HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 11 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
July 11, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Absent:
Robert Imhof
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: REGULAR
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 13, 2000; SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING (WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION) FOR JUNE 20, 2000
Nelson moved approval of the minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Bob Carmichael, 1700 D Street, Bellingham, urged the Council to allow more
flexibility in the Rural zones, particularly the rural one dwelling per two acres zone
(R2) and rural one dwelling per five acres zone (R5) for recreational vehicles (RV's).
He suggested throwing out the idea of administrative approval. Instead, allow one
additional accessory use RV during the summer months for a maximum of 120 days
and subject to the screening criteria. He is only talking about the rural areas. The
purpose of this is to provide flexibility. The average property owner that has a
large parcel can have this happen without any great hardship on anyone. It would
allow the owner to have a second friend visit. There is no threat to public health or
safety with this proposal. There is no impact on property values because the
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 1
1 screening requirements would still be in place. It would be a slight accommodation
2 to some rural property owners.
3
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING
6
7 1. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL
9 TRANSMISSION PIPELINES OF PETROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,
10 AND NATURAL GAS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (AB2000-
11 216A)
12
13 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
14 hearing.
15
16 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
17
18 Nelson stated the reason they are doing an emergency is because they put
19 together the utility corridor committee. He questioned whether the intent is to
20 encourage that committee to look at this issue as their first task.
21
22 Brenner stated they are not extending anything. They are required by law,
23 when they passed the emergency ordinance to hold a public hearing on it within 60
24 days. This is the required public hearing. This is still the same 60 days. Hopefully
25 within the 60 days, the committee will put standards in place. Once those
26 standards are done, the emergency moratorium is gone.
27
28 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
29
30 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF WHATCOM COUNTY SIX YEAR
31 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2001 THROUGH
32 2006(AB2000 -255)
33
34 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated
35 they had a work session on this two weeks or a month ago. He mailed out copies
36 to different agencies and interested parties. He has not had any comments to
37 change anything. He was available to answer questions.
38
39 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
40
41 Jerry Hunter, Mount Baker School District Superintendent, stated he wanted
42 to speak about Park Road. It is the worst county road in Whatcom County. Five
43 Mount Baker school buses travel the Park Road four times each school day, for a
44 total of 20 daily school bus trips carrying approximately 300 students. This totals
45 3,600 bus trips and 54,000 students being transported, ages three through
46 nineteen. In addition, there are dozens of students and parents driving their own
47 cars that make their way to and from Mount Baker schools. As it currently exists,
48 Park Road causes him to be seriously concerned about the safety of students, bus
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 2
1 drivers, and other motorists. Reconstruction of Park Road has been delayed
2 because of factors outside the control of County officials. He had a copy of the
3 Transportation Improvement Plan, which lists Park Road as the second highest
4 priority, with a construction start date of April 1, 2001. The approval of the Six -
5 Year Transportation Improvement Plan would result in a long- needed improvement
6 that would enhance the safety of Park Road, which is an increasingly important
7 transportation corridor. He urged the County Council to approve reconstruction of
8 Park Road with a starting date of April 1, 2001.
9
10 Dawson questioned whether the concerns with Park Road have been
11 resolved. Mills stated he is still awaiting the permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
12 Engineers. That is the last remaining hurdle. There is one more property owner
13 from whom they have to purchase property. He didn't anticipate a problem.
14
15 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
16
17 Hoag moved approval of the resolution with a couple of amendments. She
18 moved to amend page 370 of the packet by switching two projects, the Whatcom
19 Connector, which is project number 67 and the railroad crossing signalization,
20 which is project number 68. Signalizing railroad crossings is a higher priority.
21
22 Nelson questioned the railroad crossing signalization. Mills stated there are a
23 few crossings in the county that are not signalized. As money becomes available,
24 there is a call for projects for which the County applies. The un- signalized crossings
25 are prioritized. They receive about 99 percent of federal funds when the money
26 comes around.
27
28 Nelson stated he, as a District #1 representative, has been receiving calls
29 regarding the Lake Whatcom connector. People are becoming more and more
30 concerned about Lakeway. They still have not done a study on that road.
31 Executive Kremen vetoed a study on concerns about Lake Whatcom and
32 stormwater management. He questioned when there would be appropriate time to
33 do the engineering and the feasibility study the Council asked for a couple of years
34 ago. He also questioned whether the Lake Whatcom Management Committee had
35 addressed the Lake Whatcom connector.
36
37 Executive Kremen stated they worked on a stormwater management study.
38
39 Nelson questioned whether that satisfied any concerns about this, or if there
40 needs to be more studies.
41
42 Kremen stated he is not prepared to answer questions. This is the first time
43 he's heard about it in the last two years.
44
45 Nelson stated they've been waiting for two years. He will refer all future calls
46 to the Executive's office.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 3
1 Brenner offered a friendly amendment to make the Whatcom Connector the
2 last item on the list, number 72.
3
4 Hoag accepted the friendly amendment.
5
6 Dawson questioned whether it really matters. Mills stated it doesn't. When
7 they get that far down on the list, they are into items that are more wish list -type
8 things. They could move up as different factors change.
9
10 Hoag stated it is a priority list. In her mind, people's lives and safety should
11 be a higher priority than a political hot button that has been widely contested. It is
12 appropriate to move up the railroad signalization and put the connector at the
13 bottom of the list.
14
15 Motion to amend carried 4 -2 with Dawson and Nelson opposed.
16
17 Hoag stated she wanted to amend page 362. Item 36 is the Van Buren Road
18 and Lindsay Road reconstruction from the Hampton Road to state route (SR) 546.
19 This is a road she drives regularly. It is a very good road. It has been recently
20 redone. There are not sight problems. There are many roads in the County that
21 need attention. She couldn't see doing this at that point. The last time she
22 brought it up, she was told they were looking at making it an all- weather road. The
23 County's first priority should be health and safety. This is a good road with a good
24 surface, good width, and good sight. Other roads have shoulders falling into
25 ditches. She didn't approve of the project. It should be much lower on the priority
26 list. Mills stated they improved Van Buren Road and Hampton Road in the past few
27 years. This is a well - traveled route for school children who go to the Nooksack
28 School. There is a tight turn at Lindsay Road. The road width is fair. It is not
29 perfect. They have received indication that they may receive money from the
30 County Road Administration Board for this project. That is one of the reasons they
31 kept the project on the list. It did get moved down on the list from last year.
32
33 Hoag asked precisely what they plan to do with that road. She understood
34 that Nooksack Valley students go on that road. However, it is a good, wide road.
35 There is nothing wrong with the road. She questioned whether they are going to
36 change the curve at Lindsay. Mills stated they plan to soften that curve. It is now
37 a 90- degree curve.
38
39 Hoag questioned whether they are planning to take some of the neighboring
40 field, or if they are talking about resurfacing the entire road. Mills stated the lanes
41 are approximately 10 feet wide with varying shoulder width. They would create 11-
42 foot wide lanes with six -foot shoulders. There is very little shoulder in place now.
43
44 Hoag questioned creating six -foot shoulders. Mills stated that is the County's
45 standard for arterial roads. The standard is 11 -foot lanes with six -foot shoulders.
46 When they reach a certain traffic amount, they move to 12 -foot lanes and eight -
47 foot shoulders.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 4
1 Hoag stated the road is in good shape. She understood redoing the corner.
2 There are other roads out there that are unsafe to travel on and need care. She
3 wanted to move that project down the list. She didn't know the condition of some
4 of the other roads that are mentioned. Mills stated they have no money planned to
5 spend the first year on Van Buren Road. They have $20,000 to spend on
6 engineering in 2002. They will look at right -of -way and engineering in 2003.
7 Construction is in four to six years. It has been moved down in priority. They are
8 not going to improve that road tomorrow.
9
10 Hoag suggested that they make sure the priority is on the curve, because
11 nothing is wrong with the rest of the road.
12
13 McShane questioned the ranking of the fish barrier removals, which is item
14 26. Mills stated they've been asked to put in $500,000 per year to do fish barriers
15 for the County. He tried to put the road projects first. It was lower on the list, but
16 they moved it up further.
17
18 Kremen stated he requested that it be moved up on the list.
19
20 McShane questioned whether there is a commitment of $500,000 per year.
21 Mills stated there is scheduled $50,000 for next year for engineering. They know
22 they won't get the permits within one year. From that period on, they will have
23 $50,000 per year for additional engineering and $450,000 for construction. They
24 hope to do at least two barriers each year.
25
26 Hoag stated the improvement at Hannegan Road at Smith Road, where the
27 signal has been installed, is wonderful.
28
29 Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried unanimously.
30
31
32 CONSENT AGENDA
33
34 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
35 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through nine.
36
37 Nelson withdrew item nine.
38
39 Brenner withdrew items four, seven, and eight.
40
41 Motion to approve items one through three, five, and six carried
42 unanimously.
43
44 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
45 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
46 HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING,
47 PROVIDING CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY
48 DISABLED CHILDREN AGES BIRTH TO THREE, AND THEIR FAMILIES,
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 5
1 CONSISTING OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL TRAINING AND
2 SOCIAL INTEGRATION THERAPIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,984
3 (AB2000 -258)
4
5 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
6 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
7 HUMAN SERVICES AND HOLLY COMMUNITY SERVICES, TO PROVIDE
8 COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS NOT ABLE TO
9 ACCESS EMPLOYMENT DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR
10 DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,706
11 (AB2000 -259)
12
13 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
14 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
15 HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES, TO PROVIDE
16 PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES CONSISTING OF TRAINING AND PAID
17 EMPLOYMENT IN BUSINESSES THAT ARE ORGANIZED AND DESIGNED
18 TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN
19 THE AMOUNT OF $268,749 (AB2000 -260)
20
21 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
22 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
23 SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING, TO PROVIDE
24 AGE - RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SENIORS, RETIREES AND
25 OTHER PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE LIMITED IN THEIR ABILITY TO
26 ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
27 $60,180 (AB2000 -261)
28
29 Brenner expressed concerns about the services not being age - related. The
30 language says the services are age - related. She understood that there are federal
31 definitions. The top of page 77, Exhibit B, says that the services are for those who
32 are seniors /retired. The services provide more than that. They are contracting for
33 more money for fewer services. People need to understand that this is not age -
34 related. She didn't object to what they are doing. She objected to the way it is
35 written because it implies one thing but it is different. It could provide services to
36 people for no age - related reason. They don't have to be senior or retired. It is
37 misleading. Because of the kind of money the County receives, the money has to
38 be available to others in addition to seniors and retired people. She didn't have a
39 problem with that. She had a problem with the way it is worded. She wanted to
40 see the language on the top of page 77 deleted, "(SENIOR /RETIRED)" and any
41 other language that implies the service is strictly for seniors or retired people.
42 Plenty of people would be eligible for this if they are working.
43
44 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, explained that the
45 language used is taken from federal and state language. It is worded in accordance
46 with the eligibility of the funding source. He suggested added language,
47 "(SENIOR /RETIRED /OTHER QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS)." There may be non - seniors
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 6
1 who need the developmentally disabled definition criteria, which the County would
2 still be required to provide services to, as required by the funding mechanism.
3
4 Brenner suggested amending the title of the item on the Council agenda,
5 "Request authorization for the Executive to enter into a contract between Whatcom
6 County Health and Human Services and Whatcom County Council on Aging, to
7 provide age Felated support services to seniors, retirees and other participants who
8 are limited in their ability to actively contribute to the community, in the amount of
9 $60,180 (AB2000- 261)"
10
11 Benjamin suggested they don't do that. They word this in accordance with
12 the eligibility criteria of the funding source, which are the federal and state
13 governments. While the major and primary target is seniors and retired people, by
14 definition or eligibility criteria, they can't exclude those non - seniors who meet the
15 eligibility criteria as developmentally disabled or mentally ill. They could lose the
16 funding source because they are not meeting the minimum criteria.
17
18 Brenner stated she is not asking them to do that. She is asking that it be
19 taken out of the title of the issue on the agenda. This implies that the service is
20 strictly for seniors. Brenner stated they cannot lose funding by changing the title of
21 the agenda item that goes to the newspapers and the people.
22
23 Benjamin stated it is still the same criteria that are being used in the
24 contract. It would also be misleading to take out the phrase 'age - related.'
25
26 Brenner stated it is not necessarily age - related. Benjamin stated the primary
27 is age - related. The vast majority of these people are age - related. That is the
28 primary source of the funding. There are few who are not seniors who are using
29 these services.
30
31 Brenner stated she was not asking to change the contract at all. She only
32 wants to change the title of Exhibit "B" and the title on the Council agenda. She
33 moved to add language to the agenda title "...to provide primarily age - related
34 support service..." and to add language to the title of Exhibit "B" on Council packet
35 page 77, "(SENIOR /RETIRED /OTHER QUALIFIED RECIPIENTS)."
36
37 Crawford stated that the term 'senior /retired' identifies something that this
38 applies to. The term 'other qualified recipients' is too broad.
39
40 Brenner stated it is wrong to specify seniors and retired people when it is not
41 just seniors and retired people. The language needs to show that the service is not
42 solely for seniors and retired people.
43
44 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated Brenner should be
45 cautious about changing the actual wording of the contract. He saw no problem
46 with changing the wording on the agenda for news distribution.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 7
1 Brenner suggested adding the word 'primarily' before the term
2 'senior /retired.'
3
4 Benjamin stated that he believed the agenda title is correct as it is. It
5 correctly exemplifies the meaning of the contract. He proposed deleting language
6 on page 77, " " at the top of the page. All the descriptions of
7 services clearly depict the meaning of the contract.
8
9 Brenner amended her motion to delete language at the top of Council packet
10 page 77, "(SENIOR/RETIRED)."
11
12 Nelson stated the appendix lists reimbursement of seniors /level three. He
13 questioned how that is defined. Benjamin stated the levels are defined by local
14 definition because the state and federal government allow the local government to
15 do different levels of reimbursement for the different levels of need by the client.
16 That is where they have the local flexibility for a provider to reimburse more to
17 those needing more individual care. That still falls under the guidelines of the
18 contract.
19
20 Nelson questioned level four. Benjamin stated it has the same meaning. It
21 defines a different level of care. For different levels of care, they provide different
22 levels of reimbursement to compensate the provider.
23
24 Nelson questioned why they need any of that language about being senior or
25 retired if they've already defined it through levels of care. Benjamin stated this is a
26 particular contract for the senior center, which primarily provides services to the
27 aged. Page 80 is a schedule of all the clients, without naming the individual clients,
28 and indicates that all are level threes. They want all the levels identified in the
29 contract in case they have to add a client who is at a different level. Then, they
30 won't have to negotiate a reimbursement rate. It is already determined.
31
32 Brenner stated her only point is that this deals with others besides seniors or
33 retired people. It is handled through the senior center. It is not accurate to specify
34 senior and retired people.
35
36 Motion to amend failed 4 -2 with Nelson and Brenner in favor.
37
38 Brenner moved to add the word 'primarily' in front of every phrase that is
39 'senior /retired.'
40
41 Motion failed 4 -2 with Nelson and Brenner in favor.
42
43 Motion to approve carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
44
45 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
46 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
47 SERVICES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES — COMMUNITY
48 ACCESS, TO PROVIDE AN INDIVIDUALIZED PROGRAM FOR PERSONS
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 8
1 WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY ACCESS EMPLOYMENT
2 OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR
3 OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,718 (AB2000 -262)
4
5 6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 900910
6 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF
7 SLATER ROAD INTERSTATE I -5 TO NORTHWEST DRIVE (AB2000 -263)
8
9 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE
10 JAMES STREET ROAD /EAST BAKERVIEW ROAD SIGNALIZATION
11 PROJECT, TO BE FULLY REIMBURSED BY THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM,
12 CRP 998010 (AB2000 -264)
13
14 Brenner stated the Council just approved $500,000 for signalization at that
15 intersection. Part of that cost is funded from the federal and state governments.
16 The County funds a big chunk of the cost. At the time it came up, she said that
17 intersection is an island inside of Bellingham. It is unfortunate that it is an island.
18 It should have been included with the annexation. The County will spend the
19 money on it. If the City of Bellingham annexes the intersection, they only have to
20 pay the County half of the cost. If the City of Bellingham doesn't annex the
21 intersection within ten years, they don't have to pay the County anything. The
22 County is allowing more work to be done for the intersection. They are willing to
23 completely reimburse the County for this project. They should have been willing to
24 completely reimburse the County for the signal at the time they annex it. The
25 interlocal agreement needs to say that the County will agree to this with the
26 stipulation that the city will reimburse the full amount of the County's portion of the
27 signalization when they ever take in that little island. This is County money. This
28 is almost 100 percent for the use of the City of Bellingham.
29
30 Dawson questioned whether Councilmember Brenner wanted to re -work the
31 interlocal agreement.
32
33 Brenner stated she did. That is something they are going to do anyway. The
34 problem is that this is happening now. The County doesn't have much to negotiate
35 with. This is one issue that is such a huge problem. It was not done well in the
36 first place. They still have an obligation to try to have the taxpayers be fairly taxed
37 and have their money be fairly spent.
38
39 Nelson moved approval of the resolution. This is about the installation of the
40 sewer while the road is torn up. That is a different issue. He understood
41 Councilmember Brenner's argument of using this as a hammer. However, the city
42 will just tear up the road later. If there are issue that need to be addressed with
43 the interlocal agreement, then the County needs to work on that through the
44 interlocal process.
45
46 Dawson stated this needs to be addressed now, while the road is torn up.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 9
1 Brenner stated the city knows it will cost more to dig up the road later. It is
2 less expensive for the city to do it this way. It is in their best interest to negotiate
3 with the County on the light.
4
5 Motion to approve carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
8
9 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
10 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND
11 THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE
12 DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST BAKERVIEW /JAMES
13 STREET ROAD INTERSECTION, CRP 998010 (AB2000 -265)
14
15 Nelson stated this is the funding tied to Consent Agenda item seven. He
16 moved approval.
17
18 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
19
20 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
21 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE U.S.
22 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES FOR RIGHT -OF —
23 WAY USAGE (AB2000 -266)
24
25 Nelson stated the contract amendments are different than what was in the
26 packet. Mr. Andersen also has amendments that he proposes.
27
28 Bob Andersen, David Evans and Associates, explained that they are 99.9
29 percent agreed at what they are trying to accomplish. They have different
30 mechanisms by how they are trying to accomplish the work. Senior Civil Deputy
31 Prosecutor Dan Gibson was trying to counsel the councilmembers on the ability for
32 the Council to take action in embracing the concepts they are trying to accomplish,
33 which are set out in the two versions. His version has isolated fees and inspection
34 as well as remedies and termination into specific sections. Mr. Gibson's guidance,
35 as discussed with him, was to approve the conceptual document with the
36 understanding that refining the language would embrace the concepts set out in the
37 two drafts. They can work it out administratively. Later on, the Council can ratify
38 what it looks like. This is a way to get it off the docket and allow them to work it
39 out administratively.
40
41 Brenner questioned whether there is anything in the document that deals
42 with the councilmembers' concerns about not using the surveillance video cameras
43 for any surveillance other than for illegal immigration.
44
45 Andersen there is language addressing that concern on page two of his
46 handout in section 1(a), line three.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 10
1 Brenner stated that language doesn't limit the use of surveillance cameras to
2 only illegal immigration issues. Andersen stated the cameras are also going to
3 provide a massive service to local law and justice personnel.
4
5 Brenner stated the cameras could be used to look into people's houses. This
6 is a big concern about 'big brother.' People would be very concerned if they
7 thought it could be used for any law enforcement.
8
9 Nelson stated he went through this with Dan Gibson, who was unable to
10 attend this meeting. There are two versions of the agreement. They both say
11 'Intergovernmental' at the top. The original agreement will be amended to add the
12 term 'intergovernmental.' That was Mr. Gibson's intent. The Immigration and
13 Naturalization Service (INS) was initially nervous about that language but are now
14 fine with it. That is an easy fix. He moved to amend the agreement to be referred
15 to as an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which will be reflected throughout
16 the document.
17
18 Nelson stated section 1(a) did not include the new language. They are
19 working from the substitute agreement from Dan Gibson.
20
21 Hoag moved to amend Section 1 (a), second sentence to 'This right of use
22 shall mnelbide be limited to the non - exclusive...."
23
24 Brenner questioned why they use the term 'non - exclusive.'
25
26 Nelson stated the term should be 'exclusive rights.'
27
28 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they are trying to specify
29 that granting this would not prohibit them from obtaining other rights later through
30 another contract and negotiation. This isn't going to prevent them from coming
31 back and getting something more if the parties wanted.
32
33 Brenner questioned whether they can amend this later.
34
35 Nelson stated this identifies the right -of -way as a non - exclusive right. That
36 is all it says. This will limit the INS.
37
38 Grant stated that other people would be using the right -of -way. That's what
39 they mean by 'non - exclusive.'
40
41 Brenner stated her concern was that this could end up being used for much
42 more than border surveillance.
43
44 Hoag restated and amended her motion to amend the first sentence of
45 Section 1, "A non - exclusive right of use of County right -of -way and property is
46 hereby granted to the INS of the USA and its successors and assigns ... This right of
47 use shall rde be limited to the non - exclusive...." It is specific that the County is
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 11
1 granting the right to the INS. Hoag questioned the definition of a non - exclusive
2 right -of -way.
3
4 Grant stated the County is not choosing to give the INS an exclusive use of
5 this right -of -way. Others can use the right -of -way as well. The County can allow
6 others to use the right -of -way at the same time as the INS.
7
8 Hoag stated the original wording was so broad that they were granting the
9 federal government the right to do anything it wanted, including these things. She
10 didn't want them to be able to do that. She wanted them to only have the right to
11 do the things they are listing. She questioned whether her motion accomplishes
12 her intent. Grant stated it does.
13
14 Nelson stated the government and other agencies can still come to the
15 County for use, but they would have to come to the County and go through the
16 same process as others for a non - exclusive right. If the language stays as it is,
17 others wouldn't have to.
18
19 Brenner questioned what keeps the INS from assigning any other federal
20 department or local criminal justice agency as its successor. Grant stated nothing
21 stops the INS from doing that.
22
23 Brenner stated the amendment doesn't accomplish Hoag's intent.
24
25 Grant stated that if the INS wanted to turn over this project, for instance the
26 cable, the sub - agencies of the U.S. Government would figure out who will run this
27 project. Let the INS worry about who will run the project, so the County doesn't
28 have to worry about it. He agreed that Hoag's motion would accomplish her intent.
29
30 Nelson stated Councilmember Brenner's concern is about preventing 'big
31 brother' from using those cameras for any purpose that the government wants.
32 Regardless of what the County does with this agreement, the government will do
33 what it wants to do. The County does not control those cameras. However, the
34 County can prevent other government organizations, such as the CIA, from putting
35 in their own line.
36
37 Brenner stated she wanted to make sure that the County says the federal
38 government couldn't do anything else. She wanted to ensure that the agreement is
39 clear about that. If the federal government does those other things, they are
40 violating the law. She is concerned the federal government is going to do it
41 anyway. She questioned the purpose of this anyway.
42
43 Nelson offered the friendly amendment to delete "of the USA." It is defined
44 in the first paragraph.
45
46 Hoag accepted the friendly amendment.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 12
1 Andersen offered to insert language in section 1, paragraph (b),
2 "...consumers within the County. The purpose of this IGA is to increase the
3 efficiency of interdiction of illegal alien border crossings, illegal drug trafficking, and
4 terrorist activity along the subject international border. Any change of the
5 purpose..."
6
7 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with McShane opposed.
8
9 Hoag moved to insert the language proposed by Bob Andersen to section 1,
10 paragraph (b), "...consumers within the County. The purpose of this IGA is to
11 increase the efficiency of interdiction of illegal alien border crossings, illegal drug
12 trafficking, and terrorist activity along the subject international border. Any change
13 of the purpose..."
14
15 Brenner stated that illegal drug trafficking would not prevent someone from
16 using surveillance cameras to look into people's houses and other areas, using the
17 excuse of suspicion of drug trafficking. That is not the intention of this.
18
19 Hoag questioned how far the cameras can see if they are at the border.
20
21 Brenner stated they are not all going to be at the border. They said there
22 are places where they are going to have to be located at the road right -of -way,
23 which is not at the border.
24
25 Grant stated the contract's purpose specifically limits the surveillance that
26 will be undertaken to fulfill the purpose of this agreement. The purposes as it is
27 currently written are deduced from the recitals, the 'Whereas' statements, at the
28 beginning of the contract. If they are comfortable with the purposes specified in
29 the recitals, then they should be comfortable with the way the contract is currently
30 worded in that respect.
31
32 Brenner stated she is not comfortable. By saying the purpose is for drug
33 trafficking, that excuse can be used in a broad context. It is easy to know if
34 someone is an illegal alien. Using a surveillance camera is like saying someone is
35 guilty before that person is tried by law. A warrant won't be obtained. People will
36 be spied upon in their own homes. Grant stated the activity is limited to those
37 activities along the subject border.
38
39 Hoag restated her motion.
40
41 Andersen stated that language came from the third 'Whereas' statement.
42
43 Grant stated the purpose incorporates the current development standards
44 and the building restrictions of the zoning code and shoreline management
45 program. If they left out that additional sentence, it would automatically
46 incorporate all three concepts. If they include a specific purpose, it may not be as
47 broad as they initially intended in drafting the contract.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 13
1 McShane stated that Mr. Andersen's language emphasizes one thing over all
2 the other things listed in the 'Whereas' statements.
3
4 Hoag stated this section does not talk about what the IGA use is. It talks
5 about what the use of the right -of -way will be. She wanted to make sure that use
6 is restricted to the interdiction of these activities.
7
8 Nelson questioned whether paragraph (c) addresses Mr. Grant's concerns.
9
10 Hoag questioned the concern Mr. Grant is afraid they would exclude.
11
12 Grant stated paragraph (c) doesn't take care of his concern. They want to
13 ensure that their purposes don't run afoul of the County shoreline management
14 program and development standards. By leaving the purpose defined as the
15 recitals, it gives the County broader protection than the suggested amendment.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether it is two different things. The right of use that is
18 addressed in paragraph (b) is specific to the use of the right of way. What Mr.
19 Grant is talking about is about what the IGA covers, including making sure that
20 shorelines are addressed. That is not the actual use of the right -of -way.
21
22 Nelson stated that not putting the language in there would meet the
23 concerns of the issues that Mr. Grant has brought forward. In the first section, they
24 addressed the exclusivity of the INS's use of this corridor for their specific
25 purposes. It is identified in the 'Whereas' statements. If they start going into
26 detailed purposes, then they would lose the focus of what they are trying to
27 accomplish.
28
29 Hoag stated she felt strongly that the language should be included. She
30 restated her motion, '...consumers within the County. The purpose of this IGA is to
31 increase the efficiency of interdiction of illegal alien border crossings, illegal drug
32 trafficking, and terrorist activity along the subject international border. Any change
33 of the purpose..."
34
35 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to use the term 'illegal international
36 drug smuggling' instead of 'illegal drug trafficking.' It is supposed to be about
37 border issues only. If the language is only about drug trafficking, the INS can do
38 surveillance on everyone at any time by claiming they are investigating drug
39 trafficking.
40
41 Hoag stated the language is about illegal drug trafficking 'along the subject
42 international border.'
43
44 Brenner stated 'along' also refers to being along the right -of -way. Those
45 cameras are going to be able to do surveillance at any distance. It is important to
46 say that surveillance can happen only for international drug smuggling.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 14
1 Hoag declined the friendly amendment. Any activity going along the
2 international border must be intercepted.
3
4 Nelson stated that approval of this will miss the main purpose, which is the
5 County's right to inspect and have an idea of what is happening to the roadway and
6 right -of -way. He would refrain from specifically identifying the INS purpose of
7 identification of drug trafficking and other activities.
8
9 Brenner stated she would abstain from all of these modifications. It seems
10 clear that they are not being careful about how this can be used. She was amazed
11 that the councilmembers are not more concerned about the use of surveillance
12 cameras.
13
14 Hoag stated it is important that the County make it very clear it is giving the
15 INS a specific right to only do those things. It is an important job that needs to be
16 done, but they don't want this right -of -way to be used for other things. They need
17 to protect the citizens.
18
19 McShane suggested that, if the councilmembers are worried about the
20 cameras, that they don't agree to this. He didn't have a problem with the cameras.
21
22 Hoag stated she lives right by the border. There is a considerable amount of
23 drug trafficking. Their planes were just taken away and given to the southern
24 border of the United States to help prevent the deaths in the desert. They need to
25 do more to help the northern border be more secure, not less secure. She
26 supported the agreement, but is also respectful of the privacy of the citizens. It is
27 important that, if the County is granting right -of -way use, it be limited.
28
29 Dawson agreed. The limitation needs to be on there. Having the cameras
30 cuts down on the number of personnel that would be needed.
31
32 Crawford stated he is concerned about surveillance cameras. A red flag goes
33 up when the federal government says it would install surveillance cameras on
34 County soil. He was also for drug interdiction. He questioned whether the drug
35 traffickers would go for prosecution. Grant stated a goodly portion of them do
36 come to the County.
37
38 Crawford agreed with Councilmember Brenner. Unless the INS approaches
39 this differently, which they won't, they will condemn Whatcom County property. So
40 be it. The County should not be in a position of condoning this. The technology
41 they can use for surveillance is phenomenal. The councilmembers don't even have
42 a grasp of what they are talking about. He is totally for drug interdiction and there
43 are many ways to do it. This is just one that is easy for them. There are many
44 constitutional issues that the INS hasn't addressed with the County. He will also
45 abstain from voting on the amendment and will vote not to enter into this contract.
46
47 Hoag asked the councilmembers to not pull back from this. The Canadian
48 side of the border already has cameras in some areas.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 15
1
2 Crawford stated the County has no say over that.
3
4 Hoag stated she knows that the cameras work. They have friends that
5 sometimes accidentally cross the border near her because it is not well marked in
6 the farmlands. They trip sensors, and the border patrol shows up. However, there
7 are other times they've crossed the border and no one showed up. There is a
8 tremendous amount of drug trafficking in her area. A dead body showed up in a
9 farmer's field down the road from her. Forces have been pulled out of the area.
10 She asked that the agreement be made as friendly as possible, but she was not
11 interested in having the federal government condemn Whatcom County property.
12 They would end up with no agreement and the situation would be far worse than
13 what they are trying to avoid here. The county is going to get it one way or
14 another. If they grant the right -of -way with limited conditions, they will have
15 better served the constituents.
16
17 Crawford clarified that he was not opposed to granting the right -of -way. He
18 was opposed because they have not been informed by the INS as to the need of
19 this and have not explored any other options. He is not saying the Council needs to
20 do that. The INS needs to make a presentation of their options and why this is the
21 best option.
22
23 Dawson stated the INS needs to go forward to get its financing. She doesn't
24 need a report to be aware of the terrorist activities. They need to be aware of the
25 remedies. If the contract says that if it is willfully violated, the County can address
26 the contract and become involved in mediation.
27
28 Motion to amend failed 2 -2 -2 with Nelson and McShane opposed and Brenner
29 and Crawford abstaining.
30
31 Nelson stated page three had no additions other than the 'IGA' language he
32 already spoke to. On page four, it gets into the concerns about the purpose. A
33 concern raised by the INS was that the Whatcom County Code 12.16 refers to
34 franchise rights -of way and costs incurred for inspection at a certain dollar amount.
35 Language was inserted in the middle of paragraph (b) in section 5 to address the
36 inspection costs, "Any and all approvals required of the Director of Public Works,
37 pursuant to this section, shall not be unreasonably withheld. INS shall pay all
38 reasonable costs of inspection conducted by the County as is ordinarily required in
39 compliance with Whatcom County Code 12.16 and County Development Standards.
40 The parties hereto recognize and agree that the County is not requiring INS to
41 obtain an encroachment permit, but is simply calculating the inspection costs in
42 light of the considerations of cost identified in Whatcom County Code 12.16. INS
43 shall pay all actual necessary costs of and expenses incurred in the examination,
44 inspection, and approval of such work performed under the terms of this
45 agreement." He so moved.
46
47 Dawson stated the INS is on a limited budget, but that is not the County's
48 problem.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 16
1
2 Nelson stated the INS has a $5 million budget for this. They are looking at
3 $12,000 in inspection fees, which is less than others pay. It is called the permitting
4 process. He questioned why the federal government expects the county residents
5 to pay for an unfunded mandate. It asks little of INS to go through the process.
6
7 Hoag stated limiting the amount to $7,500, which is in Andersen's version of
8 the agreement is reasonable. However, if it costs the County more than that, the
9 INS should pay what it costs. She supported the language in Mr. Gibson's version
10 of the agreement.
11
12 Motion to amend carried 4 -0 -2 with Brenner and Crawford abstaining.
13
14 Nelson stated page seven included another area of concern. This was about
15 what to do if one party or the other feels there is disagreement. He read the
16 second paragraph of section 12, "Failure of the INS to abide by the terms of this
17 provision shall constitute adequate grounds for the County to cancel this
18 agreement, which, if done, shall terminate all rights and obligations of the parties
19 established herein. This is in no way intended to affect any other legal right of
20 occupancy that may inure the USA through any authority apart from this
21 agreement."
22
23 Andersen stated the issues that were addressed were put into a new section
24 15 of his version that accomplishes the same thing. The difference is that it
25 becomes a two -way street. Instead of it being a unilateral agreement in which the
26 County holds all the cards, it becomes an intergovernmental agreement in which
27 the right to resolve the disputes is with both parties.
28
29 Hoag requested clarification on the sentence in Andersen's version of the
30 agreement, "Upon termination by the County, the legal rights to occupancy of the
31 affected right -of -way or property shall continue to inure to the INS through any
32 other authority that is not part of this IGA." Andersen stated that is taken from
33 Dan Gibson's wording.
34
35 Nelson stated they are both in agreement.
36
37 Andersen stated he is using the same language.
38
39 Hoag stated she didn't see that language in Gibson's version. She was
40 comfortable with Gibson's language.
41
42 Nelson read the motion, as he read it into the record.
43
44 Motion carried 4 -0 -2 with Brenner and Crawford abstaining.
45
46 Nelson read language included in Section 15. If the parties are interested in
47 separating, then they want to identify the process in which that would occur,
48 "...under the provisions of this agreement, then this agreement may be cancelled by
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 17
1 the County, which shall terminate all rights and obligations of the parties
2 established herein. This is in no way intended to affect any other legal right of
3 occupancy that may inure to the USA through any authority, apart from this
4 agreement." He so moved.
5
6 Motion to amend carried 4 -0 -2 with Brenner and Crawford abstaining.
7
8 Nelson moved to approve as amended.
9
10 Brenner stated her sister is a judge in another state. The minority of the
11 councilmembers is not alone in their concern about government violating people's
12 rights. One of the most important rights that people have is the right to privacy.
13
14 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
15
16 Brenner continued to state that she is terrified that the government will be
17 eavesdropping on her privacy. It is happening already. There are other ways. She
18 would approve a fence, but not big surveillance cameras. The border is a little
19 ribbon of a line. The rest is Whatcom County property and people. This in no way
20 assures that people in this community are not going to be victims of privacy
21 invasion. It has happened before. She is not supporting the agreement.
22
23 Crawford stated he supported the INS and its interdiction efforts. In any
24 case, they are talking about 45 miles of a four -mile wide swath of land. They are
25 talking about going along with surveillance of 180 square miles of Whatcom County.
26 He had concerns that the County would go ahead with that. The INS did not even
27 offer to compensate the County for its efforts until it was pressed today. The INS
28 has not been 100 percent forthright with the County. He realized they have power
29 over the County through eminent domain. He is libertarian enough to want to
30 resist that a little bit.
31
32 Hoag questioned the four -mile wide swath.
33
34 Crawford stated there was language in the contract that it could go four
35 miles from the border, at the end of section 1, paragraph (a). Somewhere else in
36 the contract said it would be 45 miles long.
37
38 Dawson questioned whether they could do surveillance with the airplane and
39 cameras.
40
41 Crawford questioned the need for the fiber -optic cable. A fiber -optic cable
42 will transmit a tremendous amount of information.
43
44 Andersen stated that because of the way a national security issue like this is
45 dealt with in terms of public review and analysis, they've tried to work through the
46 County staff in great detail. The County councilmembers have not been exposed to
47 that detail. The actual definition of the location was not put into a legal description
48 that would identify specifically the 1 1/4 -inch wide path of the actual location. They
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 18
1 are not talking about trying to find locations throughout a four -mile wide swath of
2 land. That land encompasses the area in which a 1 1/4 -inch conduit would be
3 located as set out in the approved plans, which are 210 pages long. The County
4 can approve and know it. They are not disrupting water or utility lines. It is the
5 same kind of thing that AT &T had to do. The INS had complied with those things.
6 The councilmembers have a misconception in terms of the intent of that area. It is
7 an area that allows the locations to be looked at for areas of interdiction that have
8 been recorded for a high frequency.
9
10 Hoag stated that often the 'Whereas' statements in ordinances are often
11 discarded in practice. People look to the sections of the agreement. She
12 questioned whether the County would be okay if they are saying that the purpose is
13 spelled out in the 'Whereas' statements, and that purpose is not carried over to the
14 sections. Grant stated they already voted on that. The County will be okay. The
15 recitals to the contract are an important aspect of the contract for interpretation.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether the INS would stay with the recitals. Grant stated
18 the recitals in the ordinances are just as important for folks who need to interpret
19 the literal language of the ordinance.
20
21 Hoag questioned whether the INS would stay with the recitals. Grant stated
22 they would. The recitals will be a guide in implementing the contract. If the INS
23 departs from those purposes, then the County can say the INS is breaching the
24 agreement and follow through with the remedies that are available under the
25 contract.
26
27 Hoag stated she is not comfortable.
28
29 Andersen stated the line item congressional authorization for the work is for
30 the specific project. There can be no diversion of that purpose to other purposes.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether Congress could fund something else next year that
33 could be used by the same system.
34
35 Dawson stated they would find out if they kept on top of it.
36
37 Hoag stated that is why she wanted the language included. If they are going
38 to change the use, she wanted the INS to have to come back to the County.
39
40 Nelson stated this is not an easy issue for any councilmember. He
41 understood the fear of Brave New World, 1984, and Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in
42 a Strange Land. The point is that people's rights have to be protected, as well,
43 against all the aspects that the open border entails, such as the freedom of
44 transportation. Personnel at the border are thin. Taxpayers say that they want to
45 limit the budget. They need to use technology to provide tools for the law
46 enforcement. He would be concerned about privacy, but is more concerned about
47 the space satellites that can identify what one is doing in his or her own backyard.
48 These cameras are limited in use and function. If they are going to live in fear of
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 19
1 'big brother,' then it is time to overthrow the government. They have a democracy
2 and a capability to control that government and elect responsible people to make
3 responsible decisions so that they have a government that protects, not intrudes
4 upon, people's rights.
5
6 Motion to approve carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Crawford opposed.
7
8
9 OTHER ITEMS
10
11 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A $30 PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND
12 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -HUMAN RESOURCES (AB2000 -252)
13
14 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
15 moved approval.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 1A. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET TO FUND A
20 LIFEGUARD POSITION AT LAKE SAMISH PARK (AB2000 -274)
21
22 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
23 stated the substitute version proposed by Councilmembers McShane and Hoag
24 comes forward with a unanimous vote for approval. He so moved.
25
26 Dawson stated that they are not going to save everyone, but they may be
27 able to keep some of the activity of the teenagers under control. That is a benefit
28 in and of itself.
29
30 Hoag stated she supported the Executive in getting emergency funding to get
31 the lifeguards out there. She joined in proposing this with Councilmember
32 McShane. She moved to delete the second 'Whereas' statement. All the other
33 'Whereas' statements give the positive reasons why they would like to do this.
34
35 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
36
37 Hoag stated she asked about a specific ending date for having a lifeguard on
38 duty.
39
40 McShane stated the ending date is September 11.
41
42 Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated they didn't think it was
43 necessary. They don't have to worry about it.
44
45 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
46
47 2. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WITH RON BRONSEMA
48 REGARDING CURRENT AND FUTURE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 20
1 (FCZD) WORK PROGRAMS AND PRIORITIES FOR THE FCZD 2001
2 BUDGET (AB2000 -236)
3
4 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
5 there are recommendations from the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
6 Committee. This is the first time the Council has had to see a real list of the
7 priorities. She hoped, and is requesting, that they tighten up the list with more
8 specifics. The recommendation was to add two to three new full -time equivalent
9 (FTE) employees to the flood control staff during the budget process. It would be
10 impossible to do the recommendations without more staff. She so moved.
11
12 Dawson suggested that they send this to the Finance or budget process.
13
14 Brenner stated it is a recommendation for the budget. Whether it is two or
15 three depends on whether they decide there are critical projects coming up. There
16 is a lot of money in that fund right now. They need to keep a specific amount in
17 reserve for any crises that come up. That fund could be wiped out with one or two
18 crises.
19
20 Nelson suggested a friendly amendment to approve the plan as presented.
21
22 Brenner stated they are not approving the plan. The plan is general. It is a
23 priority list. Some of the things on the first list are not the things in order with the
24 FTE's. She is requesting that Paula Cooper bring forward a specific list of priority
25 action. They can wait on that. This motion is the recommendation on FTE's. They
26 can wait on that too. They are not doing anything until budget time anyway. The
27 recommendation from the committee was to recommend approving two to three
28 new FTE's.
29
30 Hoag stated the sediment strategy was discussed in committee. She
31 questioned whether the two to three FTE's would include the FTE's needed for the
32 sediment strategy.
33
34 Brenner stated it does.
35
36 McShane stated page 133 of the Council packet is the information. The initial
37 pages are the prioritized items that the Flood Control Zone District is dealing with.
38 Page 133 is the beginning of the information on the amount of staff that the specific
39 items need. It is ordered by top priority. In case of a big flood, all staff is going to
40 be working on the large flood at the top of the list. As they work their way down
41 the list and add up the number of staff, the bottom of page 134 shows the total
42 number of FTE's, which is the current level of 4.2. It doesn't mean that the district
43 isn't doing some of the other items that are beyond that point. That is the level
44 where they can do a good job on those things. Packet page 135 lists the projects
45 that would not be done because they are too busy. At that point, they felt that
46 adding two people would be a good idea. Councilmember Hoag raised the issue of
47 the sediment management strategy. Enough time has gone by so that may be
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 21
1 something they can work on now. If they do work on that project, they will need to
2 add a third person.
3
4 Dawson stated the request is to take in this information, wait for Paula
5 Cooper to tweak the priority list, and then address the issue in Finance Committee.
6
7 Brenner stated they could address it that way.
8
9 Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, explained that she was seeking
10 direction for preparing her budget request for the 2001 budget.
11
12 Dawson stated the direction is to add two to three FTE's.
13
14 Nelson stated they need to see what can legitimately be done in a year. If
15 there are staffing needs, it needs to come forward with a specific outline of what
16 goals and missions are going to be accomplished by that additional staffing and
17 how that is going to be measured. Otherwise, they are going to add staffing
18 throughout the year with each department as they need. They will not have a
19 focused approach to this problem.
20
21 McShane explained that the request for staffing is actually coming from the
22 Whatcom County Flood Control Advisory Committee. Paula Cooper is not coming to
23 the Council and asking for this. Having been on the advisory committee the last
24 year, this is something that is coming from the Council's advisory committee. They
25 well know what the Flood Control Zone District is doing. They are feeling a great
26 deal of frustration because they are not able to accomplish the County's goals and
27 objectives. Some of those goals and objectives, on pages 135 and 136, are
28 significant items that are beginning to drop off the table because the County
29 doesn't have the staff to do them. The County committed to accomplishing those
30 items. It is clear what the Council needs to do. The advisory committee and staff
31 have made a good faith effort to estimate the amount of staff it would take. The
32 reason for a third FTE is that it might have to be tightened up with the sediment
33 management strategy. The goals and objectives are there. It is something that
34 the Council, acting as the Board of Supervisors for the Flood Control Zone District,
35 should provide direction for a staffing increase to accomplish the goals they have
36 set out to accomplish.
37
38 Brenner stated the Council voted to ask the Flood Control Zone District
39 Advisory Committee to come up with a list of priority items and needed staffing
40 levels. The Council promised direction on how much staffing they would be willing
41 to provide through the budget process when they brought that priority list forward
42 to the County Council. The Council owes the advisory committee an answer by
43 voting on this motion. Generally, she agreed with Councilmember Nelson.
44 However, this was one of those things where the Council gave the advisory
45 committee a task to do.
46
47 Nelson agreed that they need to get these projects moving. He didn't
48 understand what they would be able to accomplish this year. The majority of the
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 22
1 items on the list can't be done now or are already being done. They don't need to
2 vote on giving the department direction on staffing needs. That is the department's
3 responsibility.
4
5 McShane stated the advisory board has advised the Council to increase
6 staffing levels in the flood division. Paula Cooper mentioned in committee that the
7 South Fork Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Program received a
8 $125,000 grant. It is something that needs to be accomplished for those in Acme
9 and along the South Fork Valley. There has been no movement on it, even though
10 the County has some money to move toward it.
11
12 Hoag stated the sediment strategy is very important. She wanted to ensure
13 that, going into the budget process, the Council supports having the FTE's for that
14 project. The motion that Councilmember Brenner made is appropriate. The
15 questions that have been brought forward from the advisory committee are
16 appropriate at this time. One of the problems with the budgeting process is that
17 things get lost in the shuffle. It is appropriate for the Council to say this is what it
18 wants to do. It is not cast in stone, but she wanted to make sure the Council
19 expresses the will to support what work needs to be done. One clarification is that
20 the first couple of pages of the tasks that are listed are the things they are
21 currently doing with the current staff.
22
23 Nelson questioned whether those things on the list are going to be done
24 anyway, even if they don't add staff. Cooper stated the staff, as it exists, can't get
25 to the projects that have been approved.
26
27 Nelson questioned whether the projects could be done if they add the staff.
28 Cooper stated they could begin working on them. Now, the projects are sitting idle.
29 They won't be built this year.
30
31 Nelson questioned whether the administration concurs that they need two or
32 three additional staff. Cooper agreed. She hears that the Council is willing to go to
33 a third position if they can do something with the sediment management plan. She
34 proposes to do more research, talk with other counties, and see how successful
35 they've been to determine whether that is a meaningful way to go.
36
37 Nelson stated he would support the motion for Paula Cooper to determine the
38 priorities and staffing levels needed, with the idea it will be increased by two to
39 three FTE's.
40
41 Brenner stated the motion is to give this direction to come back at budget
42 time. The only thing that Paula Cooper will work on and bring back is the specific
43 details of the programs and tasks that will be done. The current list is not specific
44 enough.
45
46 Pete Kremen, County Executive, asked for clarification that the request was
47 not direction to staff.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 23
1 Brenner stated they asked for direction from the Council on what the Council
2 would be willing to support.
3
4 Nelson stated he is willing to look at that request, but is not willing to
5 support it until he can see what the plans are going to be, how they will be
6 accomplished, and how they will be measured.
7
8 Brenner stated there is a project they thought was totally ready and is
9 extremely environmentally sensitive. Everyone bought off on the project. The
10 National Marine Fisheries Service is now stalling them with a ridiculous request.
11 They can't always predict a project's completion. This is the perfect case to use to
12 sue the federal government. She restated the motion to give staff the direction
13 they requested and that the Council would be willing to support two to three more
14 FTE's for the flood management programs and tasks that have already been
15 deemed as critical to be done, in the County's 2001 budget.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 3. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL
20 IMMINENT FLOOD THREAT TO THE MT. BAKER HIGHWAY NEAR
21 MILEPOST 27 (AB2000 -271)
22
23 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
24 that the committee is concerned about this area. It might be an imminent flood
25 threat. The recommendation is for the County Council to send a letter to the state
26 Department of Transportation (DOT). According to those who made the
27 presentation, the DOT is concerned about whether the Mount Baker Highway will be
28 blown out by any kind of flooding that happens in the near future. The DOT may be
29 and should be very concerned about it. The letter would ask if the DOT would be
30 willing to jointly request an emergency hydraulic permit so repair work could be
31 done.
32
33 Dawson stated they would send the letter to other agencies and elected
34 officials. Councilmember Brenner would draft the letter. It is important to mention
35 that this is agricultural land that being eaten away.
36
37 Motion to send the letter carried unanimously.
38
39 Hoag moved to take a break.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: They did not vote on the motion. A five -break was taken at
42 9 :10 p.m.)
43
44
45 OTHER BUSINESS
46
47 McShane stated in Natural Resources Committee held a discussion on the
48 Canyon Creek alluvial fan area (AB2000 -114). A motion came forward to
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 24
1 request that the County Flood Control District bring forward a voluntary buyout
2 program for the Canyon Creek alluvial fan and have a public hearing on that
3 program. Special Projects Engineer Paula Cooper would develop a final map
4 delineating the hazard areas. Once the map is created they will hold a public
5 hearing.
6
7 Brenner stated she would support the motion. It is important. There is no
8 way they are going to allow the County to do the repair.
9
10 McShane stated there is a variety of issues about why a repair would be very
11 expensive. If they are spending money to do repair, there is no reason to have a
12 buyout program. It has to do with Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) money.
13 They may not approve of doing a buyout if the repair was done.
14
15 Brenner stated she understood that FEMA wouldn't agree to the buyout
16 program if the County did the repair.
17
18 McShane stated that is correct, in all probability.
19
20 Hoag stated that having staff map out the at -risk properties first is very
21 important. When they are discussing a buyout program, they don't know how
22 many people they are talking about or how much money would be involved. The
23 public in the area has repeatedly stated they would like to continue living in the
24 area and they would like the dike to be rebuilt. The current dike is constricting the
25 flow of water. It is designed to keep the sediment moving through there. In the
26 process, they are scouring salmon beds and eroding the bank of the Nooksack.
27 Because it is so tightly constricted, it is more likely a debris flow will block the river
28 and cause more damage. The decision on whether or not to dike and protect the
29 properties was made when the County built the first dike. To abandon that now,
30 and just do a buyout, may be the cheapest option, but is not what they should be
31 doing. They should move the dike back so that it can reduce the problems with the
32 constricted flow. At the same time, do a voluntary buyout in the area and allow no
33 more development in the area so they don't have to worry about protecting further
34 development. The people who are not interested in buying out can remain and the
35 County can provide a high level of protection for them. Moving the dike westward
36 was the only option that had a high level of protection for the highway and a high
37 level of protection for the homes. At this point, they should move and maintain the
38 dike. Along with that, there should be an 80/20 split for the cost of the dike and a
39 diking district should be established for the maintenance.
40
41 McShane read from a state Department of Ecology (DOE) letter to the
42 Council dated May 31, 2000. The DOE never considered the temporary dike
43 construction to be adequate to protect the subdivision in the long term. From their
44 perspective and the perspective of others involved when it was built, this was a
45 temporary fix. It was never thought of as a final fix. If they move the dike back,
46 he would not have any confidence that it would work.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 25
1 Dawson stated dikes are never considered final fixes. They are always in
2 repair. With Councilmember Hoag's suggestion, the County would have to use its
3 own funds for the voluntary buyout. There is a highway there that needs to be
4 protected. The state won't relocate that road.
5
6 Hoag questioned whether there is any chance to see whether DOT would
7 assist the County in relocating the dike to protect the highway.
8
9 Dawson asked that the letter to the DOT also ask whether they are willing to
10 become involved in protecting the highway at Canyon Creek.
11
12 Brenner stated the two situations are very different. She is not willing to
13 spend the money to move the dike. The people in the area were not requesting
14 that the dike be moved. They requested that the dike be repaired. She supported
15 that option. That is a separate issue. She disagreed that the voluntary buyout will
16 cost the County a lot of money. The voluntary buyout would be with FEMA. Some
17 of the money could be available before there is a flood. The County should begin
18 moving in that direction. She suggested writing a letter to FEMA to request
19 information on whether or not it would work with the County if the County works on
20 dike repairs. If FEMA would consider it, she would agree to doing repairs on the
21 dike. The final solution will be some type of voluntary buyout. It would be nice to
22 let people live where they want if they are willing to totally take care of themselves
23 and pay their own way. She wanted to move ahead with the voluntary buyout
24 program.
25
26 Crawford stated they should set up a voluntary buyout program to the
27 degree that FEMA would be satisfied when an event occurs. He would trust the
28 original engineers of the original dike. They are pleased with the performance of
29 the dike. They have submitted that some maintenance is necessary now. They can
30 all recognize that it won't survive the 100 -year or 1,000 -year event. They should
31 maintain what they have invested in so far. They should have a diking district to
32 fund the maintenance. They should install warning signs to people in the area
33 letting them know that they build at their own risk.
34
35 Hoag stated that FEMA took a position on the warning signs. They will not
36 give the County funds if it allows further development in the area. If the County
37 wants FEMA funds, the County has to stop development. They are not interested in
38 buying out one property when a neighboring property owner is building a new
39 home. It is $500,000 to repair the existing dike and $1 million to move it. It costs
40 twice as much to move the dike, but also provides the high level of protection they
41 are looking for.
42
43 Nelson stated the $1 million to relocate doesn't include everything. They still
44 have to do studies and permitting. There are other costs that would be incurred.
45 This item has been through every committee on the Council. It is time to fish or
46 cut bait. They have the options and are going to have a public hearing. Good
47 questions have been raised. More answers may be needed. The public hearing is
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 26
1 needed to find out what the people are willing to do and not do. There is a
2 proposal to move this forward.
3
4 Dawson stated they already held a public hearing.
5
6 Nelson stated they don't have a public hearing if there is no proposal. They
7 now have a proposal.
8
9 McShane stated he originally moved to do this without a public hearing. It
10 was amended to include a public hearing because there have been questions about
11 where exactly the boundary buyout would be and what specific lots are involved.
12 There are some citizens that are on the edge of the boundary zone. It would be
13 good for those citizens to know what side of the boundary they are on.
14
15 Brenner stated some of the councilmembers went to the area. The people
16 who were concerned were there. The Council has definitely heard from the people.
17 They wanted repair of the dike that is there. None of them said they wanted the
18 dike moved. They are willing to work towards a voluntary buyout program.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
21
22 Brenner continued to state that she has not heard that FEMA will refuse to
23 work with the County if any more development is allowed. Cooper stated that was
24 said at the committee meeting where Marty Best spoke from the state. Marty Best
25 is the guy who prioritizes the FEMA money for the state. The guy from FEMA told
26 her that Mr. Best doesn't like anyone to mess with his priorities. He is the guy who
27 determines which projects are funded. It would be good to run any proposal past
28 FEMA. FEMA is interested in a complete solution. Mr. Best did say that they
29 wouldn't buy a house if the neighbor next door is building a house. There may be
30 options to do temporary maintenance of the dike until they get everyone out of
31 there. They need to do a lot more work to get to the point they know a buyout
32 would work.
33
34 Brenner questioned whether the motion includes a moratorium on new
35 development.
36
37 McShane stated it did not.
38
39 Motion to hold a hearing carried unanimously.
40
41
42 OTHER ITEMS
43
44 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
45 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
46 ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RVS, REVISE RV STANDARDS IN
47 THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE URM, R, RF
48 AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 27
1 ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
2 RVS (AB2000 -215)
3
4 A short break was taken at 9:10 for five minutes.
5
6 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated there is
7 a new version. She moved to accept the new version that came from the day's
8 Planning and Development Committee to be the working draft.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that the changes made
13 during the day's Planning and Development Committee are in boldface font on the
14 working draft document just accepted. There are several typos on the draft.
15
16 Nelson stated all typos would be accepted as corrected.
17
18 Goodwin stated one typo is that the boldface language included on page 1 of
19 7, section .056(8) was to be added to each zoning section in the packet. She
20 inadvertently only included that language in the Urban Residential (UR) zone
21 section 20.20 and the Residential Rural (RR) zone section 20.32. She questioned
22 whether that was the intent of Councilmember Crawford, who made those motions
23 during the committee meeting earlier in the day.
24
25 Nelson stated that was the intent.
26
27 Hoag stated the committee didn't vote on it later in the committee.
28 Councilmember Crawford carried forward the language regarding parking on vacant
29 lots and the vegetation to all the sections in the packet. The committee forgot to
30 carry forward this language.
31
32 Nelson moved to include the language in all zones in this ordinance,
33 "...recreational vehicle is permitted and is not subject to screening requirements."
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 Goodwin stated that on page 4 of 7, section 20.42.056(1), language should
38 have been changed to reflect what was approved in committee, "...shall remain on
39 the subject lot for more than #+tee seven (§ 7) consecutive days at one time, or a
40 total of te-R thirty (39 30) days per calendar year."
41
42 Hoag agreed.
43
44 Goodwin stated they attached a map to the back of the substitute version
45 that shows where the Resort Recreational Subdivisions are located. She requested
46 that, if they need to, they fine -tune the legal description to match the map. They
47 can do that.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 28
1 Hoag stated the legal description included an area of Delta View. Goodwin
2 stated they did. They want to run that past Elizabeth Olsen, who is the County's
3 legal expert. They might need to fix it later.
4
5 Hoag agreed. She described the changes made during committee, specified
6 by the boldface type on the substitute version of the ordinance (on file). The
7 section on page 1 of 7 is for the Foothills area only, where they have historical
8 year- around use of RV's. They are changing the ordinance to reflect the historical
9 use of the area.
10
11 Grant questioned the meaning of 'vacant lot' in this context.
12
13 Hoag stated it would be a lot without a single - family residence or a
14 permanent structure.
15
16 Crawford moved to amend language to page 1 of 7, section .056(8), "If a
17 single - family residence is present, the storage of ene two unoccupied recreational
18 vehicle is permitted and is not subject to screening requirements. Additionally, up
19 to two guest RV's may park adjacent to the single - family residence, with no
20 screening requirements. Guest RV's must be self- contained with a sewage holding
21 tank, and may not remain longer than 14 consecutive days, with a cumulative total
22 of 30 days per year. Stored RV's or guest RV's shall not be parked in front yard
23 setbacks." It is best to address all single - family residences in the County. He went
24 through the County code to determine how it would affect the other zoning areas in
25 the county. He suggested they apply this language to the following sections in the
26 code: 20.20.056(8) -Urban Residential, Foothills subarea; 20.20.060 -Urban
27 Residential; 20.24.056 -Urban Residential Mixed; 20.32.056(8) -Rural Residential,
28 Foothills subarea; 20.32.060 -Rural Residential; 20.36.064 - Rural; 20.40.058-
29 Agriculture; 20.42.069 -Rural Forestry; 20.64.070- Resort Commercial; 20.65.092-
30 Gateway Industrial. The language in the Gateway Industrial section, 20.65.092,
31 would add the word 'existing' because all references to single - family residences in
32 that zone are to existing single - family residences. Now, other things they've
33 changed affect this. He would ask that staff scrub this language. It is redundant to
34 address the front yard setback language in both sections .056(6) and .056(8).
35 Front yard setbacks are necessary so as not to block the visual corridor.
36
37 Dawson stated she was concerned with getting too much detail. This issue
38 needs to be complaint driven. She called for the question.
39
40 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that staff cleans up any
41 redundancy to this section. Goodwin stated it is difficult to clean up language once
42 it is adopted. There are two other areas that conflict, due to language
43 recommended by the committee.
44
45 Hoag suggested a friendly amendment to change the language on one stored
46 RV instead of two RV's. They are getting carried away. They have in mind homes
47 and trailers that are nice. However, there could be campers with tarps and duct
48 tape over them. If someone can afford two RV's, then he or she can afford to build
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 29
1 a shed for the second one or put it in storage somewhere. They are getting carried
2 away.
3
4 Crawford accepted Hoag's friendly amendment. They are allowing two guest
5 RV's.
6
7 Hoag suggested deleting the last sentence of Councilmember Crawford's
8 motion in all sections listed in this ordinance because front yard setbacks are
9 already addressed. Instead, include that language in the other sections of the code
10 that he listed earlier that are not in this ordinance.
11
12 Crawford agreed. He removed the last sentence of his motion wherever they
13 already specified that RV's are not to be parked in front -yard setbacks. He restated
14 the motion, "If a single - family residence is present, the storage of one unoccupied
15 recreational vehicle is permitted and is not subject to screening requirements.
16 Additionally, up to two guest RV's may park adjacent to the single - family residence,
17 with no screening requirements. Guest RV's must be self- contained with a sewage
18 holding tank, and may not remain longer than 14 consecutive days, with a
19 cumulative total of 30 days per year." If it hasn't been addressed elsewhere in the
20 chapter of the code, the final sentence of his motion would be, "Stored RV's or
21 guest RV's shall not be parked in front yard setbacks." That sentence would not
22 occur in areas where front yard setbacks have already been addressed in the code.
23
24 Goodwin stated these should all be in the accessory use sections of the code,
25 not the permitted use of the code. If it is only associated with a house, they first
26 have to have a house, and that makes these RV's accessory. She will renumber the
27 sections and put them in proper sections of the code.
28
29 Crawford agreed. He amended his motion to put that language in the
30 accessory use sections of the code.
31
32 Motion to amend carried 5 -1 with Dawson opposed.
33
34 Hoag stated the committee voted to delete the licensing requirements,
35 section .056(9).
36
37 McShane moved to reinsert the licensing requirement, section .056(9).
38
39 Hoag stated the state does not require the RV's to be licensed on private
40 property. One can get a three day permit to move it on the road. That is why she
41 recommended deletion.
42
43 McShane stated one of their concerns is about the derelict RV's rotting in
44 people's yards. One of the problems at Point Roberts is about those types of RV's.
45 It is not expensive to license these things. It is a method to keep people
46 maintaining them. It is not burdensome.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 30
1 Dawson stated it is regulation that is burdensome to County staff and there
2 is not much in it financially to the County.
3
4 Hoag stated the expense would cost more to do the licensing than the
5 revenue that licensing brings in.
6
7 Nelson called for the question.
8
9 Motion failed 5 -1 with McShane in favor.
10
11 Dawson moved to delete all the changes pertaining to Pt. Roberts. A zoning
12 process went into Point Roberts. There is a grandfathering clause that they can use
13 to address those people who have used their property for RV use for generations.
14 They did the same thing in the Sandy Point area. If there is a concern with the
15 grandfather clause, it can be addressed. This is a down zone. They are negatively
16 affecting a property owner's expected return.
17
18 Hoag stated grandfathering doesn't address the issues that have been raised.
19 A lot of County staff, time, and money would go into enforcing an ordinance to get
20 people off recreational lots where they have been using RV's for a very long time.
21 It is a historical use in that area. The Planning Department said that an upgrade of
22 an RV could not be grandfathered. The changes that came out of committee
23 accurately address the concerns that were brought forward. In the areas that have
24 not historically had RV's, the RV's are not going to be allowed to stay over the
25 winter and other provisions. In the areas that historically have allowed RV's, they
26 are going to continue to allow RV use. The changed language more clearly defines
27 what was occurring and helps to protect everyone's property.
28
29 Brenner stated there is no down zone involved in this action. A down zone
30 has nothing to do with this. There is a legal definition of a down zone.
31 Councilmember Dawson may not like what they are doing, but this is not a down
32 zone. Historically, Point Roberts was called a recreational resort subarea.
33
34 Goodwin stated Point Roberts was designated a Resort Recreational
35 Subdivision in 1987, and it still carries that designation.
36
37 Brenner stated there is an implied use of resort and recreation. It is also a
38 residential area, but there are residential areas all over the county that are also
39 recreational areas. They have to be more accurate in their terms.
40
41 Motion failed 1 -5 with Dawson in favor.
42
43 Nelson stated he had a concern that language changes done in committee
44 may have implications in other zoning laws. He suggested that they put the issue
45 back into committee. They have a motion to adopt the ordinance. If there are
46 specific areas of concern, they should address those. Otherwise, they are going to
47 go through everything they went through in committee.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 31
1 Dawson agreed.
2
3 Hoag read the changes made in committee to page 2 of 7, section
4 20.72.051(1). She read Finding four on page two of the ordinance. The change
5 made to the section of the code says that one can't have an RV if one can't put in
6 sewage or connect to public sewer. The finding and the amendment go in two
7 different directions. She moved to add language to page 2 of 7, section
8 20.72.051(1), "...or public sewer or, in locations that cannot support a sewage
9 system, will dispose of all sewage, including gray water, at a recreational vehicle
10 dumpsite." That way, one can still utilize the small lots.
11
12 Brenner stated that it is an environmentally sensitive area. She didn't want
13 people to dump the sewage on the ground. There is a bigger risk of that if they
14 don't have anywhere to dump it. It is not just about having a mound or standard
15 sewage system. There may be new, innovative ways that may be approved in the
16 future. Until then, it should be kept as it is. It is not correct to say an owner can't
17 use his or her lot. The owner can't use the lot for more than 14 consecutive days.
18 The owner can come and go two weeks at a time.
19
20 Hoag stated that, in an area that has a high water table, if they require a
21 septic system, it would have to be a mound septic system. That type of system
22 costs $20,000 and is very unsightly.
23
24 Motion failed 1 -5 with Hoag in favor.
25
26 Crawford stated that the language specifying the length of stay on page 2 of
27 7, section 20.72.051(2) is confusing.
28
29 Hoag stated the first phrase defines the length of stay inside a recreational
30 vehicle. That vehicle can remain when the occupants are not there. The last
31 phrase in that section specifies that an RV outside of a Recreational Subdivision
32 shall not be on the lot more than 120 days.
33
34 Crawford moved to amend the language on page 2 of 7, section
35 20.72.051(2), "Maximum length of staff in occupation of a recreational vehicle..."
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 Goodwin suggested that they make the same language change on page 1 of
40 7 so there is consistent language.
41
42 Nelson suggested they make the change to all areas where that language
43 exists. Goodwin stated it is just those two areas.
44
45 The Council concurred.
46
47 Crawford questioned whether language would be clearer if they deleted
48 section 20.72.051(8) on page 2 of 7. Goodwin stated it would be clearer.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 32
1
2 Crawford moved to delete section 20.72.051(8) on page 2 of 7. That will be
3 addressed as an accessory use in the zoning that is applicable to wherever it is
4 located in Point Roberts.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 Goodwin stated that, in some zoning sections, that language is listed as
9 number nine, instead of number eight. It is redundant in each section.
10
11 Crawford moved to remove the language from all sections in the substitute
12 ordinance that says, "If a single - family residence is present, the storage of one
13 unoccupied recreational vehicle is permitted."
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 Nelson stated he wanted to reinstate the language that was replaced in
18 section 20.36.056(2)(b) on page 3 of 7. He moved to adopt the original language.
19
20 Hoag stated the language that the committee adopted is language that came
21 from the staff recommendation. They felt that eight RV's was too many.
22
23 Nelson questioned why eight RV's are too many.
24
25 Hoag stated eight vehicles on one lot impacts the fire services, sheriff
26 services, other services, and the neighbors.
27
28 Nelson stated five RV's also impacts those services.
29
30 Hoag stated five are less of an impact than eight.
31
32 Nelson stated he didn't understand why they arbitrarily decided on five.
33 They specified eight, and everyone was comfortable with that.
34
35 Hoag stated it wasn't arbitrary. It was a staff recommendation.
36
37 Goodwin stated eight is an arbitrary number.
38
39 Hoag stated the findings that justify what they do talk about what they need
40 to consider.
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B. The first few minutes of the beginning
43 of tape three did not record. There is no recording of the disposition of Nelson's
44 motion. There is no recording of Councilmember Crawford's motion regarding the
45 RV days. According to the clerk's handwritten notes, Councilmember Nelson's
46 motion to amend failed 3 -3 with Hoag, McShane, and Dawson opposed.)
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 33
1 Hoag stated that they limited the total number of days a guest RV could be
2 on the lot in the Rural Forestry zone. Staff made that recommendation originally.
3 If that were the case, she wouldn't mind allowing an additional guest. If they are
4 going to allow the RV's to be there 120 days, they are allowing three RV's for most
5 of the season that people are out and about.
6
7 Crawford stated the RV day concept is to allow three for 40 days at a time.
8
9 Hoag stated she didn't agree with the RV day thing because it is difficult to
10 administer. She recommended eliminating the RV days and suggested instead not
11 exceeding a total of 120 days, and specifically allowing additional guests. One RV
12 can be on the lot for 120 days. Guests can stay up to a week at a time or up to 30
13 days per year. That language will be easier to administer and easier for the public
14 to deal with.
15
16 Brenner questioned how that would be easier to administer. She questioned
17 how they would know which RV would be there for 30 days.
18
19 Hoag suggested a friendly amendment that they limit the guest RV's length
20 of stay.
21
22 Nelson suggested that this go back into committee.
23
24 Hoag stated there is no room for it in committee. They need to finish it.
25 They are hashing out the same issues that were discussed in committee.
26
27 Hoag stated this was not discussed in committee.
28
29 Nelson stated it was.
30
31 Hoag stated this is valid discussion. According to Sturgis' Rules of Order,
32 valid discussion should not be cut short.
33
34 Nelson stated he can move to put it back into committee.
35
36 Hoag stated she would not take it back into committee. The committee has
37 many things coming forward from the Planning Commission.
38
39 Brenner stated Hoag has to take it into committee if they say so. However,
40 they won't say so.
41
42 Crawford accepted Hoag's friendly amendment. They are removing "RV
43 days." He restated his motion to amend:
44 • section 20.36.056(2)(a), "...ene two accessory guest RV's...,"
45 • section .056(2)(b), "...and ene two accessory guest RV per lot..."
46 • section .056(1), "...a total of 120 R-V days per calendar year, as defined fli�
47 20:97.339 provided that no accessory guest RV shall remain on the
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 34
1 subject lot for more than seven (7) consecutive days at one time, or a
2 total of thirty (30) days per calendar year."
3
4 Motion to amend carried 4 -2 with Nelson and Dawson opposed.
5
6 Goodwin suggested an amendment to page 3 of 7. The language "located on
7 the property for more than 120 days per calendar year" conflicts with the fact that
8 they can, in any case, have them for over 120 days. That language needs to be
9 deleted in this zone and in the Resort Commercial zone.
10
11 Brenner moved to delete language in sections 20.36.056(5) and
12 20.64.065(2), "located on the property for more than 120 days per calendar year."
13
14 Crawford questioned whether they are saying that everything has to be
15 screened. Goodwin stated that is correct. They don't need to specify an exception
16 if something is going to be over 120 days, because there won't be any allowed over
17 120 days.
18
19 Hoag stated they didn't make that motion in committee.
20
21 Brenner stated she is making the motion.
22
23 Hoag stated that in Point Roberts and one other area, the language is
24 different. The language says that they can't stay in the RV for more than 120 days,
25 but the RV itself can stay at the lot. In that section, she recommended a change in
26 language that an RV that doesn't stay for more than 120 days doesn't have to be
27 screened. Here, the language in section (1) is that the RV itself can't be on the lot
28 for more than 120 days. It doesn't apply here.
29
30 Brenner stated her motion is to delete the language in section (5), "leeated
31 en the pFepeFty feF ffieFe than 120 days peF ealendaF yea " on pages three and five
32 of seven.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Brenner moved to reinsert the language on page 4 of 7, section
37 20.42.056(2), "...shall not exceed five if the lot is less than ten acres. If the lot is
38 10 acres or greater, the total number of recreational vehicles on a single lot at one
39 time shall not exceed eight."
40
41 Hoag stated this is the same thing they discussed with Councilmember
42 Nelson. Staff recommended a maximum of five. Planning Commission changed the
43 maximum to eight. The committee felt that eight was too many, particularly in the
44 Rural Forestry zone where quiet is an issue. That is why the committee supported
45 that language.
46
47 Dawson stated one could get a permit for a special event to have a party.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 35
1 Brenner stated many people in tents could make a lot of noise. This is not
2 the way to deal with the concern.
3
4 Motion failed 3 -3 with Hoag, Dawson, and McShane opposed.
5
6 Nelson moved to strike item 7 on page 6 of 7.
7
8 Crawford stated it is not being used anymore.
9
10 Nelson stated it is obsolete. It is the definition of a 'recreational vehicle day.'
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Crawford moved to adopt the substitute ordinance as amended.
15
16 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
17
18 S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
19 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
20 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
21 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
22
23 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated it had
24 been held in committee until July 25. There will also be a public hearing on August
25 8 so that the changes made by the committee can be included in the packet for
26 public review prior to the public hearing. This will come out of committee during
27 the next committee meeting. She instructed all councilmembers to study the issue
28 and bring forward any recommended changes in writing.
29
30 Nelson suggested that it be scheduled before the full Council in two weeks to
31 address all the changes the committee made.
32
33 Hoag stated it would be beneficial for all councilmembers to be at the
34 Planning and Development Committee so that they can minimize the amount of
35 discussion they have to have on the floor of the Council.
36
37 6. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT
38 LAURA WITTER, CAROL WERNER HOWE, JANET LUTZ -SMITH AND
39 DAVID ASHTON TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH
40 ADVISORY BOARD (AB2000 -267)
41
42 Nelson moved approval.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46 7. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT
47 OF KENNETH HENDERSON TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND
48 RECREATION COMMISSION (AB2000 -268)
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 36
1
2 Nelson moved approval.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 8. REQUEST CONFIRMATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT
7 AUSTIN XIAOFENG HUANG AND TO APPOINT ANDY ROSS, SEAN
8 HORTON AND JON EINARSEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
9 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) (AB2000 -269)
10
11 Nelson moved approval.
12
13 Motion carried 5 -0 -0 with McShane abstaining.
14
15 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
16 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR EM'S VINO DISTRIBUTING, 5363
17 BELLAIRE WAY, BELLINGHAM (AB2000 -270)
18
19 Crawford questioned whether the location is in a residential neighborhood.
20 He thought it seemed strange to have a wine distributing business in that location.
21
22 Brenner stated it is a subdivision off of Smith Road. It is a subdivision of
23 houses.
24
25 Nelson questioned whether it is an approved use in that zone.
26
27 Brenner stated she was not sure it is appropriate to issue liquor licenses in
28 residential areas.
29
30 Nelson moved to postpone for two weeks for clarification of the zoning and
31 approved uses.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35
36 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
37
38 Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF
43 APL00 -0007, FILED BY ROBERT MCCRACKEN (AB2000 -257)
44
45 2. AMENDMENT #4 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
46 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, ESTABLISHING
47 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 37
1 AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREA
2 (AB2000 -248) (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED)
3
4 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 11.48,
5 BOATING AND SWIMMING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES (AB2000-
6 273)
7
8 4. AMENDMENT TO THE CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT ADOPTED WITH
9 ORDINANCE 2000 -002 REGARDING A REZONE OF AN 80 -ACRE
10 PARCEL IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED FROM COMMERCIAL
11 FORESTRY TO RURAL FORESTRY (FILE #CMP99- 00011)(AB99 -436D)
12
13
14 OTHER BUSINESS
15
16 Dawson stated that Economic Development Council Director Fred Sexton
17 would like to give an update to Council and wanted to know what form it should
18 take.
19
20 Brenner stated she preferred a written update.
21
22 Hoag stated she didn't want it in front of the Council. Their meetings go late
23 enough. It is fine to put it in committee.
24
25 Nelson suggested that they schedule it for the Finance and Administrative
26 Services Committee. If there are significant issues that come up, he will bring it
27 forward to the Council. He will contact Mr. Sexton about when that would be
28 scheduled.
29
30
31 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
32
33 McShane stated he is looking forward to reading the work from the County
34 regarding the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ( EFSEC). In addition, there
35 will be two speakers at the museum tomorrow about property rights and salmon.
36
37 Crawford stated he would attend the Northwest Business Club for the Tom
38 Anderson /Kathy Larsen debate at the Yacht Club. The Economic Development
39 Council (EDC) lunch at Northwood Hall is at 11:30 a.m. on Friday. They are going
40 to have a speaker talk about high - technology industry and what the County can do
41 to attract more of that, which is one of the requests of the County Council to the
42 EDC.
43
44 Hoag stated there will be EFSEC public hearings on July 25 and July 27 in
45 Whatcom County regarding Sumas Energy 2.
46
47 Kremen stated the public hearing on July 25 will be held from 7:00 p.m. to
48 10:00 p.m. at Northwood Hall in Bellingham. The July 27 meeting will be at the
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 38
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
same time at Nooksack Valley High School. Unfortunately, July 25 is a Council
meeting night. July 27 is the County's Employee Recognition Day picnic. He would
like the public to attend if they are so inclined.
Brenner stated the employee picnic begins at 5:00 p.m. She planned to
attend both.
Kremen stated that they only have a day and a half until the Lummi Tribe,
Nooksack Tribe, and County Council reception. He needed an informal head count.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on August 8 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/11/2000, Page 39