawson, Hoag, Crawford, and Brenner voted for Dawson.
26
27 Councilmembers Nelson, McShane, and Imhof voted for Imhof.
28
29 Dawson was appointed Council Chair.
30
31 Dawson opened the nominations for County Council Vice - Chair.
32
33 McShane nominated Councilmember Crawford.
34
35 Dawson nominated Councilmember Hoag.
36
37 Councilmembers Dawson, Hoag, and Brenner voted for Hoag.
38
39 Councilmembers Nelson, Imhof, Crawford, and McShane voted for Crawford.
40
41 Crawford was appointed Council Vice - Chair.
42
43 Dawson opened the nominations for Executive Pro - Tempore.
44
45 Brenner nominated Councilmember Hoag.
46
47 Nelson nominated Councilmember Imhof.
48
49 Councilmembers Dawson, McShane, Hoag, and Brenner voted for Hoag.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 2
1 Councilmembers Nelson, Imhof, and Crawford voted for Imhof.
2
3 Hoag was appointed Executive Pro - Tempore.
4
5 Brenner withdrew her name from the Planning and Development Committee in
6 exchange for sitting on the Natural Resources Committee, if the times could be switched.
7
8 Dawson stated that would work.
9
10 Dawson called the vote for the Planning and Development Committee.
11
12 Imhof voted for Nelson, McShane, and Crawford.
13
14 Hoag voted for Hoag, McShane, and Crawford.
15
16 Nelson voted for Nelson, McShane, and Crawford.
17
18 Dawson voted for Nelson, Hoag, and Crawford.
19
20 McShane voted for McShane, Hoag, and Crawford.
21
22 Crawford voted for Nelson, Hoag, and Crawford.
23
24 Brenner voted for McShane, Hoag, and Crawford.
25
26 Councilmembers Hoag, McShane, and Crawford were elected to the Planning and
27 Development Committee.
28
29 Imhof moved approval of Councilmembers Nelson, Crawford, and Imhof to the
30 Finance and Administrative Services Committee.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Brenner withdrew her name from consideration for the Natural Resources
35 Committee.
36
37 Imhof moved approval of Councilmembers Nelson, McShane, and Hoag for Natural
38 Resources Committee.
39
40 Hoag questioned who would be on the Public Works Committee.
41
42 Imhof questioned the time that the Public Works Committee meets.
43
44 Brenner stated that committee meets at 1:30 p.m.
45
46 Imhof stated he would consider sitting on Public Works Committee.
47
48 Dawson volunteered to sit on the Public Works Committee.
49
50 Imhof moved to approve Councilmembers Dawson, McShane, and Brenner for
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 3
1 Public Works Committee.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4
5 Hoag moved to approve Councilmembers McShane, Hoag, and Crawford for
6 Planning and Development Committee.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Dawson stated the committee meeting times would be worked out later.
11
12 Dawson removed her name for consideration to attend the Council of
13 Governments.
14
15 Imhof moved to approve Crawford and Imhof for the Council of
16 Governments.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Hoag stated the information sheet was incorrect. She did not indicate that
21 she wanted to be on the Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committees. She was
22 serving on the committee, but did not ask to sign up for it because she signed up
23 for something else.
24
25 Dawson stated they would remove Hoag from consideration for the Shellfish
26 Protection District Advisory Committee. They would move to the Northwest Air
27 Pollution Authority.
28
29 Imhof stated he has been attending the Northwest Air Pollution Authority for
30 a while. As of January 1, there has been a lot of turnover in the group. For
31 continuity, he would like to remain on the Board.
32
33 Hoag stated she would like to learn more about this issue. She wanted to
34 participate. She has been on the Council for two years and hasn't had a chance to
35 do this. Councilmember Imhof has served for ten years. She wanted an
36 opportunity to find out what it is about. She has constituents that contact her
37 frequently about it. She has concerns about air pollution.
38
39 Brenner questioned whether Imhof attends most of the meetings.
40
41 Imhof stated he attends them all.
42
43 Hoag stated she attempted to verify that. He did make most of the
44 meetings, but not all. In the last year, he made eight out of ten meetings.
45
46 Imhof stated he went to eleven meetings last year.
47
48 Imhof voted for Imhof.
49
50 Hoag voted for Hoag.
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 4
1
2 Nelson voted for Imhof.
3
4 Dawson voted for Hoag.
5
6 McShane voted for Hoag.
7
8 Brenner voted for Imhof.
9
10 Crawford voted for Hoag.
11
12 Hoag was appointed to the Northwest Air Pollution Advisory Board.
13
14 Dawson removed her name from the Public Defense Advisory Committee.
15
16 McShane removed her name from the Public Defense Advisory Committee.
17
18 Dawson moved to appoint Brenner to the Public Defense Advisory
19 Committee.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 Imhof moved to approve the remaining list of committee assignments by
24 acclamation.
25
26 Dawson stated the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
27 Committee, the Opportunity Council, the LEOFF Board, and the Substance Abuse
28 Board need volunteers.
29
30 Hoag stated the Drayton Harbor Committee slot includes the Portage Bay
31 Shellfish Protection District. There are two committees. They each meet monthly,
32 but meeting times have been flexible.
33
34 Brenner volunteered for the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay Shellfish
35 Protection District Advisory Committees.
36
37 Dawson volunteered to serve on the LEOFF Board.
38
39 Brenner volunteered to serve on the Opportunity Council and withdrew her
40 name for consideration for the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay Shellfish Protection
41 District Advisory Committees.
42
43 McShane volunteered for the Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay Shellfish
44 Protection District Advisory Committees.
45
46 Imhof moved to approve the remaining list of committee assignments, as
47 amended, by acclamation.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 5
1
2 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
3
4 COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN — ALZHEIMER'S AWARENESS
5 MONTH (AB2000 -017)
6
7 Pete Kremen, County Executive, read a proclamation into the record. He
8 introduced Jocelyn Winslow who founded the local chapter of the Alzheimer's
9 Foundation.
10
11 Jocelyn Winslow stated most people realize too late that this is a process that
12 is happening. She appreciated the opportunity to bring more awareness to the
13 community. She hoped that, beginning in March, they will have an early dementia
14 training group for people early in the disease process.
15
16 Brenner questioned the time people usually live with Alzheimer's. Winslow
17 stated they might be able to help slow the disease process if people get help
18 earlier.
19
20 Brenner stated she understood there might be a cure soon. Winslow stated
21 she is also waiting to hear. They keep hearing about the possibilities, but haven't
22 heard about anything definite.
23
24 Dawson questioned the kind of help that slows down the process. Winslow
25 stated the help could include medication and work with people to be more active
26 and stay more active. There is one medication that seems to be helpful for some
27 people.
28
29
30 TIM BALLEW, LUMMI TRIBAL COUNCIL — TREATY DAY CELEBRATION
31 (AB2000 -017)
32
33 Pete Kremen, County Executive, read the Treaty Day Proclamation into the
34 record. The treaty is signed by every mayor and the County Executive.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. Beginning of tape two.)
37
38 He introduced Tim Ballew.
39
40 Tim Ballew, Lummi Tribal Council Chair, introduced some of the tribal elders.
41 A play will be presented on January 22nd at noon. The Councilmembers and the
42 Executive are invited. He looked forward to talking government to government. He
43 would like to build bridges between governments. They have a strong relationship
44 with the County Executive.
45
46 Catherine Talley, Lummi Tribal member, stated she is a beneficiary of the
47 1855 treaty, as are her children and grandchildren. She was happy to hear an
48 effort will be made to become more familiar with the treaty. In the past, there
49 have been a lot of misunderstandings and hardships. It is governed by the
50 supreme law of the land. Her people have suffered a lot in the past and feels it will
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 6
1 be better now. Young people are suffering on the reservation and need a lot of
2 help. She felt this was a good start. She disagreed with some of the language in
3 the proclamation pertaining to freely signing the treaty and retaining their
4 resources.
5
6 Lawrence Tom, Lummi Tribal member, thanked the Council and the
7 Executive. He is a World War II veteran, and has 13 children and many
8 grandchildren.
9
10 Dawson thanked Executive Kremen for his work on building bridges with the
11 tribes.
12
13 Ballew asked if John Hobberlin, Mayor of Blaine, could say a few words.
14
15 Kremen stated Hobberlin feels that this is a special and significant occasion.
16 He invited Hobberlin to speak.
17
18 John Hobberlin, Mayor of Blaine, stated all the mayors who signed the
19 proclamation are looking forward to working to bridge understanding between all
20 people. He applauded the Lummi Nation for taking the initiative in providing this to
21 the citizens of Whatcom County.
22
23 Ballew thanked the Council and invited them to come out so they can show
24 off their new building.
25
26
27 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28
29 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
30 SEPTEMBER 14 AND OCTOBER 19, 1999, BOARD OF HEALTH;
31 SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, REGULAR COUNCIL; APRIL 1, 1997, AND
32 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999, SPECIAL COUNCIL.
33
34 Brenner suggested the following corrections:
35 Page 34, line 42, should say, "...facility because but "...
36 Page 34, line 42, to take out the word "Then Tth-ey did..."
37 Page 38, line 7, "...antibiotic resistant strain..."
38 Page 54, line 31, "...State BFW Department of Fish and Wildlife approval..."
39
40 Brenner moved to amend the minutes.
41
42 Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and McShane abstaining.
43
44 Brenner moved to approve the minutes as amended.
45
46 Motion carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Crawford, & McShane abstaining.
47
48 Hoag stated she abstained because she did not have the time to review all
49 the minutes.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 7
1
2 OPEN SESSION
3
4 The following people spoke:
5
6 Joe Deeney, 2104 Wilson Avenue, Bellingham, stated he is a board member
7 of the Whatcom Human Rights Task Force. He distributed information about the
8 task force (on file). Growing up in the Iowa, he had little exposure to diverse
9 cultures. As he aged and came into contact more with people of different races and
10 cultures, he wanted to know how to be a friend to and lessen the discrimination of
11 someone of a different race. He attended a workshop put on by the local Whatcom
12 Human Rights Task Force. At this workshop, they discussed how to unlearn racism.
13 He had seen how harmful and corrosive stereotyping was, and how ignorance kept
14 people apart and in fear of each other. He realized how seemingly innocuous
15 statements prolonged and promoted prejudicial stereotyping. To lessen racism, he
16 must inform and influence his fellow white Americans. He appealed to the
17 councilmembers to consider how their statements could prolong and promote
18 stereotypes that carry heavy racial and cultural prejudice. He brought forward this
19 reminder because of comments made at a recent public committee meeting by
20 elected officials about surplus vehicles for auction. One councilmember said that
21 the Russians would want them. Another councilmember said the tribes would want
22 them, but they would just steal them. The councilmembers who made these
23 statements did not consider the harm of the stereotypes they were perpetuating,
24 but merely felt it was humorous. This humor stands in the way of respect and
25 understanding between races and cultures. He asked the councilmembers to think
26 about how their comments affect all people. He invited councilmembers to a free
27 conference on human rights this Saturday at the community college. He invited the
28 councilmembers to unlearn racism and to honor diversity. He invited the
29 councilmembers to raise above mean stereotyping and to strive to learn about and
30 from the entire Whatcom County community.
31
32 Brenner stated she has attended some of their workshops. She doesn't
33 attend to unlearn, but to be more stimulated. She questioned whether they have
34 regular meetings. She would like to schedule items for their agenda. Deeney
35 explained how to get in touch with the group.
36
37 Nelson stated the first comment was in reflection of the Russians bidding on
38 the purchase of the vehicles. It was a comment of fact. He didn't condone the
39 second comment.
40
41 Hoag stated she was shocked to hear this information.
42
43 Nelson stated it was in the context to bidding on vehicles, which the Russians
44 had previously bid on.
45
46 Kay Sardo, 490 South State Street, Bellingham, stated she wanted to talk
47 about public access television. She complimented the councilmembers on their
48 high level of volunteerism. As director of the Opportunity Council, she can
49 appreciate the high level of volunteerism by councilmembers.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 8
1 Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, stated he was present to represent himself as a
2 citizen. He was offended that anyone would claim that the councilmembers would
3 be prejudicial. They have one of the best executive's in the state. He wanted to
4 speak about the issue of rethinking the councilmember /elected official's salaries.
5 He heard much low -key grumbling from employees and citizens. Everyone agrees
6 they are underpaid. He suggested they use a time clock to keep track of hours
7 worked.
8
9 Councilmember Hoag explained that the resolution would not be reconsidered
10 due to a legal opinion by the Prosecutors' Office that it couldn't be done legally.
11 They will set up a review committee with two elected officials and two
12 councilmembers to look at the wages and the pay structure. Those that received
13 increases that are too high will receive pay freezes because the law also says they
14 cannot take away the wages of an elected official. Those positions that receive pay
15 that is too low will receive raises. Hoag stated she works 50 to 60 hours a week. If
16 she is going to punch a time clock, one will have to be put at all the different places
17 they go.
18
19 Gilda stated he has heard a lot of people recently say how great it was that
20 they were going to give the money back.
21
22 Hoag stated they don't have that option.
23
24 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated the Treaty Day play
25 was to be presented at two times, on Saturday and Sunday. The Sunday show is
26 for the general public.
27
28 Leonard Lindstrom, Bellingham, stated they learn a lot from children who
29 play athletic games. They do not carry a personal rulebook to use on other players.
30 They have their homework done before they get to the playing field. They get
31 along well with each other.
32
33
34 PUBLIC HEARING
35
36 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96 -005 WHICH GRANTED A
37 FRANCHISE TO AT &T BROADBAND AND INTERNET SERVICES
38 (FORMERLY AT &T CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON, INC.) TO
39 OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN
40 UNINCORPORATED WHATCOM COUNTY (AB99 -476)
41
42 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
43
44 Craig Hayes, 4940 Lewis Avenue, stated he was the chairperson of the
45 County /City Cable Board.
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
48
49 Hayes continued to explain that in 1996 a franchise agreement with TCI was
50 entered into. Section six of the franchise agreement provided for PEG (public
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 9
1 educational and /or governmental) television. The concept was that there would be
2 local productions for such things as local sports, theater guild performances, and
3 documentaries. In addition, they would televise governmental functions. The
4 franchise agreement provided that as soon as TCI completed their upgrade there
5 would be a third party access provider who would be responsible for coordinating
6 and facilitating, not producing, the PEG aspect, which could be up to five channels.
7 The administrative board has been working for two years, meeting monthly, to
8 discuss who would carry out this function. They contacted many local people who
9 are involved in production. When all this was done, they put out a request for
10 qualifications (RFQ) in June 1998. They had two good applications. One
11 application was from Whatcom Community Television and Communications, and
12 another application from PEG television. Those applications were forwarded to the
13 City and County. They went back and forth on problems with cost. Their
14 applications outlined what they would do and provided information. The franchise
15 agreement provides that one percent of the franchise fee will go toward PEG. The
16 City's agreement calls for up to two percent. There is a question about whether
17 the County Council implemented section six. In any case, it became clear that
18 neither group was financially capable to be a third -party access provider. At that
19 point, the City of Bellingham Information and Technology Department stepped in.
20 They have to do it because the upgrade is almost complete.
21
22 Marlin Prowell, 3933 Silver Beach, Bellingham, stated he is one of the two
23 city representatives on the Cable Television Administration Board. He has served
24 for three years so far. He was interested in getting increased PEG television
25 access. He has seen what it can be in other communities. He wanted to talk about
26 funding sources for the PEG facility. It provides a conduit for people to use
27 equipment and editing bays. It also provides equipment that actually feeds the
28 tapes onto the channel. Currently, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC)
29 grants franchise authorities, such as the County, to charge a franchise fee up to five
30 percent. The FCC had the intent of covering two different costs that franchise
31 authorities would have. One cost was an administrative cost, and the other was to
32 fund public access television. The FCC does not dictate what is to be done with the
33 money. Currently, Whatcom County charges a 4 percent franchise fee to
34 unincorporated cable subscribers in Whatcom County. In 1996, Whatcom County
35 collected $186,000 from cable subscribers in the county. Since then, there have
36 been annual increases in cable fees and increases in services. Only cable
37 subscribers pay this fee. Right now, all that money is going into the general fund,
38 with the exception of the money spent to tape the Council meetings. Therefore, the
39 cable subscribers are subsidizing those who are not cable subscribers for monies
40 that come out of the general funds. Before the County considers raising the
41 franchise fee, they should take money from the existing franchise fees, in the
42 amount of 1.5 percent. That money, along with the City's money, would provide
43 for the public access facility without raising any fees.
44
45 Dennis Lane, 490 South State Street, Bellingham, stated he represented the
46 Whatcom Community Television and Communications (WCTC). He is the executive
47 director of WCTC. Their mission is to support local communities by providing a
48 forum for free exchange of information, ideas, talents, and events through the
49 medium of community -based television to educate local organizations, residents,
50 schools, and municipalities in the use and benefits of community television
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 10
1 programming and other communication resources. WCTC has been active in
2 advocating the improvement and the expansion of the present AT &T public access
3 cable facility, channel 10, to be more community based. In that light, WCTC has
4 held conferences, focus groups, and other community outreach through newspaper
5 articles and other media broadcasts. For the past two to three years, one of the
6 WCTC representatives has been videotaping the Cable Television Access Board
7 (CTAB) meetings. They have been broadcast on channel 10. WCTC has also
8 participated in the proposal process to be a non - profit, third party organization to
9 run channel 10 as a community -based cable facility. They are there to talk about
10 the benefits of public access to the community, and the need to educate and
11 demonstrate how community -based a public access facility could operate in this
12 community. The City of Bellingham should be the first step to help public access
13 get off the ground. Public access television is an opportunity to be literate about
14 the emerging communication type technologies. It is a way local communities can
15 form and dialogue amongst themselves and other communities. It is one of the few
16 broadcast mediums left that is locally owned. Public access education is very much
17 needed. CTAB asked for proposals in July 1998 for third party, community -based
18 public access facility operators. All groups were asked to submit a four to five year
19 timeline that showed expenses and how they would conduct community outreach
20 and how to build local public access channels. The City of Bellingham Information
21 and Technology Office came forward as the alternative. Both the City and County
22 administrations agreed to let this office act as a greenhouse and educator for the
23 community. It takes a village to raise a family. It will take this community to raise
24 public access.
25
26 Colleen Berg, 3391 Southgate, Bellingham, stated she used to videotape the
27 Council meetings. She had been working in the community to realize public access,
28 for twelve years. As corporations consolidate the local media, they should support
29 a media that welcomes public participation. They should all have the opportunity to
30 use or view public access television. It will be the same cost as that of a candy bar.
31 That is not too big a price for free speech and access to television communication in
32 the community. She was a member of the citizen's advisory committee that help
33 negotiate the franchise agreements between TCI and the City, and also TCI and the
34 County.
35
36 Kay Sardo, 490 South State Street, Bellingham, spoke as a member of the
37 WCTC Board. They have an opportunity to preserve the local points of view.
38 Whatever is done in terms of government control could be a transitional activity, so
39 that it can eventually become self- sustaining. The assessment fee that is charged
40 is a use charge only to people who have television.
41
42 Dave Pros, Cable Television Advisory Board (CTAB), stated the board is
43 unanimous on wanting a cable station to continue and hoping they can find a way
44 to fund it. There are two things that are different between cable and dish
45 providers. One difference is that cable can provide public access and a sense of
46 community. The other difference is that cable is a source of revenue for the
47 community. It is an important time to have public openness through cable
48 television. Money is already being accumulated and should go to funding the
49 facility.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 11
1 Lars Kungsow, 2419 Williams Street, stated he is a member of WCTC and a
2 local video producer. He supported public access and felt it is a good way to
3 promote local talents, voices, and views. Public television is an electronic town
4 square. It is where ordinary people can use the tools of broadcast media to share
5 information, ideas, talents, and events. Community television enables people to be
6 active participants and not passive media consumers.
7
8 Laura Eckerd, 1908 Mackenzie, Bellingham, stated she is an ordinary person
9 who has made use of the public access facilities. She took the class that teaches a
10 person how to use the camera. She was then eligible to check out the equipment.
11 She recruited others to take the class and help her with her project, which was to
12 make a video about the volunteer chore program. The video conveys what is going
13 on to help people in a way that no other medium can.
14
15 Lynn Barton, President of Public Educational and /or Governmental (PEG)
16 Television, Bellingham, stated there has been much support for public access
17 television in the community. The Whatcom County Council and Bellingham City
18 Council endorse the process. She and many others have donated thousands of
19 hours to this effort. In the long run, it would benefit the community.
20
21 John Watts, 1015 W. Toledo Street, Bellingham City Councilmember, stated
22 the City Council has delayed this hearing. The City Council has decided to form a
23 public information committee to capture information of interest to the public and
24 relay it to the public.
25
26 Brenner questioned whether the City Council received copies of all proposals
27 that were submitted. Watts stated there has been a committee on the City Council
28 that has operated for three or four years, off and on. Now, the current committee
29 includes Bob Ryan, Barbara Ryan, and him. That committee formed on January 4.
30 This committee is not specific to overseeing public television. It is a generic Council
31 subcommittee.
32
33 Brenner questioned whether the Council saw the proposals. Watts stated
34 there were the two proposals submitted. He has not seen them yet.
35
36 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, spoke in favor of funding this
37 activity. There is an interrelationship of this and the watershed planning process,
38 which are also in the beginning phases of activity. Through that process, there is a
39 public information and education component. It would be a shame if all the work to
40 bring this forward were wasted by not being funded.
41
42 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
43
44 Dawson explained she received information from Randy Watts, Chief Civil
45 Deputy Prosecutor, and the Attorney General stating that, due to Initiative 695, any
46 increase in fees should go before the people for a vote.
47
48 Brenner stated she believed the County Council was going to get the
49 information regarding the proposals for the third party providers. She supported
50 using the money that already has been collected, instead of raising fees. She was
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 12
1 more interested in seeing the proposals that were submitted. She would rather
2 have a private, non - profit provide the service instead of government. There is an
3 incredible amount of talented people in the community who can already do this
4 stuff. Government is the last resort, not the first resort. The budget shocked her.
5 When they first discussed this, they talked about starting slow, experimenting with
6 things, and moving on as they work. She moved to put this into Public Works
7 Committee for discussion on working with the City of Bellingham on setting up a
8 committee to look into the options, work closer with the City and CTAB, and collect
9 more information.
10
11 Crawford brought up some issues that should be considered during
12 committee. One question is where the existing four percent franchise fee goes.
13 Another issue is the clarity of the signal. They should also clarify the amount of the
14 one percent increase. The high- definition situation should also be addressed. He
15 believed that by 2006 all broadcasts have to be simulcast in high- definition and in
16 2011 there will no longer be regular broadcast. He assumed that would increase
17 the cost because the high- definition equipment will be very expensive. He
18 questioned whether they are looking down the road that far. He also questioned
19 whether there are existing proposals.
20
21 Motion to refer to committee carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
22
23 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
24 PLAN AND URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN FROM RURAL TO URBAN
25 GROWTH AREA AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20 ZONING
26 MAP FROM RURAL TO URMX FOR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES IN
27 THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA (AB99 -436C)
28
29 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report. The
30 Planning Commission recommendation was a tie vote, so the Council initiated its
31 own public hearing. The issue is an expansion of the Bellingham urban growth area
32 (UGA). It is a seven acre site along the Mt. Baker Highway, along the intersection
33 of Britton Road. It would be rezoned from Rural to Urban Residential Mixed (UR-
34 MX). It is one of the eleven Comprehensive Plan amendments that was considered
35 in 1999. This item was not acted upon before the end of the year. The staff
36 recommendation on the original proposal was for denial, and to wait for a couple
37 years. It is part of the City of Bellingham's urban growth area, and the City stated
38 that amendments to their urban fringe plan should be considered concurrently by
39 the City Council and the County Council. The City made it clear they are not willing
40 to consider this amendment at this time. They feel it should wait until their five -
41 year review of their Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is a logical place for a UGA
42 at some point in the future. It is a busy intersection. At this time, the highway has
43 not been improved out to that area. There is not any funding for highway
44 improvements. The City does not have water and sewer services to the site. They
45 do have them nearby. The City has stated they have not extended service to that
46 area. The water is available, but at low densities. In addition, there was
47 considerable public opposition to additional commercial development at that
48 intersection at this time. The staff recommendation remains the same, that it be
49 denied now and wait for two years until the UGA is amended. Another issue of
50 concurrency came up. Having looked at the County zoning policies and at the
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 13
1 Growth Management Act, all amendments are supposed to be considered
2 concurrently. County laws say that all the amendments should be adopted on or
3 before the date of the budget adoption. That didn't happen. That is not a state
4 requirement. The thinking was that, if there were projects that had a large fiscal
5 impact on the County, those decisions should be made at the same time the budget
6 is adopted. Both of these amendments before the Council are very small and would
7 not have a big fiscal impact. Adoption tonight would be consistent with the intent
8 of both the Growth Management Act and their procedures.
9
10 Crawford stated the information in the packet includes the proposed
11 ordinance and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Goodwin stated there are two
12 mistakes in the packet. In the fourth "WHEREAS," the public notice date is wrong
13 and should have been May 27. Regarding the findings, they were proposed findings
14 that the applicant submitted to the Planning Commission. The Planning
15 Commission did not adopt the findings. The applicant also prepared the proposed
16 ordinance. If the County Council adopts the findings, she recommended they
17 eliminate "Planning Commission" and substitute "County Council."
18
19 McShane stated the law is clear in Title 20.
20
21 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
22
23 Goodwin stated the amendments shall be adopted on or before the date of
24 the budget. She read from Title 20, "The Council shall complete its review and take
25 action on Comprehensive Plan amendments, other than emergency amendments,
26 shoreline master programs, or the initial adoption of subarea plan, prior to or
27 concurrent with the adoption of the County's annual budget." That means the
28 Council should have either denied or approved the request. Their option would
29 have been to postpone adoption of the budget, or to have a special meeting.
30
31 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council can approve
32 now, given the intent that the requirement only applies to projects that have a
33 fiscal impact that needs to be considered at budget time. This is a provision they
34 might want to revisit and see if it is really necessary. Often, circumstances arise
35 that are beyond the applicant's control and that cause action to be taken at a later
36 date. It isn't necessarily fair to the applicant to postpone their application due to
37 things that happen beyond their control. In this case, there has been substantial
38 compliance because the matters were considered in the batch. While final action
39 wasn't taken, they have had the opportunity to look at them in light of all the other
40 proposed amendments.
41
42 Goodwin stated the option that, if concerned about the literal interpretation
43 of this, there is an exception that they can do an emergency amendment at any
44 time of the year. They could declare an emergency that they failed to act on this
45 before the end of the year.
46
47 Hoag asked if there had to be a legal threshold of what constitutes an
48 emergency. Goodwin stated the threshold has been broad in the past.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 14
1 Hoag asked for a legal opinion if this situation constitutes an emergency.
2 Frakes stated she didn't recall what the requirements are.
3
4 Goodwin stated they declared an emergency in a similar situation regarding
5 an auto mechanic shop. The emergency was that, if they didn't get the expansion,
6 the shop would have to close. They first need to have a public hearing to decide if
7 they want to adopt this.
8
9 McShane questioned whether they would need to consider all the other
10 amendments at this same time. Goodwin stated they could revisit those, but they
11 have already been considered. There has already been a concurrent look at all of
12 the amendments.
13
14 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:00 p.m.)
15
16 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
17
18 Doug Campbell, proponent for the applicant, 1401 Astor Street, Bellingham,
19 stated he felt the County acted irresponsibly in not passing the proposal in a timely
20 manner. They asked that the Council consider one of two options. First, if there is
21 an appeal of the procedure, and they lose the appeal, that the application be
22 reinstated and could be processed again in the year 2000. Second, he asked that,
23 if denied based on its merits, they not be forced to start the process all over again.
24
25 The project is in the path of growth. One of the significant issues in
26 applications of this nature, changing the Comprehensive Plan and enlarging the
27 UGA by only one percent, the net result is a minimal impact on the transportation
28 system. They already have public utilities in this area. This property is Y2 mile
29 from the last node of growth on McLeod Road. The UR -MX zone requires that they
30 build community nodes every half mile. This is the next intersection. It is timely at
31 this point to consider this application. The Urban Fringe Plan clearly allows that
32 annual review of these types of projects be done. Since the Comprehensive Plan
33 for the City of Bellingham was written in 1995 and adopted in 1996, they should be
34 having the dialogue in the year 2000. It has been five years. He objected to any
35 delay of review of this application. Another issue is that they are in a chicken -and-
36 the -egg position. They did talk to the City of Bellingham and tried to move this
37 project concurrently through both bodies. They were told by the City to go to the
38 County first because they have the authority to expand the UGA, and then come
39 back to the City for consideration of utilities. He asked for a chance to rebut any
40 comments that are made.
41
42 Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the rezone and felt
43 it has good merit. He sat on the Planning Commission when this went through.
44 After it went through, some information came to him as a citizen. He was one of
45 the people that voted against it, but he could not ask to bring it back for
46 consideration. This is ideal commercial property. As a Planning Commissioner, he
47 couldn't vote for it because of the houses. He suggested they add language to
48 packet page 140, Exhibit one, "...will serve population already existing and planned
49 for..." They should change the Comprehensive Plan and Title 20 so that an
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 15
1 applicant can build just a commercial unit, without the houses. He asked that the
2 Council adopt.
3
4 John Watts, Bellingham City Council, cautioned that there is no compelling
5 reason to make this change. He felt this is a spot rezone, which is not always
6 compatible with growth management, and would like to see more discussion first.
7
8 Jack Swanson, 1200 Harris Ave, Bellingham, addressed the concurrency
9 issues. There are two points. The legislative mandate for all of this is RCW
10 36.70A.130. It requires that they batch, which is consideration of all the
11 amendments at one time. It also requires consideration of fiscal impacts. There is
12 substantial compliance with the County code because it would be form over
13 substance to delay this decision when there is no negative fiscal impact. The second
14 point is that the County code says they are supposed to take action. He would
15 argue that, deciding to have a public hearing on those matters that need a public
16 hearing in order for them to make a final action, is an action in itself. They have
17 complied with the mandate of the statute by making a decision to refer some of
18 these matters to a public hearing and then decide them later. As long as they
19 consider the fiscal impact of the proposals when they act on them, they would not
20 be in violation of the code. He asked that a finding be made stating there was no
21 negative fiscal impact.
22
23 David Hunter, 819 Mason Street, Bellingham, addressed the concurrency
24 laws. The Council may not be getting good advice from its attorney. One of the
25 ways to separate between the rule of man and the rule of law is to follow the law.
26 In the State of Washington, the courts have said many times that, if the language
27 of the statute or ordinance is not ambiguous, then they don't get to interpret it.
28 They follow it. If language is ambiguous and one is not certain what it means, then
29 they have to interpret it. In the County code, there is unambiguous language about
30 when the can consider these matters and when they can't. They need to follow the
31 County's laws, not what they imagine the spirit of them to be. If the language says
32 "shall" or "shall not," that is as far as they go. If they want the people of Whatcom
33 County to trust them, they must follow the law.
34
35 Patricia Decker, City of Bellingham Planning Director, referred to a memo
36 distributed at the meeting (on file). There are a number of reasons why this
37 application is not consistent with adopted City or County policies. Many of those
38 reasons were cited in earlier testimony. Both the City and County adopted the
39 Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. In that plan, there is an amendment process. They
40 have not been following that process. In that process, it is not only the case that
41 the City is asked to comment, but the City and the County have to jointly plan the
42 process. This is not an area that is needed in Bellingham's urban growth area.
43 They have plenty of areas that are zoned for urban residential development, and
44 UR -MX is an urban residential development district. All of the testimony relates to
45 what a wonderful place this site would be for a convenience commercial center, yet
46 the application is for an urban residential district. The UR -MX district is not a
47 convenience commercial district. It is an urban residential district in which
48 convenience commercial uses can be considered as conditional uses. They cannot
49 be located any more closely together. There is no requirement that every
50 intersection within 1/2 mile of another intersection should be developed as a
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 16
1 convenience commercial center. The Mt. Baker Highway will not be improved
2 within the next six to ten years. They have right -of -way acquisition money right
3 now for the area between Orleans and Woburn. There is no right -of -way
4 acquisition money or construction money in the state's six -year improvement
5 program for anything east of Woburn.
6
7 Hoag moved to extend the time allowed for Decker's comments.
8
9 Dawson stated that, if that extension is granted, the proponent of the project
10 should be allowed to rebut.
11
12 Hoag accepted that as a friendly amendment.
13
14 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
15
16 Decker continued to state that there is no demonstrated need for this land,
17 there is no inventory provided that indicates the city does not have sufficient land
18 for urban residential development or for neighborhood commercial uses. The
19 proponent simply states that the site should be added because it is a better site.
20 That is not what urban growth area amendments are about. At the City of
21 Bellingham, they have to look at the amendments in the context of the existing
22 land supply. It is their interpretation that this is also the case under the Growth
23 Management Act.
24
25 There have been no significant changes since adoption of the urban growth
26 area in 1997. That 1997 adoption is the inventory that covers the needs. The
27 change in conditions cited was the siting of Squalicum High School. When the
28 urban growth area was adopted and when the urban fringe subarea plan was
29 considered, Squalicum High School's location was known, planned, and under
30 design. That is not a change in circumstances.
31
32 There are no urban services available from the City. The area is included in
33 an area assumed by the City as the Van Wyck Water Association, which was taken
34 over by the City. They updated the water line and agreed to provide service at a
35 rural level of development to the existing customers. They subsequently amended
36 the ordinance to provide a rural level of service to anyone within the 500 feet that
37 was covered by the previous ordinance. There is a 500 -foot swath along the Mt.
38 Baker Highway that was covered by the Van Wyck Water Association. Water is
39 provided at a rural level of service. The adopted countywide planning policies say
40 that they cannot extend services outside the City or the City's urban growth area at
41 levels of development that are no more than rural.
42
43 Finally, the City provides water and sewer at urban levels of development
44 only by contract and only inside the City's urban growth area. The proponent
45 contends there is a chicken - and - the -egg situation, in that this needs to be added to
46 the UGA before the City will extend the urban levels of service to the site. The City
47 doesn't support expansion of the UGA in this area. They will not recommend to the
48 City Council that services be extended to this site until after it has been evaluated
49 in the context of the five -year review.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 17
1 There is a reason they have delayed the five -year review until 2002. In
2 addition to the fact that they added a 20 -year supply of land to Bellingham as part
3 of its urban growth area, they added enough land to accommodate a 20 -year
4 supply of growth. Waiting for five years should not present a problem. In addition,
5 they won't have updated population projections until at least 2001. They won't
6 have updated income or detailed economic data until 2002. The coordination of
7 available information in which to evaluate urban growth areas with the completion
8 of the land use inventories current to 2002 would come together at a great time.
9 That is the rationale that the City used to recommend that they not expand the
10 urban growth area until they do the five -year review.
11
12 Jack Petrie, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, stated the decision they make is
13 important because it is about whether or not growth management means anything
14 or not in Whatcom County. The materials given to the Planning Commission show
15 that there are changing conditions that lead to a land supply shortage in
16 Bellingham. When Bellingham did its inventories, it only set aside 220 acres for
17 parks and greenways. After the 1997 adoption date, the City passed new
18 greenways legislation. The City's inventories of greenways long ago surpassed the
19 220 acres that were set aside. All of that extra land comes out of the residential,
20 industrial, or commercial inventory. In one of the fastest growing counties of the
21 nation, the city that is supposed to be accepting most of the growth is imposing its
22 burdens on the county and the small towns in the county. At the heart of growth
23 management is the idea that residential growth is to be concentrated in the city
24 urban growth areas where possible. Failure to concentrate that growth in the cities
25 results in environmental, economic, and social degradation of the lives of the
26 county citizens. People build in the county because it is less expensive than
27 building in Bellingham. They also consume the land supplies of the small cities
28 more rapidly than anticipated. When the legislature imposed growth management,
29 it knew that cities would resist accepting the obligations of growth. That is why
30 they gave the counties the power to require that the cities do their job. This is a
31 small piece of land that has big implications. It represents an opportunity for the
32 County to tell Bellingham that it is time to take growth management seriously. The
33 Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings are a changed condition. Recently the City
34 required a developer to have increased buffers along a creek. The ESA listing will
35 reduce the amount of residential land supply available in Bellingham.
36
37 Campbell distributed a map that represented what the Washington State
38 Department of Transportation has designed for this location. That area of
39 Bellingham is growing rapidly. The utilities are within a small distance of this site.
40 There is no impact on the City of Bellingham to issue those services. They are
41 asking that the Council consider this a message to the City that utility service zone
42 extension may be appropriate for this location. They are asking the Council to give
43 them five years to work with the City to adopt an ordinance for service utility
44 extension. The City of Bellingham will not consider discussion of this issue until
45 the County Council takes on their authority. The County has the authority to tell
46 the City to give it some consideration. The merits of the project were not based on
47 the fact that Squalicum High School is located in the area, however now there is a
48 Junior High planned for that area. There are 700 acres that were zoned UR -MX by
49 the City of Bellingham with the support of Patricia Decker. He found it awkward to
50 say that is not growth. They are stuck with the UR -MX zone in that area. It
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 18
1 requires development to occur in half acre increments. They are following exactly
2 the provision of the code that allows they do not do linear strip development
3 between McLeod and Britton roads. He asked the Council to consider the options
4 he first mentioned.
5
6 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
7
8 Nelson moved approval.
9
10 Nelson stated one of the concerns is about how to manage the urban growth
11 area. It impacts rural development as well as people living in the rural areas, as
12 well as the City and urban development. They need to find a balance. One of his
13 concerns is with intersections as development occurs around an intersection. He
14 cited the area of Gala Loop and Tweed Twenty. There was one rezone request at
15 McLeod Road that was turned down because they would rather see housing in that
16 area. Decker stated that was correct. It was not an appropriate area from the
17 point of view of both the City Public Works Department and Planning Department.
18
19 Nelson stated that they discussed this before with the City. They would have
20 communities have access to commercial development so there wouldn't be strip
21 development and would allow communities to have access to a community center
22 within walking distance. He asked where it would occur. Decker stated the UR -MX
23 zone is not a neighborhood commercial zone. It is zone that allows for urban
24 residential development and provides incentives for something more than four units
25 per acre. There is no requirement for neighborhood commercial uses. This
26 particular site does not lend itself well to walking track because it is located on the
27 opposite side of the road from where most of the development is located. In fact,
28 most of the trips are not going from that area out to the county. They are going
29 from that area back toward the city. This proposed site, even for the purpose of
30 neighborhood commercial, is not particularly well located.
31
32 Nelson stated McLeod Road was particularly well located. Decker stated
33 McLeod Road was constrained by the fact that property adjacent to the site was
34 residentially developed and property immediately up the hill from the site was
35 residentially developed. Access to the corner of McLeod was almost impossible.
36
37 Nelson stated they were to keep expanding housing out, which would impact
38 the highways. The other question he had regarded the Van Wyck Water
39 Association. He questioned whether the City extended water service out there.
40 Decker stated they assumed the district is going to serve its existing customers.
41
42 Nelson questioned whether there is any other water service to any
43 development that is not R5. Decker stated that was correct.
44
45 Nelson questioned whether that was the only water available. Decker stated
46 that is all they have agreed to provide service for.
47
48 Nelson asked what the main capacity was. Decker stated she couldn't
49 answer that. She would have to defer that to the Public Works staff.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 19
1 Nelson questioned whether the main capacity was at a level higher than R5.
2 Decker stated the main capacity for rural areas is also provided for uses such as
3 schools and churches. The reason they have a countywide policy is because the
4 county did not want extension of water and they did not want people to assume
5 that districts with have a problem would have that urban levels of service to follow.
6 Also, there are no UR -MX zoning designations in the City. They are only in the
7 county. They do have a very large mixed residential, commercial, and industrial
8 development opportunity in the Talbot Industrial Area, at Sunset Road and Woburn
9 Road, and at Northshore. There are many areas for urban residents.
10
11 Nelson stated one would have to drive to all of those areas. Decker stated
12 this site would not provide people an opportunity to walk to the commercial center
13 because there are no sidewalks.
14
15 Hoag asked legal staff if action of any kind must be taken.
16
17 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, explained that the Planning
18 and Enabling Act only requires action when there is a recommendation. In a
19 situation like this, traditionally the Council has always gone ahead and addressed
20 the issue itself. She didn't think that is a legal requirement.
21
22 Hoag stated she agreed that Campbell should not suffer for administrative
23 errors. However, in deference to the City of Bellingham's efforts and concerns,
24 they are constrained by the law. The urban fringe area calls for joint City /County
25 processing, which has not occurred in this application. In addition, the Whatcom
26 County Code says this has to be done concurrent with the budget. People mention
27 the intent of the law, but the law is the law. The Council would put itself in a bad
28 spot if it ignored law that was brought to its attention. They don't have a choice
29 about that. In addition, the City of Bellingham has said they want to review this
30 concurrent with the review of their other urban growth areas. When they review
31 urban growth areas, it involves considerable staff time that is spent in land and
32 population studies. It only makes sense to allow them the opportunity to look at
33 this in a comprehensive way. She recommended denial of the motion.
34
35 Dawson asked how a developer initiates the joint efforts of the City and
36 County. Decker explained that she suggests contacting the City first to find out
37 their standards and requirements for the site. Once they have assurance of Council
38 having acted, then they would be able to proceed with development applications at
39 the County. In the case of an urban growth area amendment, they cannot, by law,
40 provide urban services.
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape 3, side A.)
43
44 Decker continued to state they have a choice of whether or not they provide
45 sewer and water to areas that are not within the their service zones, if they are
46 inside the urban growth area.
47
48 Dawson asked about the transfer of density rights and when she thought it
49 would go before the City Council. Decker stated City and County staffs have been
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 20
1 working together on the transfer of development rights legislation and the issues
2 associated with transferring density out of the Lake Whatcom watershed.
3
4 Dawson asked if they have worked at all with the City Councilmembers yet.
5 Decker stated they have not yet. At the moment, they don't have an ordinance to
6 bring forward because it is still in process. If there is something ready to bring
7 forward, they will do that. She understood it is still under discussion at the County.
8 Transfer of development rights is primarily occurring on county land inside
9 Bellingham's urban growth area. They are waiting for the County to give an
10 indication that they support the concept.
11
12 Brenner spoke against waiting. Someone called this a spot rezone. She
13 called it a spot un -zone. The Growth Management Act says they are supposed to
14 have even boundaries as much as possible. She hasn't heard of any reason why
15 this area wasn't included. They are going to disagree on what things mean. It
16 bothers her when anyone thinks they have the only interpretation on the law. She
17 believed the law said they have to take action. This was processed with a batch of
18 items in 1999. It is not the fault of the applicant. She thought they could wait on
19 this. She was told in committee that it could be done this way. They are allowed
20 to proceed on things as best they can, especially since the original intent was that
21 they don't want batches coming through. This is still a part of the original batch.
22 This was supposed to be processed one way or the other. This is an important area
23 that could help cure danger and traffic problems on that intersection. Everyone
24 should work cooperatively to develop the area in a way that will make it better.
25 She assumed the proponent still has to go through more steps with the City, the
26 Department of Transportation, and with others to get it done.
27
28 Crawford asked Goodwin if there would be an issue at some point about a
29 traffic light at the intersection if this were approved. Goodwin explained that, if the
30 project was approved by the County Council, then the zoning would be UR -MX. If
31 the proponent then came forward with a commercial development project with a
32 two -acre commercial area at that intersection, and the remaining five acres were
33 housing, then the process would go before the Hearing Examiner. They would do a
34 traffic analysis. They would determine if an intersection is needed and when. They
35 may pay a future impact fee. In the past, the City has required developers to pay
36 impact fees for traffic within the City urban growth area. Eventually there needs to
37 be an intersection at that location. She believed it would not be 100 percent
38 responsibility of this applicant because there are many people using that
39 intersection.
40
41 Crawford asked about the cost of signalization at McLeod Road and who paid.
42 Campbell explained that he did that project. The applicant, who did the commercial
43 development in the UR -MX zone per the city code, supported the signal. The
44 applicant paid $75,000 for their share of the signal. The school district paid
45 $25,000. The balance was probably picked up by Public Works. The total amount
46 was about $150,000 to $175,000. They would anticipate that formula in this
47 intersection as well.
48
49 Crawford stated he was confused about the five -year review. He questioned
50 whether that was to review urban growth boundaries. Decker stated the five -year
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 21
1 review process is when the City reviews Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan, which
2 includes its urban growth area.
3
4 Crawford stated the plan in place now assumes a certain amount of
5 developable land. Some of the developable land was taken out of developable
6 status due to Greenways. He questioned whether that is what the five -year review
7 is for. Decker stated the Greenways levy has not been spent yet. It will be a
8 number of years before all of the land that might be acquired is acquired. It is not
9 going to be moved from the inventory anytime soon.
10
11 Crawford asked about the density in a development above Lakeway Drive.
12 Decker stated there was no density reduction. There were widened buffers. The lot
13 sizes were diminished. The maximum density of 172 units was approved.
14
15 Crawford asked if they foresaw that there would only be the number of
16 houses that exist in that area, or if they anticipated there would be more houses in
17 the area, when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Decker stated they did not
18 anticipate any more. In the land supply analysis, they reduced areas that were
19 needed for environment purposes, roads, schools, churches, and parks. They
20 estimated how much development they could get out of the land supply. It isn't
21 reasonable for a community the size of Bellingham or Whatcom County to do that
22 kind of inventory work more often than every five years. The Growth Management
23 Act says it should be done at least every ten years.
24
25 McShane spoke against the motion to approve. They can't get past the
26 technical issue of whether or not they are following the law. If they move on this,
27 they will be violating their own code. He swore to uphold the ordinances of the
28 County. He recognized that it was a technical issue, but it is the law. The
29 concurrency issue is also a bit of a problem. They can't move forward one or two
30 amendments without considering all amendments together. They will run the risk
31 of violating another part of the code. Third, it seems they are not working with the
32 City of Bellingham on this. He is an urbanite who lives in a dense neighborhood
33 with a city street that has potholes. They need to take into account the impact on
34 urban neighborhoods in the City. If they are asking for, and ignoring, the City's
35 request that this not happen, they force the City to deal with infrastructure costs
36 that will be passed on to the urban areas. Bellingham is in Whatcom County. City
37 residents are also citizens of the county. He believed that the wishes of the City of
38 Bellingham should be as respected as any member of the county. He felt sorry for
39 the proponents, but the legal technicalities are very important. If they continue to
40 approve this, they would be ignoring their own ordinances.
41
42 Nelson asked Goodwin about the planning process for the Bakerview Spur
43 area and the UR -MX zone. He questioned whether the zoned density could occur
44 when there are no services. Goodwin stated they could only go to four units per
45 acre or higher if services are provided. The City is still going to be involved if they
46 rezone this. At every step of the game, the City is involved.
47
48 Nelson questioned whether the City would assume there is no change in
49 density if the County doesn't rezone the area. Goodwin stated there is one house
50 allowed on that seven acres if the County doesn't approve a rezone.
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 22
1
2 Nelson asked how they could prepare for future planning, if the County is not
3 prepared to give its intentions for the area. It seems as though the County has to
4 take the lead in determining what should be developed in the urban growth area.
5 Intersections are critical to transportation and how development occurs around the
6 community. Goodwin stated it is a long -range planning issue. The urban growth
7 areas were intended to be a 20 -year urban growth area. At the time the County
8 adopted the Comprehensive Plan and the City adopted their Comprehensive Plan,
9 they envisioned that the area would not develop for twenty years.
10
11 Nelson asked Sam Ryan, Building Services Manager, what the process is that
12 an applicant goes through to work with the City and the County in the urban growth
13 area. Ryan stated the County would request a pre - application meeting before
14 starting the commercial process. They would invite the City to attend the pre -
15 application meeting.
16
17 Nelson questioned whether the City says what they require and need during
18 the pre - application meeting. Ryan stated the County requests that the City gives
19 that information.
20
21 Nelson questioned whether the applicant and the County receive the request
22 from the City. Ryan stated they sometimes do.
23
24 Nelson stated the County has had two complaints regarding the pre -
25 application meetings. Ryan stated this issue is relevant because the City and the
26 County need to work together better to get the information to the proponent up
27 front. A lot of costs can be incurred. It is not required by law to have the pre -
28 application meeting. The purpose is to aid the proponent with the process.
29
30 Nelson stated they still run into the problems that the applicant continues to
31 run into additional roadblocks and costs. The County must be willing to step
32 forward and plan development and represent the entire county. He agreed that
33 they need to trust in the law, but they have also been elected to help people and to
34 do not harm. He is repeatedly seeing that government is doing harm to people.
35
36 Dawson concurred. She was concerned about the unintentional harm that is
37 being done. They need to make a concerted effort to rectify the harm.
38
39 Brenner spoke on the subject of the City vs. the County. She believed the
40 people in and near the urban growth areas are influenced by the City, but they
41 don't have a vote in anything that happens. Many times, they are not taken
42 seriously because there is nothing those people can do. There are land use controls
43 being applied without representation.
44
45 Hoag clarified that the law says they must complete review. This public
46 hearing is Council review, which is happening after the budget was adopted. If
47 they had known about this, she would have been willing to have a special work
48 session. They need to observe the law.
49
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 23
1 Nelson moved to add language to packet page 138, "WHEREAS there was no
2 negative fiscal impact found in this action."
3
4 Hoag stated she could not support the amendment because they already
5 discussed the impacts of a stoplight. There is a negative fiscal impact to that.
6
7 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment, "WHEREAS there will be no
8 negative fiscal impacts of this action."
9
10 Nelson accepted the friendly amendment.
11
12 Nelson withdrew his motion.
13
14 Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Hoag and McShane opposed.
15
16 McShane questioned whether they are going to look at the other
17 Comprehensive Plan amendments concurrent with this item or separately.
18
19 Nelson stated this was already done with the other items. It was held over.
20 They approved each item individually.
21
22 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
23 PLAN MAP AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM COMMERCIAL
24 FORESTRY TO RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 80 ACRES IN
25 THE LAKE WHATCOM SUBAREA (AB99 -436D)
26
27 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the original proposal was
28 to rezone 80 acres on "Y" Road from commercial forestry to rural forestry. The
29 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. The Planning Commission
30 recommended denial. Staff also recommended denial at that time. The reasons for
31 denial were because the area is surrounded by commercial forest, it has fairly steep
32 slopes of greater than 30 percent, and it is not an appropriate place for residential
33 development, even at a low density. The Planning Commission recommended
34 denial based on that. Those were the findings.
35
36 Since that time, the proposal has changed somewhat. The policies of the
37 Comprehensive Plan are to not increase residential development in the watershed.
38 This area is on the edge of the Lake Whatcom watershed. The applicant has come
39 forward with a proposal to allow a rezone of a forestry property on Blue Canyon
40 Road so that it would be restricted from development and allow only one house,
41 rather than the current allowable density of four or five houses. They have also
42 proposed to put a covenant on both properties that would limit the logging activity
43 so that no more than 20 percent of the trees would be harvested on either parcel
44 over a ten -year period. It changes the proposal considerably, so there are not
45 impacts from increased residential development in the watershed. It would
46 probably have a positive impact in the watershed because the four units that could
47 be developed on the "Y" Road are much farther from the lake than the units that
48 could have been built on Blue Canyon Road. The property would create a buffer
49 between the commercial forestry logging activity happening east of the proposed
50 "Y" Road property and the property zoned R5A. At this point, the Council voted to
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 24
1 have a public hearing. The only staff concern is the precedent that might be set by
2 zoning the 80 acres rural forestry when there are properties nearby that are zoned
3 commercial forestry and are also adjacent to R5A. Two findings were included in
4 the draft ordinance that discuss the fact that the only reason the area is being
5 rezoned is because the agreement would have less impact on the watershed due to
6 the reduced density and the covenants. If the Council chose to adopt this, she
7 hoped other applicants and the Council would later review it when they receive
8 applications for properties in similar situations, so a precedent is not established.
9
10 McShane questioned whether the County Planning Commission reviewed
11 whether the property at Blue Canyon Road was buildable. He understood that the
12 proposed property rests on two alluvial fans and has extremely steep slopes.
13 Goodwin stated they didn't do a site analysis or engineering work, but they looked
14 at the property. They concluded that the Blue Canyon Road property, which is
15 zoned for residential development would be a bad location for residential
16 development. It doesn't mean that residential development could not be
17 engineered or constructed there. There would definitely be constraints. There are
18 a lot of other areas in the watershed that are as unsuitable for development that
19 have been developed. There have been consequences to that unsuitable
20 development. They can't conclude, based on the development constraints, that the
21 Blue Canyon Road property would never be developed. Based on engineering, most
22 property can be developed.
23
24 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
25
26 Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, spoke in support of the ordinance. He
27 questioned the difference in the number of houses. This is something he waited
28 five years for. This is something that he could support with Rita Foley. They can
29 reduce density in her neighborhood. This proposal is the best example of transfer
30 of development rights (TDR) they have ever had. It serves the purpose of reducing
31 pollution to the water intake because it takes the people and traffic away from the
32 intake. It is further from the lake. The neighbors of the area would rather see four
33 houses than a regular development.
34
35 Jack Swanson, 1200 Harris Avenue, attorney for proponent, spoke in favor of
36 the ordinance. There are 37 acres on Blue Canyon Road. Twenty -seven are zoned
37 rural forestry and 10 are zoned R2A. They are asking for a rural forestry
38 designation on the Jensen Road and "Y" Road intersection. The unique parts of the
39 proposal are the restrictive covenant and the concomitant agreement that relate to
40 the various densities and the types of logging activities that can occur. The
41 limitations to the logging activities on both parcels would require a managed
42 forestry situation with a limited harvest and no clear cutting. The Council referred
43 this matter to the Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum. After considerable discussion,
44 there was unanimous recommendation that the Council approve this. Also
45 attending that meeting were representatives from the State Department of Natural
46 Resources. Tom Murley, who was initially opposed to this, had a big impact on the
47 Planning Commission's recommendation. The site on the "Y" Road does, on its
48 own, have substantial merit in terms of meeting the Comprehensive Plan criteria for
49 designation as rural forestry. There is a private road that serves the area and
50 provides access to four short -plats that are pending on this property. When the
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 25
1 short -plats are completed, the road will be paved. The soils on the property are not
2 different than those of the areas that have already been developed by the short -
3 plats. They have been found adequate for sewage disposal systems meeting Health
4 Department standards. The site does not have a slide hazard or unstable soils.
5 Much of the land has a slope of less than 15 percent where homes and drain fields
6 could be located without difficulty. Water has been found in this area. There are
7 two existing wells that provide substantial water. The rural forestry will provide a
8 buffer between the rural residential area and the commercial forestry, with the
9 imposition of the concomitant agreement and the covenants. There will be a
10 forested backdrop for all the residents of the "Y" valley to look at, rather than a
11 clear cut at some future time. The property has been taxed at a regular tax rate
12 for many years. It has never taken advantage of the special use tax classification
13 that it could have. There have been substantial changes conditioned by the various
14 projects that have been proposed and are going forward now. If they look at the
15 Comprehensive Plan criteria, the proposal, on its own merits, would meet those
16 criteria.
17
18 Imhof requested clarification on the swap. He questioned whether the 27
19 acres is just below the 400 contour line. Swanson stated the property below the
20 400 contour line is zoned R2A.
21
22 Imhof stated they are keeping one development right for the rural forestry
23 zoning. They will get rid of five rights. It is a reduction of one right. Swanson
24 stated that was correct. It also moves the development a mile away from the lake.
25
26 Hoag questioned whether the existing road would serve any development
27 they do. Swanson stated it would. It is the road that would provide access to the
28 homes that will be built on the 80 acres. There will not be any new roads.
29
30 Brenner stated the Council did a rezone several years ago. It used to all be
31 called forestry. Then, they changed it to commercial and rural forestry. She
32 questioned whether this land was forestry land before the change. Swanson stated
33 it was.
34
35 Brenner questioned whether they are paying the same taxes they were when
36 they changed the zoning. Swanson stated that was correct. The reason they never
37 paid the special use classification tax rate was because it was not clear in 1992
38 where the boundary was between the forestry and the rural zones.
39
40 Rita Foley, Blue Canyon Road, spoke in favor of the ordinance. She viewed
41 the acreage on the "Y" Road. There are more people building on cliff sides than
42 ever. These people have gotten away with a lot of dirt in the watershed. It is very
43 upsetting. This is a chance to protect her end of the lake. Her road is a high
44 hazard. There are 130 acres that no one has mentioned that is in commercial
45 forestry and is owned by the Nielsen Bros. Inc., who is cognizant of her well being.
46 She is for logging and not houses. There isn't anything wrong with the proposal on
47 "Y" Road.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 26
1 Foley continued to state that they have the right to do the development. Rob
2 Nielsen has 730 acres connected to the property that is commercial forestry and
3 will be forever. If this was a bad proposal, she would let them know.
4
5 Walker Evans, 3696 "Y" Road, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He owns the
6 new house on that road. The rural forestry zoning would provide a good transition
7 between the residential zoned land and the commercial forestry land. It was stated
8 that the subject property land was surrounded by commercial forestry land. It is
9 not. He has twenty acres that abut the property. The transition is helpful. They
10 will see less intensity forestry operations on rural forestry zoned land. It also
11 provides and aesthetic transition between the residential properties and the
12 commercial forestry land beyond.
13
14 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
15
16 Nelson moved approval. This was before the Forestry Forum. They've seen
17 the concomitant agreement. That was hashed out in the Forestry Forum. He
18 thanked Nielsen Bros. and everyone who worked on that. The Forestry Forum had
19 concerns about perpetuity and protection of the watershed. Those concerns were
20 addressed.
21
22 Hoag stated it is an interesting proposal and worthy of discussion and review.
23 She questioned whether they are facing the same issue on this item as they are on
24 the last item. There is nothing that was different about this item. The Planning
25 Commission denied this item. Frakes stated it is the same issue.
26
27 Hoag suggested that this be sent to the Planning Commission for review and
28 reconsideration with the Comprehensive Plan review process later in the year. They
29 should not break the law.
30
31 Brenner spoke in favor of the ordinance. They are not breaking the law. The
32 intent of what they were doing in the late summer and early fall is very clear. One
33 of the things that came up years ago was a change from forestry designation,
34 which did allow houses, to commercial forestry for most of that land. Nielsen Bros.
35 was involved in it. They were taking away a lot of development rights from that
36 land in exchange for flexible rezones to rural forestry. She was amazed at how
37 much cooperation there was. They changed a lot of zoning. They do have an
38 obligation to honor the trade when they are going to decrease density and to stay
39 true to the intent to work with these people in a flexible manner.
40
41 Dawson stated this has been on the Council's agenda before. Government
42 has been involved and she didn't want to see the proponent harmed by the
43 mistakes that have been made.
44
45 McShane spoke against passage of the ordinance due to legal issues. They
46 are proposing to violate the county code. It is more egregious in this case. The
47 proposal itself is appealing in some regards. But it has been substantially changed
48 from the original proposal. He was not sure this would have been considered at all
49 without the changes. The only reason he hesitates on the Blue Canyon property is
50 because the property can be developed. They could reduce the density at Blue
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 27
1 Canyon Road easily with another large rain -on -snow event with debris torrents. It
2 happened a few years ago, and the consequences are frightening. The steepness is
3 dangerous. They are giving the proponent something that is very nice. Regarding
4 the buffer issue between commercial and rural forestry zones, they are creating a
5 peninsula of rural forestry into commercial forestry. It will be surrounded on three
6 sides by commercial forestry. They will be able to see one or two of the homes
7 from the courthouse. The view will have an effect on everyone. He'd rather see a
8 clear cut because it tells him he is living in a community where forestry is healthy.
9 The views from these properties will be fantastic. They will be secluded and very
10 expensive. This will bring in the worst kind of person immediately next to
11 commercial forestlands, wealthy people seeking seclusion and quiet. They run the
12 risk of placing people who want to save trees and have plenty money and time to
13 make life miserable next to those wanting to use trees as a natural resource.
14
15 Nelson stated he understood McShane's concerns. Twenty acres is a large
16 piece of land to own. He would like to see it stay as commercial forestry also, but
17 with the trade -off they have, it is the most prudent approach. He appreciated the
18 applicant's desire to help the watershed.
19
20 Crawford stated that he voted against this in Planning Commission. He was
21 on the fence and voted against it. The addition of the trade -off for the acreage at
22 south Lake Whatcom has pushed his decision to the other side. He will be in favor
23 of it.
24
25 Hoag stated this was a project that was denied by the Planning Commission
26 and was not going to originally have a hearing. It was taken up the last day of the
27 Planning and Development Committee, on November 23. At that time it was
28 decided that, because of the changes brought forward at that time, they would
29 schedule a public hearing for December 8. At the time the proponent brought the
30 proposal forward, it was already too late for the Council to schedule a public
31 hearing and adopt it in time to be considered concurrent with the budget. It was
32 unfortunate they could not take action at the December 8 meeting. Because the
33 proponent didn't bring forward the proposed change until November 23, they could
34 not have done this in time, even if they wanted to.
35
36 Brenner questioned when the last day was that they could have adopted the
37 budget.
38
39 Imhof stated it had to be adopted by December 2.
40
41 Brenner stated they did decide to consider it before they adopted the budget.
42 She recalled that wasn't the first time the Council dealt with it. They were the ones
43 that sent it to the Planning Commission. When it comes back, whether it is denied
44 or approved, they still have the option to have a hearing. There was a big change
45 to the proposal. Either they go along with the Planning Commission or they have a
46 public hearing. It is still part of the same process. It did come in before they had
47 to adopt the budget.
48
49 Hoag stated that at the time the proposal was brought forward by the
50 proponents they would not have been able to get it in on time because of the time
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 28
1 limitations in adopting the budget, setting a public hearing, and in introducing an
2 ordinance. This did not get in on time because the proponent did not bring forward
3 the change on time.
4
5 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Hoag opposed.
6
7
8 CONSENT AGENDA
9
10 Imhof moved to approve consent items one through sixteen.
11
12 Nelson moved to remove item number two and schedule it for Finance
13 Committee on January 25.
14
15 Motion to refer to committee carried unanimously.
16
17 Hoag removed items three and four.
18
19 Brenner removed item thirteen.
20
21 Motion to approve consent items one, five through twelve, and fourteen
22 through sixteen carried unanimously.
23
24 1. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TREASURER'S LIST OF PROPERTY TAX
25 REFUNDS PURSUANT TO RCW 84.69.020, IN THE AMOUNT OF
26 $221,280.80 (AB2000 -025)
27
28 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
29 PURCHASE OF SPECIAL SOFTWARE BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TO
30 CONNECT THE WASHINGTON STATE ACCESS SYSTEM VIA THE AS400,
31 WITH THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR BEING NEW WORLD SYSTEMS, FOR
32 A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $43,120 (AB2000 -026)
33
34 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
35 99 -114 TO THE SOLE BIDDER, FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA, FOR THE
36 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF GROCERIES AND SUPPLIES FOR THE JAIL, IN
37 THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $119,968.68 (AB2000 -028)
38
39 Crawford questioned why there is only one bidder.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that is a specialized service.
42 The food qualities are in large bulk.
43
44 Hoag stated her question pertained to this item and Consent Agenda item
45 three. She questioned whether they received responses from local suppliers.
46 Desler stated they encourage local suppliers. To date, they've gotten no response.
47
48 Hoag asked if local suppliers are aware of this. Desler stated he didn't know
49 the specifics. He could provide that information.
50
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 29
1 Hoag encouraged that the word gets out there. Part of economic
2 development includes encouraging local businesses. If they put in competitive bids,
3 it would be better.
4
5
(Clerk's Note: See Consent Agenda item thirteen for vote of approval of this
6
item.)
7
8
3.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
9
99 -113 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, CORRECTIONAL
10
INDUSTRIES, FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FOR
11
THE JAIL, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $44,265.25 (AB2000 -027)
12
13
(Clerk's Note: See Consent Agenda item thirteen for vote of approval of this
14
item.)
15
16
5.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
17
99 -123 TO THE QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS ON THE ATTACHED LIST, FOR
18
THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF RIPRAP ROCK FOR USE IN THE REGULAR
19
MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY ROADS, IN AN AMOUNT ANTICIPATED TO
20
EXCEED $35,000 (AB2000 -029)
21
22
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
23
99 -124 TO THE QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS ON THE ATTACHED LIST, FOR
24
THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF MINERAL AGGREGATES FOR USE IN THE
25
REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY ROADS, IN AN AMOUNT
26
ANTICIPATED TO EXCEED $35,000 (AB2000 -030)
27
28
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
29
99 -127 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FOOD SERVICES OF
30
AMERICA, FOR THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF PRODUCE FOR THE JAIL, IN
31
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $37,100.40 (AB2000 -031)
32
33
8.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
34
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
35
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
36
HEALTH SERVICES -CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, TO PROVIDE
37
PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING HOME VISIT SERVICES TO FAMILIES WITH
38
BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN AT RISK FOR CHILD ABUSE AND
39
NEGLECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,564 THROUGH JUNE 2000, AND
40
$48,515 THROUGH JUNE 2001, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMENDED
41
INCREASE OF $77,501 (AB2000 -032)
42
43
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
44
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
45
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
46
SERVICES — PASSPORT PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE PUBLIC HEALTH
47
NURSING SERVICES TO ASSESS HEALTH INFORMATION ON
48
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CASE TO ENSURE THEY RECEIVE REQUIRED
49
HEALTH CARE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,786 THROUGH JUNE 2000
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 30
1 AND $49,762 THROUGH JUNE 2001, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT
2 AMENDED INCREASE OF $70,592 (AB2000 -033)
3
4 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
5 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
6 DEPARTMENT, SOLID WASTE DIVISION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
7 ECOLOGY, FOR COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT ACTIVITIES, IN
8 THE MATCHING FUNDS AMOUNT OF $462,601 (AB2000 -034)
9
10 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
11 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
12 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND SUN COMMUNITY SERVICES, TO
13 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SHORT -TERM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
14 SERVICES FOR MENTALLY ILL CLIENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,102
15 (AB2000 -035)
16
17 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
18 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
19 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES
20 NORTHWEST, TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE FAMILY RESPITE
21 RELIEF PROGRAM AND THE YOUTH CO- OCCURRING DISORDERS
22 PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,810 (AB2000 -036)
23
24 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
25 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM
26 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
27 RESOLUTION SERVICES IN THE AREA OF SMALL CLAIMS,
28 NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTES AND FAMILY LAW MEDIATION, IN THE
29 BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2000 -037)
30
31 Brenner stated she didn't realize that the County would have Whatcom
32 Dispute Resolution Center provide small claims mediation. She questioned whether
33 there is a fee on that service. Desler stated the administrator for that is not
34 present. He suggested they put that item in committee. This is a continuation of
35 existing service.
36
37 Imhof moved to approve Consent Agenda items three, four, and thirteen.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DANIEL S. MCGREEVY,
43 TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES IN CONFLICT OF
44 INTEREST CASES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
45 OFFICE, IN THE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $220,000 (AB2000 -038)
46
47 15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
48 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELICH, ET AL, TO
49 PROVIDE CRIMINAL DEFENSE REPRESENTATION OF QUALIFIED
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 31
1
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS, IN THE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $220,000
2
(AB2000 -039)
3
4
16.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
5
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MATTHEW ELICH,
6
MARILYN I. MCLEAN AND PAULA L. MCCANDLIS, TO PROVIDE
7
REPRESENTATION OF QUALIFIED INDIGENT PARENTS IN JUVENILE
8
DEPENDENCY MATTERS, IN THE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $220,000
9
(AB2000 -040)
10
11
12
OTHER ITEMS
13
14
1.
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
15
DECISION ON FILE NO. CUP95 -0056, FILED BY RICK AND DEBRA
16
BENNER (AB99 -402)
17
18
See "Announcements."
19
20
2.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
21
DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ACME /VAN ZANDT SUB -ZONE
22
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LYNDEN /EVERSON SUB -ZONE ADVISORY
23
COMMITTEE, AND THE SUMAS /NOOKSACK /EVERSON SUB -ZONE
24
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB99 -375A)
25
26
Dawson requested that Michael Reilly be appointed to represent the
27
geographic
areas.
28
29
The Council concurred.
30
31
Brenner moved approval by acclamation.
32
33
Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
34
35
3.
APPOINTMENT TO THE SEWAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD (AB99 -
36
375)
37
38
Brenner moved to appoint Steven Wilkinson.
39
40
Motion carried unanimously.
41
42
4.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE USE OF TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
43
FUNDS FOR TOBACCO PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
44
(AB2000 -041)
45
46
Nelson moved approval of the resolution.
47
48
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 345, "...WHEREAS, tobacco
49
use
ene ef the gFeatest publie health thFeats ef ngedeFn tinges constitutes a great
50 and persistent threat to public health;"
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 32
1
2 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Imhof opposed.
3
4 Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 345, "WHEREAS, every day
5 65 children in Washington State begin smoking or chewing tobacco and one -third of
6 them will die as a direct result of using tobacco; WHEREAS the youth of Whatcom
7 County and Washington State are precious;"
8
9 Motion carried 5 -2 with McShane and Crawford opposed.
10
11 Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 345, "WHEREAS tobacco
12 prevention w-W is estimated to save 28,000 lives and $136 million in state Medicaid
13 costs in three years;"
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 Hoag stated she was disappointed to see that the court's decision was not
18 appealed by Pierce County. She wanted the Whatcom County Board of Health to
19 look into adopting an ordinance that still addresses the problem in a way that will
20 stand up in court.
21
22 Dawson stated they need to convene as the Board of Health to discuss this.
23
24 Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously.
25
26 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT
27 VIRGINIA T. STOOTHOFF TO HER FIRST FIVE -YEAR TERM AS A
28 MEMBER OF THE RURAL LIBRARY BOARD (AB2000 -045)
29
30 McShane moved to approve.
31
32 Crawford stated he wanted to appoint Mr. Hardaway instead of Ms. Stoothoff.
33 The reason they were given for the recommendation was because it was a
34 geographic consideration. Knowing Mr. Hardaway and in looking at his credentials,
35 the quality of the individual is a greater consideration than their geographic
36 location.
37
38 Dawson stated the nominee has only lived in Whatcom County for about
39 eight months.
40
41 Imhof stated the nominee has many credentials.
42
43 Brenner stated the Executive appoints the position and the Council confirms
44 the Executive's appointment. The Council can't appoint someone else. They can
45 only confirm or deny the appointment.
46
47 Motion to appoint Stoothoof carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Crawford opposed.
48
49 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT JOANN
50 LINVILLE AND FIELDING FORMWAY TO THEIR SECOND FOUR -YEAR
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 33
1 TERMS AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD
2 (AB2000 -046)
3
4 Imhof moved approval.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8
9 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
10
11 Imhof moved approval with the addition of the substitute pages for item
12 number four and the infectious waste ordinance.
13
14 Motion to accept Introduction Items carried unanimously.
15
16 Goodwin stated that it would be more appropriate to amend the Transfer of
17 Development Rights Ordinance rather than reconsider it. She substituted the
18 ordinance that would exclude Sudden Valley. She proposed they substitute that
19 ordinance for introduction.
20
21 Hoag questioned whether there are any time constraints on that item.
22 Goodwin stated it is a continuation of the zoning amendment. It is not a
23 Comprehensive Plan amendment. It had to be batched, but they already adopted
24 it. The Planning Commission already addressed it. It doesn't have to be done
25 before the budget.
26
27 Imhof added that information as a substitute for item number three.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 1. ORDINANCE RESCINDING THE ORDINANCE RESTRICTING TOBACCO
32 ADVERTISING (AB2000 -042) (COUNCIL AS HEALTH BOARD)
33
34 2. RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING BIRCH BAY WATER AND
35 SEWER DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SYSTEM PLAN (AB2000-
36 044)
37
38 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING TO EXCLUDE
39 SUDDEN VALLEY AS A TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
40 SENDING AREA (AB2000 -043)
41
42 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 1 (AB2000-
43 047)
44
45 S. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SITING CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT
46 STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
47 (AB2000 -048)
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 34
1 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06, SOLID
2 WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, IMPOSING LIMITS ON ACCEPTANCE
3 IF INFECTIOUS WASTE (AB2000 -024)
4
5
6 OTHER BUSINESS
7
8 Crawford moved to rescind the motion to appoint Dan McShane on the
9 Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council ( EFSEC). People in District 2,
10 representatives from the City of Sumas, and representatives from the Economic
11 Development Council have contacted him. They asked him to serve on the council
12 because he is from District 2. At the time Councilmember Hoag resigned her
13 representation on the board, he was not aware of the council. He was totally
14 unaware of the issue until late December. The concerns of Councilmember Hoag,
15 as she expressed to him, are that he would be found in a position of not being able
16 to have ex parte discussions with the constituents because the council is acting in a
17 quasi - judicial manner. That concern is resolved in his mind because there is an
18 active councilmember from District 2 who is willing to listen to any discussions. He
19 could easily refer any questions to Councilmember Hoag.
20
21 Dawson agreed that someone from that district should be on the council.
22 However, Councilmember Hoag stated a hearing was upcoming and someone had
23 to be assigned right away. She didn't want to nominate someone for an
24 appointment when they weren't present. She would support the vote for
25 reconsideration.
26
27 Hoag stated Dawson was incorrect about her statements regarding a hearing.
28 In November, the EFSEC considered a request from the applicant to have an early
29 call for interveners and have that call prior to the draft environmental impact
30 statement being issued. They wanted interveners as soon as the beginning of
31 January. Because of that reason, because she couldn't discuss the issue with her
32 constituents, and because she was concerned about being bumped off the council
33 due to a change in the proposal that affected her, she felt she should step down.
34 She read her comments from the meeting. She thinks Councilmember Crawford is
35 a highly qualified person. She was concerned that the proponents of the project
36 want him to sit on the council and not Councilmember McShane. It bothered her
37 that the appointment was made because she was under a time constraint. This was
38 the soonest she could bring it to the County Council. When they appoint someone,
39 they don't usually rescind the appointment unless there is something wrong with
40 that person. No one contacted her about their concerns until late. That wasn't
41 appropriate.
42
43 Brenner stated she didn't like the way this happened, but she wouldn't
44 support the motion to rescind.
45
46 Crawford stated there was a lot of concern that they were starting out on the
47 wrong foot. He apologized for creating that. They should not consider his feelings
48 because they are not involved. He wouldn't take the vote personally.
49
50 Motion failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Dawson in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 1/11/2000, Page 35
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
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Dawson reminded everyone of the meeting on January 18 at the Forest
Street Annex.
Dawson announced that Councilmember Hoag and she would attend a
legislative rally on January 27. The State Department of Ecology created revisions
and modifications that will be put into Natural Resources.
Dawson announced they also have a public hearing in Anacortes on January
30 with the National Marine Fisheries.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 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, 1/11/2000, Page 36