HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil December 7 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
December 7, 1999
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: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dawson announced there was an update from Whatcom County Water
Resource Planner Sue Blake on Lake Whatcom Management (AB99 -056)
and a Discussion with Whatcom County Public Works Director Jeff Monsen
and Water Resources Manager Bruce Roll regarding the WRIA 1 Watershed
Management Project (AB99 -391) during Committee of the Whole.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY FRED SEXTON ON ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT IN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB99 -017)
Fred Sexton, Economic Development Council (EDC), stated it is extremely
important for the legislative and executive branches to be involved in economic
development with the County. Economic development is a basic function of
government at all levels. It is a means to ensure the health and well -being of the
community. Some governments have their own economic development offices, but
most share support in a partnership with the private sector. Those that have their
own economic development offices pay hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars
to operate. Because the private sector has been willing to participate, the County is
getting a very good deal. It is getting one of the best economic development
operations in the state for an extremely small investment. There are many
different views as to what economic development should be doing. In most cases,
the different views are correct, because economic development is pervasive, and
connected to a multitude of activities. It affects all facets of our society and
economy.
Because there are so many sides to economic development, it is easy to have
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
a disagreement about who should be doing what to whom. It is also easy for an
organization to be challenged by different individuals to do what they think ought to
be done. One person may say they should be recruiting heavy industry. Another
person might say they should focus on agriculture. Others might want them to deal
with water, endangered species, or do research, studies, and reports. There could
be a limitless number of expectations, needs, desires, and frustrations. If an
organization tried to be responsive to all these requests, it is guaranteed that very
little would be accomplished.
For this reason, there are different organizations and groups that do different
tasks that help overall economic development. The Chamber of Commerce works
on community events such as the Ski to Sea Festival, relocation assistance, and
help with retail and personal businesses. The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is
responsible for attracting tourists and visitors. The Port of Bellingham focuses on
facilities and infrastructure, primarily related to water and air transportation. The
Public Utility District provides utilities. The Private Industry Council helps with
worker training and placement. All play a role in economic development. He read
the EDC mission statement. The mission statement says that the EDC will assist
expansion and attraction of industrial and commercial entities. The mission of the
EDC is to focus on a certain segment of economic development. Consequently, the
EDC has organized its efforts and resources toward its mission of recruitment and
expansion of industrial and commercial business. The Board of Directors directed
the EDC to focus further on selected target industries.
The EDC is proactively seeking technology, information services, internet
related businesses, and telecommunications industries. This does not mean that
the EDC ignores other commercial and industrial activities. It still continues to
handle a variety of investment inquiries and takes appropriate actions. Some
industry inquiries, such as retail, are forwarded to other organizations, such as the
Chamber of Commerce or the Small Business Development Center. A number of
inquiries are circulated to EDC public and private sector members. Others are sent
to realtors. The EDC staff works directly on inquiries that fall into the target
industry grouping or if an inquiry is of significance in terms of size or potential
impact to the economy.
The EDC staff consists of three people and a part -time clerk. This is why the
EDC must be highly focused. They can only accomplish so many things, and by
focusing, they can do a better quality job. Over the past 24 months, a number of
telecommunications, technology, information services, and internet related
businesses have invested in Whatcom County. Much of the investment is being
accommodated by EDC efforts to improve telecommunications infrastructure and
services. There is a definite shift in the economic mix. While some traditional
industries have been waning or are gone, they are beginning to see robust activity
in the information and technology sectors.
The economic development activity has been stimulated by a strong
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 2
I telecommunications initiative that the EDC has fostered over the last 24 months. A
2 special group was organized that includes all communications providers, local
3 government leaders, several major telecommunication users, and developers in the
4 county. During the period, millions of dollars have been invested in improving
5 telecommunications infrastructure and services, particularly directed toward high -
6 speed internet connectivity. USWest, which serves only Bellingham and Whatcom
7 County, agreed to bring high -speed digital subscriber line (DSL) service to the city
8 considerably ahead of schedule. DSL services were introduced in Bellingham at the
9 same time they were first introduced in the major markets of Seattle and Tacoma
10 during the summer of 1998, and before other areas served by USWest in the state.
11 Sizeable investments in equipment and facilities were made to make DSL possible.
12 At the same time, GTE, which is the common carrier for the remainder of Whatcom
13 County, took actions to expand its high -speed services. TCI, now AT &T Broad Band
14 and Internet Services, also has been making major investments to provide high
15 speed internet connections via television cable throughout the county. The Port of
16 Bellingham got involved early on by tapping into a new fiber optic cable that was
17 laid in Whatcom County in 1997. The Port invested needed equipment to provide
18 digital communication connections for Port business tenants. The Bellingham City
19 government has been promoting the installation of more fiber optic lines throughout
20 the city. It has been laying its own fiber optic lines for city use, and has been
21 promoting a policy to invite all communication companies to lay fiber optic cable,
22 whenever road construction projects are under way. It is called the open ditch
23 policy. Seven different fiber optic backbones, or trunk lines, now run through
24 Whatcom County, including two new ones laid over the last several months. Any
25 operation that is dependent upon fulltime connectivity can successfully exist in
26 Whatcom County, without fear of losing long distance and high -speed services.
27 Some of the businesses that have located here include Symbolic Sciences, who
28 manufactures digital optical imaging equipment; Voice Stream Wireless, who
29 provides technical and service support for its customers; Horizon Air's reservation
30 center, and; AT &T Broad Band and Internet Services support center. Several
31 internet related businesses have started up, including Kulshan.com, Classiccar.com,
32 and buyertouch.com. There are also several development firms in the County,
33 including the recent Attach Mate Corporation, which is the second - largest software
34 developer in the state. Cisco Soft Corporation, which makes software for handheld
35 computers, has started operation in the county. Many other similar companies
36 have also located here recently. These firms are creating over 2,000 jobs in the
37 county. The way business is being conducted is changing dramatically. It is now
38 an electronic world dependent upon state of the art telecommunications. The EDC
39 organized the first annual tele -tech conference and exhibit at the Semiahmoo
40 Resort and Conference Center. The conference drew much attention in Whatcom
41 County and from around the state and British Columbia.
42
43 In addition to the target industry activity, the EDC engaged in efforts to
44 increase the amount of local option sales and use tax that was passed during the
45 last legislative session. The purpose of that measure is to provide funding for
46 public facilities to help economic development. Based on the taxable sales figures
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
in 1998, the County should be able to collect a sizeable number of dollars.
According to the State Department of Revenue, a total of about $1.9 billion of
taxable retail sales were recorded for Whatcom County in 1998. That amount
should be greater this year.
The EDC helped with four companies' grand openings in the last eight weeks.
Those four companies will create over 1,000 new jobs in just a few months. Their
collective new payrolls will amount to $43 million. There will be a $130 million
expansion in taxable sales. This does not include new real and personal property
taxes.
The EDC has had a very successful year, and has laid the basis for good,
desirable future development in Whatcom County. The EDC is not one person or
group, or a few people or groups. It is the County Council, County administration,
the other city councils, the Port of Bellingham, the colleges and university, and
involved local businesses and organizations. It is a public /private sector working
together as partners.
Dawson stated that the EDC has talked many times about the goal to attract
clean, high -tech, medium -sized businesses. The EDC has done a very good job.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, made a special presentation (AB99 -017)
to recognize Councilmembers Brown and Sutter for their contributions to the
County. Not many people recognize the commitment, dedication, and sacrifice that
elected officials make. Councilmember Brown has served the eastern portion of
Whatcom County. He has toiled like no other before to represent that district. He
also demonstrated much - needed common sense. He has served with honor,
honesty, and distinction.
Brown stated there has been no greater honor or privilege that could have
been bestowed upon him, than to have the citizens allow him the chance to serve
for four years.
Kremen stated it has been a pleasure to serve with Councilmember Sutter.
They have not always agreed, but she always worked extremely hard and was well
prepared on every issue. She has much passion and fervor, and is one of the most
caring individuals he has ever known publicly or privately. He will miss her, and
wished her well.
Sutter stated she appreciated the kind words from Executive Kremen and all
those that have called and talked to her. Whatever she's done in this position, she
could not have done without the County Council staff. She admired the women on
the staff. They've worked so hard and put up with so much from so many people.
People should consider what it is like to get new bosses every two years, to face so
many political points of view, while keeping one's own point of view to oneself.
They do an incredible job of running the office and the County. Without them, the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
councilmembers could not do their job. The staff is the backbone. She thanked the
staff. She also appreciated working with the administration and other County staff.
They are incredible people. They put up with a lot, and do a fine job. She gets
short - tempered at times with the criticism that is leveled at the administration and
staff because she knows what fine people they are and how much they care, and
how difficult it is to keep doing this job day after day. It's difficult to be in a
position without the authority to make decisions, and still have to do the job. She
thanked everyone.
Each councilmember was presented a certificate from administration.
Dawson gave Councilmembers Brown and Sutter each a plaque from the
County Councilmembers. These are two outstanding individuals they are going to
miss. Both Tom and Kathy have brought human elements to all the issues they
have been dealing with. As the Executive pointed out, they worked with common
sense and detail, which has been appreciated.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 12 AND 26, 1999,
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS
Imhof moved approval.
Brenner stated she would present scrivener's errors to staff after the
meeting.
Hoag stated she had minor corrections that are mostly scrivener's errors.
She moved to amend the minutes to include her corrections.
Brenner moved to amend page 247, line 16, to use the speaker's last name.
In addition, on page 223, line 25, "Baird stated there +s--a are 165..."
Motion to approve amended minutes carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Jean McKay, Crestline Drive, Bellingham, asked the Council to enforce
Initiative 99, now a legal ordinance, effective as of December 4th. It limits the
amount of infectious waste accepted into the county. The County Prosecutor's
Office informed Recomp that it would not enforce the ordinance because, according
to the newspaper, the City of Ferndale is not under jurisdiction of the ordinance.
That is a specious argument. The unpublicized original agreement of September
1998 to allow used equipment from British Columbia to be transported to Ferndale
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
in order to treat infectious waste was negotiated with Recomp by the County
Executive and the County Health Director. The City of Ferndale was not officially
involved. If they assert that the amendment to that agreement does not include
Ferndale, where the equipment is located, then the original agreement between
Recomp and County officials is not valid in Ferndale. Twenty seven thousand
county voters approved the initiative, which is now an ordinance that amends the
original agreement. The County Council and County Executive were elected by the
people to represent them. It is irresponsible for the majority of the Council to act
against the people by not enforcing the law.
David England, Whatcom County Association of Fire Chiefs President, stated
the association has a membership composed of the fire chiefs from the seventeen
fire districts and two municipal departments. Regarding the emergency medical
service issue, the Whatcom County Association of Fire Chiefs recognizes that this is
an issue with both short term and long term impacts on county fire protection and
emergency medical services. Therefore, recognizing that action needs to be taken
on an immediate problem - the overload of the advanced life support component of
the system provided by Bellingham Fire Department - their recommendation is that
Whatcom County support the addition of a fourth advanced life support medical unit
to their already existing and proven emergency medical services (EMS) system.
Also, in recognition that action needs to be taken in the long -term to deal with a
rapidly growing county with a dynamic population and increasing demands for
medical services, their recommendation is that Whatcom County recognize the
planning effort by the Whatcom County fire agencies, and be prepared to listen to
its recommendation for a comprehensive plan for Whatcom County emergency
medical services of the future. He introduced the next speaker.
Dave Hanson, President of the Whatcom County Fire Commissioners
Association, stated the association also recognizes that this is an issue of major
potential impact on the fire districts' taxpayers. They support the
recommendations of the Whatcom County Fire Chiefs' Association, whom they rely
on for administrative and technical advice. Second, they request that the Council
include the fire districts during their EMS - related budgetary deliberations. The fire
commissioners represent a constituency of taxpayers who are vitally interested in
the emergency medical issue. Their expectation is that they act on behalf of their
interest. With a common taxpayer base, they are obligated to discuss and mutually
develop solutions to the challenges.
Ed Sinclair, 4121 Ridgewood Avenue, spoke on the growth in the Geneva
area. He reminded the Council of development plans in the Geneva area.
According to Water District #10 information, the Geneva service area has 920
existing service lots and is planning for an additional 872 in the near future. The
planned Birch Street project is for 172 homes and there are plans in Sudden Valley
for another 600 homes. The existing homes along Lakeway Drive already create a
heavy traffic load. This is barely tolerable, especially during the morning and
evening commutes. Due to the growth, another 1,600 families will be added to the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
road every morning and night. He wanted to know how the County is planning to
handle the additional traffic problems.
Dawson stated there is a safety issue that seems to be a big debate. It is
important that is addressed. There are no additional plans to handle the traffic.
Sinclair questioned whether they are planning growth without the
infrastructure to handle it.
Brown stated there is some work going on in the County's six -year road plan
that has to do with Lake Louise and other areas, but this isn't the place to discuss
them. He invited Sinclair to the Public Works Committee.
Dawson suggested he talk to the chair of the Public Works Committee.
Sinclair stated he is familiar with the projects being planned, but he also
knows that there is nothing planned right now. There is planned growth.
Linda Housen, 2915 Sunset Drive, stated she was asked to speak on behalf
of the Whatcom County Medical Society. She entered a letter into the record
regarding the EMS funding. (Handout on file.) They asked that a single agency for
advanced life support personnel be maintained because it maximized efficiency and
minimizes duplication of services. In addition, all ordinances related to funding and
fee structure for expansion of the EMS should be passed because of the growth in
the county. As a private resident of the county, she has been in EMS education for
18 years. She spoke about her background. A single- service system provides
quality care for the sick and dying in the county. Their education is centralized.
Their continuing education is centralized. When the paramedics go to a scene, they
are a well- orchestrated team that takes care of a dying patient.
Robert French, 5044 LaBounty Road, Ferndale, spoke on I -99. Seldom is an
issue as agreed upon by the voters as was I -99. People are very concerned about
the importation of infectious medical waste from outside of the county. This has
been an important issue for years. It is not going to go away. Most residents of
the county are appalled that their backyard is being used as a collection point for
tons of imported medical waste. The Bellingham Herald editorial states that 1,000
doctors and nurses contract Hepatitis and AIDS each year while handling medical
waste. This does not include the waste handling process. There is an epidemic of
these diseases going on in the lower mainland of British Columbia. He questioned
why Whatcom County should be exposed to the additional risk, by bringing medical
waste here in such large amounts. Handling large amounts of infectious waste
must be done in a responsible manner by a trusted handler that is responsive to
the concerns of the county. Recomp has not demonstrated this type of an attitude.
Their neighborhood has seen a long list of daily complaints and problems with odor
and noise. These simple problems have continued over the years. This brings up
the question of the competency and attitude of the company. These are simple
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
things to fix, but that hasn't been done. It is a serious problem that has been
getting worse over the years. They do have a concern in the neighborhood that
they are being exposed. They don't believe any company should be run out of
business, but the risk to this community must be minimized. They are frustrated
that the County Council cannot move forward to implement the mandate of the
voters. It is time the County Council listened to the people. The message is clear to
limit the exposure and implement 1 -99.
Mike Lee, Bellingham Fire Department Chief, stated he felt some of his
comments during the Finance Committee weren't as effective as they could have
been. The action they wanted the Council to take is to increase the ambulance fees
to the recommended level. These fees are comparable to other agencies, and are
likely less than some agencies charge. This is the first increase Medic One has had
since 1995. In addition, they recommended the revision of the interlocal
agreement to allow the fees to reach the 55 percent level, which would reduce the
government subsidy shared between the City and the County to 45 percent. If they
took action on both of those items, it would be effective before the first of the year.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A.)
Lee continued to state that they are partners. Cascade Ambulance just
received $3.6 million from the City. The City already approved the increased fees
based on the understanding that the County was going in that the direction. The
City also approved the interlocal agreement as written. He asked the Council to
consider the impact in the change of the fundamental way that the service is
delivered and the impact that would have on the Whatcom County fire service. The
City has not expressed a desire to change the service delivery model, and are not
likely to do so by action taken by the County Council. That may have a negative
impact on the service they are able to provide to the County. They should consider
the specific proposal the Council has received from the private provider. He
questioned whether that information is sufficient to risk the service they have had
in place for 25 years.
Albert Lavine, 6336 Portal Way, Ferndale, City Councilmember, stated he is
representing most of the City of Ferndale's elected officials. They support
Councilmember Brenner in the infectious waste issue. They've had to send the
police department to take care of sick people. They've taken their own time to go
to Recomp and it's time the County helps Ferndale out in this situation. These
people are sick. Also, they have tried to work with Sandy Point Improvement
Company to bring in water, but they ignored the City. They plan to drill their own
well.
Charlene French, 5044 LaBounty Road, Ferndale, stated the voters passed I-
99, and the Council represents the voters. She was happy to find out that the
Ferndale City Council agreed with the voters regarding Recomp. In 1973 Recomp
was built to take care of the garbage because Cedarville was closing. They said at
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that time, they would only be there ten years because everything would be full of
ash that they buried by that time. Now, 25 years later, Recomp has a huge ash
pile that looks awful. Birds are flying around, and there is noise and odor. They
cannot use their yard because of the smell. They have a 60 to 70 decibel level for
noise 24 hours per day. Recomp doesn't care about their neighborhood. If they
don't care about the neighborhood, they won't care about the medical waste they
are bringing in. If they could take care of the neighborhood that they are in and
keep the neighbors happy, they'd be the best neighbors, but they don't. They've
proven it over and over. They need the County Council's help.
Marianne Elgart, Ferndale City Councilmember, stated she was speaking on
behalf of citizens in Ferndale, who overwhelmingly voted to pass I -99.
Independently as a city they have tried to tackle the situation. They have
tremendous concerns regarding all the operations taking place at Recomp under
their very obscure operating umbrella. They need and expect the County Council's
help in applying the voice of the people. They intend to file a motion to intervene
to obtain intervener status on behalf of the citizens in response to the County
administration's posture in asking for a declaratory judgement. They don't have
the option of enforcing and regulating the solid waste aspects. The County does.
They are entitled to this protection via the interlocal agreement. She acknowledged
it is complicated and frightening to take a posture against the administration. They
understand the possible threats and fears. They face them every day. She
suggested that they consider being brave. Courage doesn't happen in the absence
of fear. It happens in spite of it and because of it. They all have an opportunity
and an obligation to act on behalf of all the citizens who are pleading for the
County's help.
Dawson stated the medical waste issue will be addressed later in the
evening.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval of items one through thirteen, except item number five. Finance
Committee did not have a recommendation for item number five. He withdrew
item number five from the consent agenda.
Dawson withdrew item nine.
Motion to approve items one through four, six through eight, and ten through
thirteen carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES AND ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL — RECOVERY CENTER,
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY CASE
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
MANAGEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $19,694 FOR
A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $120,443 (AB99 -464)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
107 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, DIEHL FORD, FOR NINE
POLICE SEDANS TO BE USED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $207,323.01 (AB99 -465)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
129 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FARMER'S EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, TO PURCHASE TWO 3 -AXLE PONY TRAILERS TO BE USED
BY PUBLIC WORKS M &O, IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,026.20 (AB99 -466)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND BELLINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY, TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A PART -TIME WELLNESS OUTREACH
WORKER, CHILDCARE, AND TRANSPORTATION, IN THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $29,200 (AB99 -467)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
MODIFICATION TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE AND
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (AB99 -477)
Nelson moved to approve, without a recommendation for approval from the
committee.
Dawson moved that this be approved, subject to the appointment of a
private party representative to the comprehensive study committee that they have
initiated.
Imhof stated it was not the Council's prerogative to do that.
Dawson stated it was important to have a private party representative.
Brown stated they were hoping to find a more cost - effective way to provide
services without increasing fees. He believed they need to look at this to see if
there is a way to integrate services or have a different service method. He didn't
know if it was up to the Council to say who sits on their board, but the Council
needs to figure out how to ensure someone studies a way to use the private
services. He wanted to let people know what really bothered him about the fee
increase. It is a shame that public officials support increasing the personal costs on
sick, elderly, and misfortunate people while reducing tax support for medical
services. That is exactly what they are doing. The County increased funding for
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
cultural arts, cross - country skiing in Eastern Washington, and other outdoor
recreation. They funded the Bellingham Festival of Music, Mt. Baker Theater, and
others. Yet, they are decreasing the tax support for the sick, elderly, and
misfortunate. That is what everyone who is in support of this is saying. That is
totally wrong. He would not support this in any way, shape, or form.
Brenner stated she would support the interim plan that the Council majority
comes up with. She is feeling less comfortable with it after hearing Brown's
comments. She did not support cutting back the percentage on this essential
service. The comment during strategic planning was cutbacks would be made
"wherever possible." However, this is an essential service and they should not cut
back. She also had a problem with the idea that the system isn't broke, so they
shouldn't fix it. Anytime the system can be improved they should be doing that.
She was not comfortable with what they have. She would support something on an
interim basis, but she wanted to see someone from the private sector be involved.
She was very upset that the City of Bellingham voted for this because they got the
message that the County wanted to reduce the funding percentage for this. She
made a friendly amendment to change the percentages back to 50/50. She did not
want to see the percentage raised for private individuals.
Dawson did not accept the friendly amendment.
Hoag stated that Whatcom Medic One provides an excellent service in the
areas close to Bellingham. In the areas farther out in the county, patients have to
wait for an ambulance, even though the fire department is there and have assisted
them. The fire department is not allowed to transport a caller. She supported the
item being sent back to committee for more information. She had concerns about
the costs. In 1997, the County's share of the costs was $779,000. In 1998 they
were $855,000, and in 1999 they were $994,000. This is just the County's share,
which is 25 percent of the total cost. This means the cost increase has been at the
rate of $400,000 per year. It has been said that the costs they are charging the
users is comparable or less than other services. However, in addition to that, there
is a 50 percent government subsidy. She stated she would abstain from the final
vote because she could not attend the committee meeting and did not have her
questions answered. She wanted to make sure it was clear the questions were not
regarding the quality of care, but whether they are properly using taxpayer's funds
and if there is a better way to do this. That really needs to be looked at.
Imhof agreed with everything Brenner and Brown said, however this is not
the time or place to look at that. This should be a long -range need that needs to
be looked at, not a knee -jerk reaction to a rate increase. There are two issues.
One issue is whether they are going to change the interlocal agreement that has
been approved by the City of Bellingham, to allow for the change of the percentage
amount and to allow the user fee to go to 55 percent. The other issue is the fee
schedule. If they vote down the changes to the interlocal agreement, then it will
remain at 50 percent each and will go back to the City for their discussion. If they
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
vote for the changes to the agreement, then they should be prepared to vote for
the fee schedule. Those are the two issues. He will be voting for both changes.
Sutter stated she spoke to some of the people involved with different fire
districts. She was interested in the committee that has been working on revising
the current system. They are going to come up with some solid suggestions. They
talked about non - emergency medical transport being a lower level than the
emergency medical transport. They talked about better phone triage, and doing
more training of emergency responders so that they all have some emergency
medical treatment training and are able to do more when they are on the scene.
They have good ideas of ways to improve the service. In the interim, there are still
people they have to provide for. They have to keep the service alive. If the cost
has to go up, it has to go up. They can't deny the service, even if people have to
pay more, they still need the service.
Nelson stated he empathized with Brown's concerns. Being in the health
care profession, he deals with increasing costs and reimbursement rates on a daily
basis. There are still going to be those that don't have that type of benefit. Overall
they need to look at the entire community. One of the things he's heard from the
community is that they don't want property taxes raised. Instead the community
wants a fee for services. The idea of a fee for service is one the government has
recognized and taken hold of. Whether or not this is a legitimate fee for service is
debatable. He wanted to continue with a system that is not broken. He can't point
to any specific problems, but he can point to better solutions. The technical
steering committee could be more inclusive so they can get a better idea of how to
get an integrated service. He wanted the issues to be addressed, but he didn't
want to see this year go by without having services provided in the rural area. The
current EMS system is looking to expand into the rural community, but that incurs a
cost. They have to look at the alternative, if they can't support this. They should
not cut off the nose to spite the face. They should support what they currently
have and is proven. Also, if they want to go back to funding at 50 percent, they
will need to adjust the fees accordingly.
Dewey Desler stated the total increase was in the amount of $400,000, so
the County's share of 25 percent would total $100,000.
Dawson stated they are talking about a system that is not broken. They
need to have an integrated service.
Imhof suggested that Dawson's motion be a request from the Council.
Dawson amended her motion to make it a recommendation. However, she
wouldn't look at this next year unless they follow through with some kind of
recommendation. The only way to get the cost reduced is to look at other options.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Brown stated the emergency providers testified during committee that
Medicare, insurance premiums, and benefits covered the costs. All those better
benefits have been costing him because he funds his own health care program.
The costs keep getting passed on to others. There is an alternative. They
supported more recreational activities with tax dollars, yet they cut the funding for
the emergency services. They are reducing the fee schedule. They are not
supporting it with the tax dollars that they were.
Imhof stated the amount is the same tax dollars.
Brown stated they are dropping the percentage to 45 percent instead of 50
percent.
Imhof stated they are still providing the same number of dollars.
Brown stated the dollar amount is the same, but the tax should stay at 50
percent to support these programs. They are increasing outdoor activities and
cultural arts, but not supporting the medical costs. Everyone on the Council and
the medical providers want to take more out of the user's pocket because they can
get the money from the insurance premiums. That isn't right. The simple solution
is to not pass this, let the formula stay at 50/50, and revise the rate hike to reflect
the increase needed above that.
Imhof suggested a friendly amendment to set the fee schedule as proposed
by the administration.
Dawson accepted the friendly amendment, and restated the motion to take
the recommendation of the administration on the fee schedule and to recommend
the appointment of a private party to the technical steering committee.
Imhof suggested they address the establishment of service fees and
setting a fee schedule related to ambulance service charges (AB99 -447A)
at this time, concurrent with this item.
Brenner stated she wanted to vote on separate motions for the fee schedule
and for the agreement.
Imhof stated they are the same. If they pass the fee schedule, it will bring
the number up to 55 percent. They have to change the wording in the interlocal to
be able to bring that up to 55 percent. If they don't pass the fee schedule, they
keep the fee schedule the same, and the interlocal will stay at 55 percent, and the
County share will go up $125,000.
Brenner stated it is $100,000. If the County share has to go up by $100,000
she would rather see the tax money be used for that. She believed the fee
schedule would be the same as that passed by the City of Bellingham. She
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
questioned whether that would change if they go back to a 50/50 formula. The
fees that people would pay are more at 55/45 than they are at 50/50.
Imhof stated it would have to go back to the City for its ratification. They
can do the vote separately.
Dawson restated her original motion to recommend the inclusion of a private
provider on the technical steering committee.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag abstaining.
Dawson stated the agreement, as amended, is before the Council for
approval.
Motion carried 4 -2, with Brown and Brenner opposed and Hoag abstaining.
Brenner moved to reconsider the ambulance fee schedule ordinance
(AB99 -447) that was discussed two weeks ago.
Motion carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to adopt the fee schedule recommended by the County
administration.
Motion carried 5 -1, with Brown opposed and Hoag abstaining.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SERVICES (AB99 -468)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TEAMSTERS SHERIFF'S
SUPPORT STAFF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (AB99 -469)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES AND LAKE WHATCOM RESIDENTIAL AND TREATMENT
CENTER, TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIZED LIVING RESIDENCES FOR 50
MENTALLY ILL CONSUMERS, IN A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $69,000
(AB99 -470)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG WHATCOM COUNTY, LUMMI
NATION, NOOKSACK TRIBE, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, AND
THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION,
CONTRACT EXECUTION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRIA 1
WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT (AB99 -471)
Dawson moved to amend the Budget section on packet page 156, "Based on
policy direction provided to members of the joint board, on an annual basis, the
joint board...."
Nelson stated he believed the policy direction was to be provided by the
individual members.
Hoag proposed a friendly amendment, "Based on policy direction from their
respective councils, on an annual basis, the joint board...."
Sutter stated the Public Utility District doesn't have a council.
Hoag stated "council" is what is referred to in all the other documents.
Dawson accepted Hoag's friendly amendment
Brown stated he would not support the amendment. He didn't see the need
for it. The amendment probably clouds the issue at this time.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson in favor.
Imhof moved approval of item number nine.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF FERNDALE FOR LEACHATE PRE - TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
AT THE FERNDALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (AB99 -472)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $247,000 (AB99 -473)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND JOHNSTON
AND CULBERSON, INC. FOR THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION OF
WHATCOM COUNTY'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $21,223 (AB99 -474)
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM
COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES FOR INMATES IN THE JAIL, IN
THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $20,460 (AB99 -475)
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE, TITLE 20, ZONING, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 20.71 WATER
RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE AND AMEND OTHER
SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND STORMWATER
REGULATIONS (AB99 -286A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
a staff report and stated this ordinance was initiated by the County Council to
address Lake Whatcom water quality and to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission worked on this extensively. They held public workshops
and received much input. The Planning and Development Committee has worked
on additional revisions since May. It is an overlay and applies to the entire
watershed. It restricts certain uses and adds development standards for uses that
affect water quality, such as cemeteries, greenhouses, and hazardous waste
chemicals. Other uses are restricted, prohibited, or conditioned. It also adds
stormwater and land clearing standards. Staff recommends approval with the
changes recommended by committee.
Brown questioned whether this ordinance also has impacts for Drayton
Harbor. It mentions the Drayton Harbor Management Area, and classifies the
Drayton Harbor area the same as Lake Whatcom. Goodwin stated this ordinance
does not. This ordinance does not include Drayton Harbor. Drayton Harbor was
already designated as a stormwater special management area. Drayton Harbor is
not affected by this ordinance, but it already has some status. This ordinance adds
the words "water resources," but the area was already designated a Special
Management Area. The Council confirmed that, and added more restrictions during
the last meeting when they adopted the Drayton Harbor Urban Growth Area
changes. There are different development standards for Drayton Harbor. Because
of the language the Council added at the last meeting, they tightened up the
stormwater requirements in Drayton Harbor also.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Kurt Denke, 3030 - 35th Avenue West, Seattle, spoke on behalf of Lee and
Barbara Denke. They object to the 80 percent pervious surface requirement being
applied in the Rural Residential one unit per two acres (RR2) zone. It will adversely
affect lot owners' ability to use their land in the watershed. They asked the Council
to either reject the ordinance or to remove that provision from the ordinance.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag stated she received a fax from Sherilyn Wells and asked that it be
included in the public record.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Sutter stated the ordinance comes forward from committee with a
recommendation for approval as amended.
Nelson requested clarification on what an animal unit is. Goodwin stated it is
defined in Title 20 of the Whatcom County Code.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin stated a horse is about 3/4 of an animal unit. Two or three pigs are
an animal unit.
Nelson stated the section on the animal hospitals, kennels, and stables
addressed less than five animal units. He questioned whether the kennel has to be
a licensed kennel, and if a person with a dog run would have to have a conservation
plan. Goodwin stated a kennel is defined on page 293 of the packet. It is a
commercial operation. She read the definition into the record. It wouldn't apply
unless one was operating a business. Even then, five animal units equal a lot of
dogs. The language says the buffer is for establishments with more than two
animal units and less than five animal units.
Nelson stated the language in the packet only says less than five animal
units.
Nelson moved to amend language in section .153(3), "pre- existing facilities
with more than two, but less than five, animal units shall comply..."
Hoag stated there was something else mentioned in committee. Sutter said
in committee that she wanted this language with private animal owners only.
Commercial establishments should have the buffer no matter what. This is a
different thing. The committee included similar language in the section regarding
permitted uses in agriculture on packet page 279. In this section, it only applies to
commercial establishments and it was Councilmember Sutter's desire that
commercial establishments should comply. The committee agreed, so they left it.
The committee, other than that comment, did not address this part.
Sutter stated her concern with that section had to do with preexisting
agricultural uses. Also, she was concerned with the word "facilities." It will be
interesting to see how preexisting facilities are going to comply with a conservation
plan, without moving the facility.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Brenner stated they talked about moving buildings during committee. This
was not about moving buildings.
Imhof questioned how many this would affect in the watershed. Goodwin
stated she was not aware of any existing kennels in the buffer of a wetland in the
watershed. An animal unit is 290 broiler chickens, 55 turkeys, 12 sheep, 180
laying hens. It doesn't specify dogs.
Brenner stated they were told this would not include existing structures.
Goodwin stated the existing structure language was under agricultural uses.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Sutter questioned whether they are putting in a water protection overlay in
Drayton Harbor. Goodwin stated they are not. They made Drayton Harbor a
Stormwater Special Management Area by ordinance at the last meeting.
Sutter moved to amend language in section 20.80.634(2) on packet page
285, "(b) Drayton Harbor Watershed" Goodwin stated they already did that at the
last meeting.
Sutter stated it is not in this document. Goodwin stated it is not. If they put
it into this document, it would not be underlined because it already exists in the
code. The other area will automatically be added by Code Publishing when it is sent
in for codification because it is already under section 20.80.634 in the Whatcom
County Code (WCC).
Hoag stated she wanted the designation made because the language doesn't
say they will add the following geographical area, it says they will establish it.
Goodwin stated she would go ahead and include the language. It has already been
added, but they will put it in there, but won't underline it because it was already
adopted.
Sutter withdrew her motion.
Hoag stated the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (DCTED) made recommendations for this ordinance. One
recommendation was to section 20.71.700 on packet page 284. They
recommended, "To insure proper infiltration, buffer areas adjacent to critical areas
should be vegetated with native plants, and road standards should include the
requirement for capture and treatment of surface runoff."
Imhof questioned why they would include that recommendation in that
section.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag stated this section addresses the road standards for the Lake Whatcom
watershed. This is saying one would have a vegetated buffer to help with
infiltration and that surface runoff should be captured and treated if one were near
the lake. That is the general direction they are trying to go on this, but the
language is not in there.
Brenner stated it sounds good, but she wasn't comfortable about not having
time to review it. She didn't remember this recommendation.
Hoag stated this was from a letter sent to the Council on May 10, 1999 by
DCTED.
Brenner stated it sounds good, but it is a big change.
Sutter stated she preferred to see that go into the road standards. Goodwin
stated she believed the vegetated buffer part is already covered in the Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO). They could look at it for an addition next year.
Hoag stated there are things they've talked about in committee, but the
wording is not in there.
Dawson stated it could go into the road standards.
Hoag stated she didn't understand what the objection is, and questioned why
they would not want a vegetated buffer next to critical areas or surface runoff to be
captured and treated.
Imhof questioned why Hoag wanted the language in this section when it is
possibly already in the CAO. He also asked why she brought it forward at the last
minute.
Dawson questioned what it means to capture the runoff.
Hoag stated capturing the runoff means that it is captured and treated.
Nelson stated a problem with this being applied throughout the watershed is
that 60 percent of the area around the lake is sand and gravel filtration. By
capturing it, they are decreasing the benefit they get from the filtration systems.
They need to look at how to manage the stormwater. That is why they have the
technical committees and people looking at each of the site projects to find the best
beneficial methods. Sometimes the system that is required to be installed is not
the best system for the project. They have to leave some flexibility to look at these
to make the best beneficial effect.
Brenner questioned whether they can put a vegetated buffer on rock areas
that are very steep.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag moved to include the language.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
Nelson brought up Denke's concern about 80 percent pervious surfaces being
required on land zoned RR2. Yet, Urban Residential three units per acre (UR -3) is
allowed to build on 40 percent of the land. He asked if there are more UR -3 zoned
areas than there are RR2 areas. More of the area is predominantly UR -3 than RR2.
Yet, they are going to allow greater impervious areas on the UR -3 than on the RR2,
which has a greater capability to absorb water. This doesn't make sense. He
questioned why they would do that. They should make it equal, or protect the
higher density areas from putting in more impervious surfaces. Goodwin stated
that one who has a half -acre in RR2 zoning would be able to pave 4,000 square feet
on a 20,000 square foot lot.
Nelson stated they are going to allow 5,600 square feet on a lot in UR -3
zoning. There are many more of those lots than there are on RR2.
Sutter stated on UR lots that are larger than 10,000 square feet they only
allow 40 percent of the lot to be paved. The percentage depends on the lot size in
the UR zone.
Hoag stated they received testimony on this during committee. The
committee changed it because of testimony they received, to make it more fair.
They looked at the areas of highest concentration of build -out. That is how they
arrived at these figures.
Goodwin stated that, in addition to the impervious surface that is allowed,
another 35 percent of the lot could be a gravel driveway or other alternative
surface treatment.
Nelson stated, if 5,600 square feet is going to be the limitation placed on UR-
3 zoning, then they should place the same restriction on RR2 zoning.
Sutter stated there is not complete information in that document. He needed
to read the entire ordinance.
Hoag stated the percentages adjust depending on the size of the lot.
Hoag questioned the performance bonding for maintenance of the retention
ponds. The committee didn't vote on it. The community suggested it. If they are
to include that language, she questioned whether it would go under the section
regarding large development stormwater controls. Goodwin stated the regulations
relating to stormwater would be in the section that is the stormwater regulations.
There is a consultant and a committee working on those, so the Planning
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commission opted not to make a lot of changes to the stormwater regulations at
this time. They will deal with it when they deal with stormwater regulations later.
Hoag questioned whether the requirement of people who obtain a building
permit for on -site stormwater treatment is included in this ordinance. Goodwin
stated it is.
Hoag stated her problem with it is that it tied the need to put in a stormwater
system to the percentage of change to the home. They are setting up a process
that discriminates against those with big homes and small homes.
Brenner stated there is also the provision that it is for any addition that is
larger than 120 square feet or more.
Hoag stated that someone doing a remodel of a very small house that
exceeds 25 percent of the assessed value, but is less than 120 square feet, will be
forced to install on -site storage. Goodwin stated that was the committee's
recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended 50 percent.
Sutter stated it would save retro- fitting later.
Hoag stated she is in favor of on -site facilities. 120 square feet is not very
large. If one has to do that, they already have to get a building permit, which is
appropriate. The other part about it exceeding 25 percent of the assessed
valuation may not require permanent on -site facilities if it is less than 120 square
feet. Goodwin stated the Technical Advisory Committee was concerned about
stringent requirements on new development when problems are being caused by
existing development. They wanted as many opportunities as possible to retrofit
the old houses.
Imhof questioned whether there is a way to require this on change of title.
When a house is sold, the new owner would have to come up with the
recommendations. At that time, either the seller has the money to do it for the
purchaser, or the purchaser can roll the cost into a mortgage.
Brown stated that would be a problem if it were an estate.
Brenner stated she would not support that. They should either require
existing buildings within a certain length of time.
Imhof stated that is when the money is available.
Brenner moved to amend the language in section (6) on packet page 287,
"...construction or remodels exceeding 25% 50% of the assessed valuation..."
Councilmember Hoag made a good point.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sutter stated they are allowing a great big house a large remodel.
Brenner stated they would still have the 120 square foot threshold.
Sutter stated the language doesn't specify whichever is less.
Brenner stated it didn't need to say that.
Hoag stated her recommendation was to strike the language, "exceeding
25%" so it is very clear and easy to administer. The only people they would catch
on the 25 percent are those with small houses. That is not who they are concerned
about. A small house doesn't have much impervious surface and stormwater
anyway.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment to amend the language in section
6 on packet page 287 "...construction or remodels c:_cccding of the
assessed , .,luatien of the S}_,.CWFe remodels increasing..."
Hoag stated it was the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to
add the 120 square feet. They also recommended striking the percentage.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Brown, Imhof, and Sutter opposed.
Nelson stated this could be a large impact in the rural areas of the watershed
for people who have agricultural practices or businesses. They are going to be
resentful that they have to get an engineer in addition to a permit.
Brenner told Councilmember Nelson to suggest a reasonable threshold.
Nelson questioned what they currently do. Goodwin stated currently there
are no stormwater requirements on individual single family houses. This would
apply to all buildings in the watershed.
Imhof suggested that this only apply to lots five acres or smaller in size.
Brown stated five acres is considerable in size.
Nelson stated most of the acreage will be either smaller or larger.
Hoag stated the they are trying to avoid things flowing into the lake and
streams and causing erosion. She suggested they make that requirement only
within a certain distance of the streams and lake, so that larger properties that are
further away are not affected.
Imhof stated they could do that in the development regulations.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Imhof moved to amend section (6) on packet page 287, "...all new
construction or remodels increasing impervious surfaces by more than 120 feet on
lots sizes less than five acres, unless it can be demonstrated..."
Brown stated this applies to an apron at the entrance to a road, which will be
bigger than that. Goodwin stated the language specifies new construction or
remodels. She didn't think that paving would be considered.
Hoag stated this sounds reasonable. She questioned whether they could run
it past the Technical Advisory Committee. She was concerned about someone on a
five -acre parcel putting up a shed right next to a stream. Nelson stated they would
still have to deal with the CAO.
Hoag stated the CAO doesn't require enough to affect the stormwater.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown questioned whether there was any consideration of the fiscal impact to
people owning properties within this designated area, as the charter amendment
stated.
Brenner stated they amended many sections to make it more flexible. The
discussion about costs was paramount.
Brown stated they are required to have discussion specifically about the
financial aspects and whether it would result in any change.
Hoag stated the Planning Commission recommendation was for conditional
use of a golf course, if a pesticide and fertilizer management and monitoring
program has been established to ensure quantities in stormwater runoff do not
exceed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and /or Fish and
Wildlife standards. They are making it a prohibited use. It is the same thing with
cemeteries.
Brown questioned whether there was any follow up with Fish and Wildlife to
find out about response time and whether they would check into someone who is
going to install a pond.
Brenner stated they've been doing that.
Brown stated he didn't think they have the staffing to go out and inspect
anytime someone wants to install a four -foot black pond. The ordinance is leading
the County to where they were seven or eight years ago. He would not support it.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 23
1 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
2 CODE, TITLE 20, ZONING TEXT, TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR
3 TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND DESIGNATE THE LAKE
4 WHATCOM WATERSHED AS A SENDING AREA (AB99 -386)
5
6 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
7 a staff report and stated this is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan. The Urban
8 Fringe Plan approved making the Urban Residential Mixed (UR -MX) areas a
9 receiving area. This ordinance formalized the process to put development
10 restrictions or covenants on land, or to sell the development rights out of the
11 watershed and into the UR -MX zones. They have a revised draft that reflects the
12 committee's changes. Staff recommended approval of the revised draft.
13
14 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
15
16 Paul Schissler, 1714 Wilson Avenue, Bellingham, stated he agreed with the
17 changes made at the committee meeting. He approved the approach that allows
18 the private sector to make it work, with the government setting up a mechanism
19 that allows buyers and sellers to make this happen. The changes made during
20 committee separate the sale of development rights from using the development
21 rights. There is still room to approve the way those two separate ideas are
22 implemented.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
25
26 He suggested the definition of Sending Areas be amended to include partially
27 developed parcels, so a 20 -acre parcel with a house could sell off the other
28 development rights and keep the house there. This is in section 20.89.022. They
29 need to separate the sale and the use of the development rights. It will be easier
30 to get funding for the purchase of development rights if they don't also have to
31 have a development approved in the receiving area. Also, he suggested adding a
32 section five to the "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED..." section of the ordinance.
33 That new section should stated, "The County shall initiate a process to designate
34 additional TDR sending areas, for the purpose of sending residential density out of
35 natural resource lands, especially agricultural resources lands." It is important for
36 farmers to be able to realize some value from their lands, if they are asked to give
37 up their development rights.
38
39 Sutter stated that this ordinance is specific to the Lake Whatcom watershed.
40 They need to docket his suggestion for the next Planning Commission docket. They
41 plan to do that. Because it is not pertinent to the Lake Whatcom watershed, it
42 doesn't belong in this ordinance.
43
44 Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, 1400 Broadway, Bellingham, stated
45 he had been a member of the advisory committee that worked on TDRs. It is a
46 good option for landowners to have in areas like the Lake Whatcom watershed. He
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
was concerned about the nuts and bolts of this. The changes the committee made
are a big step in the right direction. On page five in the definition of development
rights, there is a sentence beginning, "Where land is impacted by critical areas,..."
That entire sentence should be deleted. That will force anyone who wants to sell
development rights to go through what could be a very costly and argumentative
feasibility analysis. He suggested they just use the zoning. The last line in that
section is strictly a matter of opinion and is likely to change over time. He agreed
with Schissler's comments about partially developed sending areas. His main wish
for the ordinance is that they recognize there are three or four steps in this
process, and they treat each one separately. A person should be able to go out to
the County Planning office, submit an application, and get a certificate that is an
acknowledgement that the property has a certain amount of development rights.
At that point, the owner of the land can market that to anyone they want to, not
just someone who is pushing a project. The way it is set up in the language mixes
up the different stages. He wanted to see a separate paragraph or section on each
one on page six.
Brenner questioned why he thought a person has to have a specific project in
mind to get the development right to go through. Almskaar stated in general, it
should be clearer that a person doesn't have to go through every step.
Sutter stated they would deal with that more effectively by providing an
information sheet to the public, provided by the Planning Department.
Almskaar stated he would prefer a language change on page nine of the
ordinance, section .064(2), "Approval for an application for a TDR certificate wit
is not discretionary." If one has the land, they are entitled to a certain number of
units. No County official should be able to say someone can't have any units.
In addition on page eleven of the ordinance, if a person wants to have any
kind of a density bonus, have to use TDRs first. That is too restrictive. It forces
anyone who wants to go from four units to five units per acre to go out and
purchase some development rights instead of doing some on -site improvements
such as extra open space.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Sutter moved approval of the substitute ordinance.
Brenner stated she would like to table it for the next meeting so clarification
can be made to make it clearer.
Sutter stated she wanted to make amendments to it before it is tabled.
Brenner stated that was okay.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sutter moved to amend the substitute ordinance to include the
recommendation made by Schissler. On page five, section .022, "...An undeveloped
or partially developed area that is designated in this chapter ... A sending parcel or
site is an undeveloped or partially developed parcel..."
Hoag questioned whether this language still makes the requirement that one
would still have to have an existing extra development right available. They are
not just including everyone out there. Goodwin stated it is fine. It is a very good
amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to approve Almskaar's recommendation to delete the sentence
in section .021 on page five of the ordinance, "...maximum dwelling units per
developable acre. WheFe 'and is in9paeted by eFitieal aFeas as defined wig Wee Title
16, develepngent petential shall be demenstrated by the landewner-, with
. In the event..."
Hoag stated she didn't support that recommendation. If someone owns land
that doesn't have development potential, then they shouldn't be able to sell those
development rights. If they purchase property that is not developable, then they
probably purchased it at an especially low price. It's not appropriate for a person to
transfer out development rights that they don't have in the first place.
Brown stated he supported it. It is a chance to move for sure the impact out
of the area. It reduces the procedure that everyone has to evaluate their land,
bring in expensive consultants, and go forth. It should be a fairly clearcut and easy
system. Also, not everyone is buying the land with the critical area impacts. A lot
of people held their land all over the county for years, and all of a sudden they have
been impacted to the point it is difficult to utilize the property. This gives them a
chance to get their investment back out of it.
Sutter stated that no matter what kind of critical areas a person has on their
property, if there is any potential to develop it at all, the County would not want
them to build there. By forcing them to prove they can't build, they are restricting
the potential to move someone out of there. They cannot deprive them of their
total property rights. If they have critical areas on their property and they are
unable to build any other way, then they have to allow them some use of that
property. She would rather see them not use it at all. In order to make that viable
for them, they have to be able to sell the development rights.
Brenner disagreed that this language would take away their property rights.
It is onerous. She wanted to see a phrase that says it does not guarantee that a
property is buildable. Someone shouldn't have to go through tests to see if their
own property is buildable. Just because they are transferring a development right,
it is only a development right if the property can be developed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag stated they are considering the TDRs because they don't want more
development in that area. If they are going to allow people to transfer out
something that didn't exist, those rights will be competing with the ones they are
trying to move out of there. That will defeat the purpose of what they are trying to
do. A person doesn't necessarily have to hire consultants and engineers. All the
language says is that it shall be demonstrated by the landowner that it is
developable. That is not a high threshold.
Sutter stated Hoag has never had to do a wetlands delineation.
Goodwin stated staff recommended against this sentence. Planning
Commission added it against the staff's recommendation. She would support
removing it. It is sometimes difficult to decide if there are wetlands unless one
does a wetland delineation, because the County's wetland maps are very general.
Wetlands are easier to determine than geologically hazardous areas. It is going to
be more difficult. Staff has to interpret the results of each step that is added. With
engineering, most things are developable. Their recommendation was to keep it
simple. If they have the density by zoning, they have the density and the right to
sell it. That is why they didn't recommend this language. It will add a lot of staff
resources in addition to citizen concern having to prove whether it is or isn't
developable.
Hoag questioned whether it would create a lengthy process if they changed
language in section .021 on ordinance page five, "Where land by eFitieal
areas it has been designated as a critical area as defined..." or "Where land -is
parcels contain land designated as critical areas as
defined..." If land has clearly already been designated a critical area, then it would
apply. Goodwin stated the CAO maps are very general. If they are in an area
suspected to be a critical area, then they have to do detailed evaluations before
developing. They couldn't say it is or isn't designated.
Brenner stated she would rather take a chance on someone getting
development rights. It will not cause an environmental impact to have more
development rights outside of the watershed. The way it is now is onerous on the
majority of people who do have developable property but would not use the TDR if
they have to go through so much.
Motion to delete carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Brown questioned whether development rights are subject to capital gains or
excise taxes.
Brenner questioned whether they are personal property.
Sutter stated they are real property.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Goodwin stated they are real property. The County Assessor wrote a memo
to the Planning Commission dealing with that. That is why he wanted them to be
taken off a property applied to another property, so they remained real property, as
opposed to something that was held, purchased, and shared as a commodity.
Brown stated someone could buy them simply to reduce development
potential.
Sutter stated that if they are real property and there is a transfer of title, she
believed they would be subject to excise tax.
Brown questioned what happens to the land once the development rights
have been sold. They are creating unbuildable lots. Goodwin stated they are only
selling the right to develop a residence on the parcel. One can still use the property
for grazing, timber harvest, or other activities.
Brown questioned whether the landowner could sell the property to someone
else. Goodwin stated they could. A lot of people envision selling it to a neighbor.
The buyer just couldn't develop it.
Hoag asked for an explanation of the change on page eight that was made
during the committee meeting earlier in the day.
Sutter stated that came forward from Carl Batchelor, who originally worked
on this.
Goodwin stated that originally the Assessor expressed some concerns about
TDRs being purchased and held indefinitely or retired. It would not be a taxation
problem if they were purchased and held to be sold later. He didn't want them to
be held indefinitely so one couldn't determine if they were real property or personal
property.
Hoag asked why this gives administrative approval. Goodwin stated if
someone were purchasing development rights, the discretionary approval would be
if someone were doing a subdivision or something that the Hearing Examiner would
have to approve. If someone were just purchasing development rights to hold
them, there wouldn't be a development permit that would need Hearing Examiner
approval. As an administrative function, they could say a person has the rights and
they could be held, so it wouldn't have to go to the Hearing Examiner.
Motion to table until next council meeting failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Imhof stated they didn't need Almskaar's language.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
clear.
Nelson stated staff could develop an administrative process to make it very
Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.40 TAX ON
BINGO, RAFFLES, PUNCHBOARDS, AND PULL TABS (AB99 -459)
Imhof stated there is a substitute ordinance that suggests five percent
of the net receipts for profits and two percent of the net receipts for non-
profits. The charitable and non - profits went from two percent of gross
receipts to two percent of net receipts, so they are paying considerably less.
Nelson stated at five percent they were at $76,000. They will drop to
$30,000 at a rate of two percent of the net receipts.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, told her that the State
law changed to net. The County ordinance didn't follow the course. The
Treasurer's office was only charging them what the State law allowed.
Imhof questioned whether the State law was that they can only charge
two percent or that they have to charge against the net receipts. Frakes
stated it is against the net.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Jorden, American Legion Post 86, 8151 Blaine Road, Birch Bay, stated
he was in favor of the change. Private businesses need all the help they can get,
because there are other laws they are trying to deal with, such as the change in the
legal blood - alcohol limit to .08 percent. He was there to speak for non - profit
agencies. There may only be two other establishments besides his that are in the
county. Most of the others are in the cities. In their case, they are paying the two -
percent, so it would cost them more to go to the five percent of the net. If they
make any money, it goes to the community, specifically the veterans and the
youth. They donate a lot of money within the county. They send students to
Washington D.C. and to Olympia, Washington. They donate to food banks and are
involved with purchasing vans for the senior centers. They help veterans who need
heating in the winter. If their profit goes to the County tax, they won't be able to
keep it in the community.
Gary Hardaway, 817 North 8th, Lynden stated that if this encourages
gambling, which simply takes money out of people's pockets, they should not pass
a tax break the gambling industry, which provides no goods or services. Some
gamblers can afford it, but some can't. Some say that the gambler makes the
choice to gamble, but the families don't make that choice. The children who don't
eat because dad gambled away the money are the ones that suffer. He didn't know
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that this ordinance encourages the gambling industry. If they are giving a tax
break to commercial operations, they should vote no. At the very least, they
should allow more time for input. There are a lot of people he knew that would
want to testify on this.
Hoag stated the proposed change was to decrease the taxes on the
commercial establishments, and increase the taxes on the non - profit agencies.
There is a new revised ordinance that decreases the taxes on the commercial
establishments, but they would keep the taxes for the non - profit agencies where
they were, rather than increase them.
Brenner stated it was never her intent to decrease the taxes. They are
deciding whether or not to tax the gross or net profits.
Dawson stated that is already defined by state law for the non - profits.
Frakes stated the State law is clear they can tax it one of two ways.
Brown stated the for - profit businesses could be taxed on their gross.
Brenner stated she didn't like people paying taxes on their overhead
expenses and not on their profit.
Hoag stated the proposal does lower the total tax collected from $337,000
to $146,000 from the for - profit agencies. It is almost $200,000 less going into the
criminal justice funds and not coming from the gambling.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval of the substitute ordinance.
Brenner stated she supported the two percent net on the non - profit. It was
not her intention to lose the tax base. She didn't like taxing people on something
they are not making money on. She would like to see a formula on a net tax for
the for - profit organizations that would retain the amount of tax being collected
currently, but based on their net rather than their gross.
Imhof stated it would take about 12 percent.
Kremen stated it doesn't make a difference. If it is going to generate the
same amount of money, they won't care whether it is net or gross.
Brenner stated it would make a difference because it is not coming out of
their pocket. They are taxing the profit.
Brown stated they are just taxing the profit a lot higher.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Kremen explained that if they delay a decision on this proposal, then they
would have to call a special meeting prior to the meeting on January 11th because
Initiative 695 would be in effect and they would be unable to raise the tax without a
vote of the people. If Brenner's proposal is to increase the percentage on the net
to coincide with the gross percentage, it may fall into a gray area. He
recommended that the Council take action on the ordinance this evening.
Brenner stated she didn't want to lose the tax base, but she also felt it isn't
fair to tax someone before they make their money. She wanted to change the
structure, not reduce the tax base.
Sutter stated the County Council adopted the five percent of the net receipts
portion of this on April 20, 1999. Frakes stated the Council made that motion, but
they didn't do it by an ordinance.
Sutter questioned what has been happening the interim.
Nelson stated the concern was that the five percent would be applied to the
non - profits, which really jacks up their costs.
Sutter stated that in April the Council said they wanted to tax at five percent
of the net receipts.
Frakes questioned whether that was to take effect the first of the year.
Sutter stated there wasn't any ordinance language to make the change, so it
wasn't implemented in any way.
Brenner moved to amend the substitute ordinance, "...fi-ve eleven percent of
the net receipts..." for the for - profit businesses.
Brown stated they had a lot of testimony from people within the industry who
are struggling. It shows their revenue sources are down considerably. With the
advance of other gaming activities in the casinos, they are needing a break to keep
their businesses afloat. These businesses provide jobs and help with the local
community. It wasn't just to give these people a tax break. It was to address the
fact that business people are having problems, and to help keep the wages flowing.
He wouldn't support the amendment.
Hoag stated this is not just any business. It really impacts people. The
Council should not reduce taxes on gambling, which is a blight on society. If the
jobs are hurting the people, it is not good public policy to support them. Nearly one
in five homeless people admit that gambling contributed to their poverty, and 37
percent continue to gamble. Five to eight percent of American adolescents are
already addicted to gambling. Seventy five percent of pathological gamblers
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 31
I admitted they committed at least one felony to support their habit. More money is
2 spent on gambling in the State of Mississippi than all retail sales combined. This is
3 something that impacts the communities in a very negative way. When compared
4 with the other 49 states, Nevada ranks first in the nation in suicide, divorce, high
5 school dropouts, and gambling addictions. Nevada ranks third in bankruptcies and
6 abortion; fourth in rape, out -of- wedlock births, and alcohol related deaths; fifth in
7 crime; and sixth in the number of prisoners who are locked up. It ranks in the top
8 1/3 of the nation in child abuse and dead last in voter participation. This is not
9 something they want to encourage. The funds they have been receiving from this
10 tax have been used to support criminal justice to help fight the negative impacts of
11 the gambling.
12
13 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
14
15 Hoag continued to state that it doesn't make any sense to reduce taxes on
16 gambling in order to increase their profitability, which would take funds away from
17 criminal justice. She asked that it be two percent of the net for non - profits. They
18 don't want to take the money away from the people that are using it to support
19 those admirable causes, but they shouldn't make the reduction on the gambling
20 businesses that are out there. If they reduce the gambling tax it will make
21 gambling more lucrative, and more gambling facilities will want to locate here.
22 That is not what they want to create. They don't want to create a hospitable
23 environment for gambling.
24
25 Nelson stated he did not see any correlation between the tax charged and
26 the impacts of people gambling. People are going to gamble regardless of the tax
27 charged. The amount paid by the business owner, who is merely obliging a legal
28 occupation, will still charge the same amount, but he won't receive a benefit from
29 it. He will still use it because it is an entertainment factor. They heard people
30 testifying about their legitimate businesses with an entertainment factor
31 contributing to the community. There is less impact of criminal justice needs for
32 those businesses because they have many different gambling methods now that
33 take away from those businesses. It is hogwash that the number of people
34 gambling will diminish if they are taxed.
35
36 Brenner stated this amendment serves everyone. It allows them to keep
37 that as an option, but it will also provide the same amount of money to the County.
38
39 Hoag stated she submitted documentation from Dr. James Dobson, who
40 served on the national commission that was appointed by Congress to study
41 gambling. He says that gambling fever has engulfed the nation. Most Americans
42 think of gambling as harmless entertainment. It used to be well known to be
43 addictive. It is not harmless. It preys on the poor who are told this is going to be
44 their way out of poverty. It preys on the elderly. The majority of the money made
45 in gambling comes from people who cannot afford to lose it. It wasn't true that
46 gambling establishments would charge the same amount if the taxes were reduced.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Any time they reduce the cost to business, the business is able to reduce the price
of the product. The less available that gambling is, the less chance that children
will be exposed to it and the less chance that people will gamble.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Hoag stated that if they are not going to change the amount to net, then
they need to leave it the way it is. They need the money for criminal justice. They
do not need to increase the profits of the gambling businesses.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
S. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
BELLINGHAM UGA —MT. BAKER HIGHWAY (AB99 -436A)
Sutter stated that this item and the next item will have to be postponed until
the public hearing. The ordinances have not been introduced and will be introduced
later tonight.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, 1401 Astor Street,
Bellingham, stated he brought an ordinance forward that was in their packet two
weeks ago. He asked that they make an exception.
Hoag stated they couldn't make an exception to the law.
Dawson stated she would like to have a comment period.
Sutter stated it wouldn't be on the public hearing record.
Dawson stated they would go ahead with the public hearing, but they would
need to go ahead and speak at the public hearing on January 11.
Hoag stated they would be better off to testify on January 11 when the new
councilmembers are seated.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they could have a public
hearing, but it won't be a public hearing on an ordinance. It will be a public hearing
on the people bringing the request forward. The reason they were going to have
this public hearing was to get public comment to see if they were going to create an
ordinance.
Hoag stated Doug Campbell requested a public hearing to state his case.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, Dawson closed the
public hearing.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Dawson stated they would continue the public hearing until January 11,
2000.
6. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY TO RURAL FORESTRY AMENDMENT
REQUESTED BY NIELSEN BROTHERS, INC., AND WEST SIDE
LOGGING, L.L.C. (AB99 -4368)
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Jack Swanson, attorney for Nielsen Brothers Inc., stated the proposal was
explained at the last meeting. This is an 80 -acre rezone on the "Y" Road, which
included a proposed restricted covenant on that property to maintain the forested
backdrop and some other things. It also included a second feature, which was the
transfer of the development rights for densities at the Blue Canyon location, and to
retain only one building site on the 37 acres. That was referred to the Forestry
Forum. He and Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning
Manager, worked to prepare an ordinance and a concomitant agreement. The
property owner and the County would enter into a concomitant agreement that
provides for the density transfer, the restrictions on the property, and the
restrictive covenant on both properties. That is their proposal.
Hoag stated she made some suggestions on the proposed restrictive
covenants. Swanson stated he removed the reference to the view corridor.
Whatever clearing that was necessary to build the house would be adequate.
Brenner stated they need to do this during the next meeting.
Hoag asked that the proposed covenant, with the changes, be submitted.
There were concerns that the exchange could not be reversed, and she asked that
he bring forward some assurances.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Dawson stated they would continue the public hearing until January 11,
2000.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (AB99 -406)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, gave
a staff report and stated the amendment would clarify and define the agricultural
protection overlay zone and fix the map. At one point, it was called a Resource
(APO) Protection Overlay Zone, then it was changed to Agricultural Protection
Overlay Zone, so there was a discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan and the maps.
When it went to the Planning Commission, they made a change to page six of the
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ordinance, at the first paragraph. It changed the entire intent of the overlay zone.
That is what is before them for a hearing. It is the only change the committee
recommended. By changing the wording to say that the overlay zone would protect
parcels that meet at least two of the following criteria, it would mean that a place
would have to have 50 percent agricultural soils and be designated as agricultural
open space, which considerably reduces the amount of agricultural land protected
under this ordinance, by about two - thirds. They are concerned because it was a
key part of the Comprehensive Plan goals. By reducing that land, they have not
protected a lot of the rural lands in the County. The committee recommended
revised language that was distributed in a substitute ordinance. The only change
would say that the Agricultural Overlay Zone would include areas that:
1. have been designated as agricultural open space for County tax purposes
within the past seven years, and /or
2. include more than 50 percent APO soils.
The committee argued that, if someone has been getting a tax break for
agricultural use for the past seven years, they should be considered agricultural
parcels for protection. Also, those parcels that have more than 50 percent APO
soils are a separate issue. They shouldn't have to be both. This is only for parcels
zoned rural that are over 20 acres. Staff recommended the Planning and
Development Committee's substitute ordinance.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, Dawson closed the
public hearing.
Sutter moved approval as amended by the Planning and Development
Committee.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
OTHER ITEMS
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING INFECTIOUS WASTE ORDINANCE (AB99-
479)
Brenner moved that Whatcom County Council hereby authorize the County
Executive to negotiate a legal service agreement with Paul J. Kundtz in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 to represent the public in the declaratory judgement on
Initiative 199. She submitted the legal assessment of Kundtz's law firm. Also, the
City of Ferndale requested the County hire someone to vigorously defend the
public's decision.
Hoag thanked the Executive for coming forward with this. His reasons are
excellent.
Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10 (AB99 -
460)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the committee unanimously recommended approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING POINT ROBERTS WATER DISTRICT NO. 4
COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN (AB99 -458)
Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and stated
the committee unanimously recommended approval. It is almost like a pass -
through. Anytime a water district changes its plan, it comes to the Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
Imhof moved to approve by acclamation Brenner's proposed amendments as
specified in her memo dated December 3, 1999.
Sutter questioned whether would they be able to un- consolidate lots they
consolidated in the urban growth area (UGA) because they didn't have adequate
sewer or water, and then they subsequently were provided city sewer and water.
Brenner stated she wanted to make sure a property in the County isn't
consolidated if they can provide all the functions.
Sutter stated they are talking about a UGA. The objective of cities is to infill
the UGAs. If the County has already consolidated the lots only because they did
not have adequate fire flow, water, or sewer, and at some point in the future the
city is able to provide those services, then the reason for the consolidation is gone.
Brenner stated she doesn't even support this ordinance. These are
amendments to make it more livable.
Sutter stated that doesn't make it more livable. That is the only one she
disagreed with.
Dawson suggested they could undo it once it becomes part of the city.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Brenner stated they shouldn't be consolidated at all if they can provide
adequate water, fire flow, and sewer.
Sutter suggested they don't consolidate properties in the UGA. They can't
build on them anyway if they can't get those things done.
Sutter moved to delete amendment regarding section (1)(f)(I) from
Brenner's proposed amendments.
Brenner accepted the deletion as long as they delete the current language
from that section.
Sutter questioned the minimum lot size in cities. Goodwin stated it is about
6,000 square feet. There may be some that are smaller. If they take out that
language, everyone will be consolidated. This way, they are only consolidated if
they are less than 6,000 square feet.
Brown suggested reducing the amount to 4,000 square feet.
Sutter stated she would hate to make the County minimum less than a city's
minimum. She wanted to leave the language in section 20.83.070(1)(f)(I) as it is.
Brenner stated she would take that as a friendly amendment.
Hoag questioned why they wanted to approve Brenner's proposed
amendment to section (2)(b).
Brenner stated the current language means that if a person already has
existing lots that are smaller than the existing zoning, they would be forced into
consolidation.
Hoag stated that wasn't correct. They have to meet all the conditions, items
(a) through (f).
Brenner stated she didn't want the current (2)(b) to be a condition. She only
wanted adequate water, fire flow, or sewer. This is a much more fair way to do it.
Goodwin stated that would consolidate all lots outside of UGAs because they
wouldn't have to be smaller than the conventional lot size.
Brenner stated that wasn't true. They would only be consolidated if at least
one of the lots is incapable of adequate services. If they are all capable of services,
then they wouldn't be consolidated. Goodwin questioned how they would prove it
was capable of having services.
Brenner stated a vacant lot with a well and septic system would be approved
and wouldn't be consolidated. All they have to show is that they have adequate
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
water. Brenner amended her motion to delete (2)(b). Goodwin stated that, if they
delete (2)(b), everyone would be consolidated, no matter how small or large they
are. Anyone with two lots would automatically be consolidated, no matter what the
zoning size is.
Brenner stated she didn't want it to have anything to do with meeting the
zoning. She wanted to consolidate them if they are not buildable. Goodwin
suggested they make a condition under section (2)(f) out of the language Brenner
proposed for (2)(b) regarding not being capable to have adequate water.
Sutter stated it is already under (2)(f).
Brenner stated they included that language under (2)(f)(i).
Nelson stated they wouldn't do anything further.
Brenner amended her proposed amendments to delete the proposed change
to section (2)(b).
Hoag questioned the reason for Brenner's suggested language change to
section (1)(f)(iii).
Brenner stated they should allow building on a buildable portion outside of a
100 -year flood plain. It shouldn't be consolidated.
Hoag questioned whether that would negate everything said about the
agricultural zone. Goodwin stated it would. If two lots were agricultural, and a
piece of one lot outside of the agricultural zone was developable, then the lots
would not be consolidated.
Hoag stated this language doesn't specify agricultural land. Goodwin stated
language further down in the ordinance specifies the agricultural land.
Hoag stated the language is very broad. She wanted to know how it was
going to impact all the rest of the language.
Brenner stated they are not talking about exemptions. They are talking
about taking away people's rights to build. Lot consolidation is down - zoning by
half. They are only doing it to a certain person who is honest enough to put them
all in his or her name. They aren't doing it to a person who was smart enough to
put the lots in different names.
Goodwin stated if one portion of one of the lots was not located in a flood
plain, it would not be consolidated.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, 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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag questioned whether that lot would not be able to be consolidated if it
was located anywhere in the county outside of the flood plain. Goodwin stated by
stating it backwards, Hoag was correct.
Hoag stated this should go back to committee.
Brenner asked for clarification on what Goodwin just said. Goodwin stated it
would only be consolidated if it was 100 percent within the flood plain or critical
area. If there was a buildable piece that stuck out of that critical area or flood
plain, it wouldn't be consolidated.
Nelson called for the question.
Goodwin questioned whether they intended to delete item (2)(f)(i).
Brenner stated they did intend that.
Goodwin stated if they do that, they need to adjust finding number seven,
which is specifically related to that.
Hoag stated they didn't approve that.
Brenner stated it was approved.
Brown questioned why they would consolidate lots that are two acres when
they are creating cluster divisions with one -acre lots and they are allowing new
developments in rural areas. However, anyone with an older lot that is two acres
and is fully buildable and able to be maintained is going to be consolidated.
Sutter stated it would be consolidated if it was less than two acres and all
the other conditions apply, then it would be consolidated. If it is less than two
acres, it has to meet conditions (a) through (e).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Dawson stated the motion is as follows to approve by acclamation:
• (2)(f)(i) At least one of the lots in question is incapable of adequate water, fire
flow, and County approved sewage system
• (1)(f)(ii) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the Lake
Whatcom or Drayton Harbor Watershed
• (1)(f)(iii) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the 100 -year
floodplain, or
• (1)(f)(iv) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Program
• (2)(e) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside of an Urban
Growth Area
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
• (2)(f)(ii) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the Lake
Whatcom or Drayton Harbor Watershed
• (2)(f)(iii) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the 100 -year
floodplain
• (2)(f)(iv) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Program
• (2)(f)(v) No buildable portion of one of the lots is located outside an alluvial fan
• (2)(f)(vi) No buildable portion of one of the lots is outside the Agriculture,
Commercial Forestry, or Rural Forestry designation on the Comprehensive Plan
map
Sutter stated she didn't want to delete item (2)(f)(i).
Brenner stated they deleted it at the last meeting.
Brown stated that is why they had discussion regarding clustering. They are
allowing cluster densities in the rural one -acre areas, and yet they are going to
consolidate two -acre parcels.
Sutter stated that, in order to consolidate, they have to meet all the
conditions from (a) through (e) and one of the listed items in (f). They can still be
less than two acres and not be consolidated if they don't meet all the rest of the
conditions. The only way a parcel less than two acres can be consolidated is if one
also met conditions (a) through (e).
Brenner stated the language changed during the committee was to delete
"less than two acres" in section (2)(f)(i) and replace it with "unable to sustain
approved septic and adequate water supply." That motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof
and Hoag opposed.
Motion to approve Brenner's proposal list, as amended, carried 6 -1 with
Imhof opposed.
Goodwin stated she strongly recommended that they delete finding number
seven on packet page 323, or they would have a conflict in the findings.
Imhof moved to delete finding number seven on packet page 323.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the amended ordinance carried 5 -2 with Imhof and
Brenner opposed.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS MADE IN THE MAY 20, 1997
FINAL DRAFT (AB99 -461)
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 331, item number one,
"...may be identified as an Ag /MRL Study Area..., Ffor no more than five years from
the date of adoption of t4a-t this plan. Within the five years, during the data
collections and review period, the County shall ... some prime farm lands under
peringeter -s parameters listed below."
Brenner stated these are all scrivener's errors.
Sutter stated the purpose of this is to correct the scrivener's errors.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend the language on packet page 331, item number two,
"....other actions to encourage appropriate utilization of gravel from the Nooksack
drainage as a resource where appropriate and let the disstablize enteF these
fleeding events a method to stabilize and /or reduce flooding events and /or reduce
the loss of agricultural land to erosion."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend language to the action item, as specified in the
Committee of the Whole Minutes from May 20, 1997, page 12, beginning on line
12, "PFieFitize pi=ejeet Feview in the Lake Whateem WateFs Initiate an
administrative review process for new development projects within the Lake
Whatcom Watershed to clearly resolve potential stormwater problems prior to
construction."
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
5. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE ADDRESS AND ROAD NAME
COMMITTEE (AB99 -375)
Brenner moved to reappoint Ray Arthur Von Proctor.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter moved to have the Council request the administration to draft an
ordinance to reinstate the other half time position for the webmaster. It is a
position the Council desperately needs to keep up with the electronic medium.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Dawson stated the Council received a number of letters from the department
heads. She didn't realize the importance of that position.
Hoag stated the basis for the recommendation to remove that position was
because it was listed as an additional service request, and as a .5 increase.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether it was an increase. However, all the
letters they've received said it was an existing position that the Council was taking
away. They voted to remove that because they wanted to maintain the status quo.
They were not looking to cut a webmaster position.
Sutter stated she wanted the administration to draft an ordinance so there
could be discussion on the item.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
Brown stated they should not make the public pay more to ride in an
ambulance if they are going to fund this position.
Sutter moved to have the Council approve the membership fee of $25.00 and
to appoint someone to replace her on the American Water Resources Association.
It is a very useful organization.
Imhof stated they will wait until the reorganization in January to appoint
someone.
Sutter withdrew her motion.
Sutter requested the Council to pre- approve her expense to the annual
Council of Government (COG) dinner, which is $24.00.
Brown stated he will also be attending, and requested pre - approval for his
expense. He is on the COG board.
Hoag stated the Council Chair has to approve the expenses.
Hoag stated she was appointed to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
(EFSEC) for the Sumas Power Generation Plant. She had been participating in the
process. During the most recent meeting last week, the applicant asked to move
the process up and to have interveners named this month. She would like to be an
interveners. They have changed the application; they will now run the lines right
past her house. Because this is quasi - judicial, she can't talk to the public, and it is
difficult for her to represent her constituents and neighbors. She would like to step
down from that. Dan McShane expressed his willingness to serve. She moved that
they appoint Dan McShane to serve on the Council.
Brown stated they couldn't appoint him until he's been sworn in.
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Hoag stated they can pick anyone in the County. It doesn't have to be a
County Councilmember. It is important that it is a councilmember.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Brown abstained.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items and to add the two ordinances
from Public Hearing items five and six, Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive
Plan for the Bellingham UGA — Mt. Baker Highway (AB99 -436C) and
Ordinance to amend the Comp plan for commercial forestry to rural
forestry (AB99 -436D)
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE
NO. CUP98 -0056, FILED BY RICK AND DEBRA BENNER (AB99 -402)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96 -005 WHICH GRANTED A
FRANCHISE TO AT &T BROADBAND AND INTERNET SERVICES
(FORMERLY AT &T CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON, INC.) TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN
UNINCORPORATED WHATCOM COUNTY (AB99 -476)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Sutter stated for the last four years on the Council, often she has felt like
Alice in Wonderland; not sure where she was or how she got there, and confronted
by all of these very interesting critters. They have the White Rabbit, who never has
time. They have the Queen of Hearts who always says, "Off with their heads!"
They have the jabberwocky, and hoped that Councilmember Nelson's andromedous
fish come to fruition. The King of Hearts is always trying to conduct court, and is
not always sure of what's happening or how to manage. Finally they have
Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Councilmember Imhof is always tweedling and
Councilmember Brown is always trying to play dumb. She is now going to wake up
from this dream and go back to reality.
Brenner stated that, if GTE had caller ID in the County, they wouldn't have
any problems at the Ferndale schools. She would bring forward a resolution at the
next meeting to send to GTE and the Utilities and Transportation Commission
(UTC).
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 43
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
Brown stated he was very sorry it was this late, because today is a special
day, but not for him or Councilmember Sutter. It is December 7t". All the World
War II veterans gave them the right to a democracy. No one is acknowledging
them, and that is sad. He thanked all World War II veterans. He also thanked the
Council staff for being wonderful.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 8 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 12/7/99, Page 44