HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 29 19992
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
June 29, 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:
Kathy Sutter
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
Robert Imhof
L. Ward Nelson
Dawson announced that there was a work session to discuss the
proposed 2000 -2005 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (AB99-
548) during Committee of the Whole.
21
22 Dawson also announced that she received a letter from the State Department
23 of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, Office of Archeology and Historic
24 Preservation notifying the County that Pioneer Park has been registered in the
25 Washington State Heritage Register. She believed that the Park Director in
26 Ferndale is also making applications at the national level.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY KATHY LARSON, PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(AB99 -017)
Kathy Larson, Puget Sound Energy, alerted the Council to decisions being
made by un- elected people that affect citizens regarding residential and farm
credits. There was a congressional law passed in 1980 that gave residents of
investor -owned utilities throughout the four northwest states access to the federal
electricity that is generated on the dams of the Columbia River. This exchange
benefit gives residential and farm customers benefits to that exchange. It is
mandated through the Bonneville Power Administration, who is in a process of
subscription. Their plans are to reduce this credit to approximately 1/6 of what it is
today. The impact for Whatcom County is about $12 million for a year. $12 million
lost in Whatcom County will reduce the money people will have to spend on goods
and services. The legislators are saying the legislation was outmoded and an
onerous calculation to be made. They are suggesting other ways to do that
calculation.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Dawson suggested sending a letter from the Council to the federal legislators
representing this area, which she read into the record.
Larson stated that there will be inserts notifying residents of the proposed
action in all customer bills. Also, ads have run four times in the Bellingham Herald.
Brenner moved approval of the letter.
Hoag stated that she supported the letter, however she would be abstaining
from voting because her husband works for Puget Sound Energy.
Motion to send the letter carried 4 -0 with Hoag abstaining.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE N MAY 4 AND JUNE 15, 1999; REGULAR
COUNCIL — MAY 4, 1999
Brown moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
Bernice Brannan, 4145 Patos Drive, stated the Lummi Tribe has an
application for water standards rights. In the application, they are asking for
regulatory authority to zone all land use on the reservation. She distributed
documents (on file). They aren't going to waive their tribal sovereign immunity to
do this. She wanted the State, County, and federal government to get involved.
Earl Baker, 4175 Sucia Drive, Ferndale, stated the Lummi Tribe is trying to
usurp County and State authority relating to all waters. It would give them control
of water on and off the reservation. In addition, the documents attempt to control
all phases of County land use. The County, State, and federal governments are the
only authority to whom the taxpayers should answer. This is an attempt at control
over the lives of the County citizens and should be stopped. The County Council
and administration should assert their full control and authority over Whatcom
County.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, explained the letter went out last week from
the County Prosecutor asking that the Lummi Tribe's request be denied.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, Page 2
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 this is not just a local issue. Tribes all over the United States
are trying to exert control over non - Indian properties, both on and off reservations.
It is a national issue.
Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail, Public Utility District #1 Manager, spoke
against the facts presented by the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) spokesperson. Based
on documents he reviewed from Bonneville and the federal government, what PSE
portrayed doesn't meet the facts he'd been given. What Bonneville is offering the
investor -owned utilities in the next five -year rate period, beginning in 2001, is a
greater amount than the residential exchange program logic they are getting now.
To have Puget Sound Energy publish and claim that it is going away seems
disingenuous based on what he had seen the federal government offer. He offered
to provide the Council with the evidence that conflicts with the facts that PSE gave.
Hoag stated that, because Anderson was a competitor with PSE, she wanted
him to be clearer instead of making generalizations. She requested a presentation
of what he specifically was opposed to. Anderson stated that Puget's statement
that the residential exchange program is going away by Bonneville is not a true
statement.
Dawson questioned whether he has documents to that effect. Anderson
stated that he did.
Dawson requested review of that material, before the letter was sent out.
Brenner stated it wasn't PSE, but the national and local news, that said the
rates would go up. Anderson stated the information from the news was that the
electrical system on the west coast is becoming more loaded. They are not building
more dams. The firm capacity output of the federal -based system is being de -rated
due to the fish issues. Therefore, the price of electricity is going up. The 1980
Federal Power Act clearly delineates who is a preference customer and who is not.
He believed that PSE's portrayal is not entirely accurate. PSE's campaign may have
some other motive to get more than they have been getting, and more than the
federal legislative effort is dictating.
Brenner questioned whether his opinion was that the rate increase that
would happen has nothing to do with the 1980 agreement. Anderson stated they
have to recognize everyone's contract with Bonneville expires September 30, 2001.
They are all 20 -year contracts, signed in 1981, after the Power Act. The agreement
that is changing is that Bonneville, under federal law, has to do a rate case at a
minimum of every five years. Their next rate case will affect rates for post -2001.
That rate case determines what the cost of power is for the federal -based system.
There is a big event happening, which is Bonneville starting their rate case. That
actually appears to be the purpose of PSE's campaign, to interfere with the rate
case. Interfering with a rate case is not going to keep the rates down. It's going to
determine how things get allocated.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Hoag stated the information in the packet is not from Puget Sound Energy.
The information addresses preferential treatment for large energy users, and the
majority of the users on the power system are citizens. Yet, the majority of the
credits will be going to the large energy users. They will be taking the credits away
from the citizens. She invited Kathy Larson to respond.
Larson stated she and Anderson have talked about this before. The
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in their rate case for post -2001 are
suggesting and interpreting the law is different than the way the law is written.
Today, residential and small farm customers of investor -owned utilities essentially
get a credit of 15 %. Today, that fully funded BPA amount would be about $112
million. Post -2001, a fully funded BPA exchange credit would be about $164
million. The documents PSE has seen, published by BPA, suggest anywhere from
$26 million to $41 million, which is considerably less. The bottom line is that the
residential and farm customers of investor -owned utilities will be getting less of a
credit.
Anderson stated those facts are PSE's interpretation of the law. The
information he had from Bonneville is that, in the 1996 rate case, they changed the
methodology of calculating the residential exchange program. The anticipated
payments to PSE this year are $36 million. In 2000, it will be $25 million. It is
significantly different than how PSE would prefer that they are calculated, to get to
$160 million. PSE could be right in their interpretation, but they didn't take that to
court in 1996, when the last rate case occurred. They are now raising their
objection. Unless he has incorrect information from Bonneville, they would be
paying to PSE in 2000 about $25 million.
Brown questioned whether the PUD #1 sells power. Anderson stated they do.
Brown questioned whether PUD #1 sells to residential customers. Anderson
stated they only have two customers, including themselves and Tosco. They could
serve a residential load, but have not had any requests from a residential load to
serve them. In the past five years, PSE's rates have risen to the point that people
are beginning to object to them. The first people to object are the large industrial
customers, because it impacts them the most. A lot of residential customers
grumble about their rates, but no one has asked the PUD to do anything about it.
Brenner appreciated Anderson's information, however it seemed as if Puget
Sound Energy and Bonneville Power Administration have an interest in saying
things differently. They need to see the documentation.
Hoag stated rising rates, people's complaints, and PUD's are another issue.
In her experience, she watched what happens when a regulated monopoly is
required to offer a variety of services and pay taxes. A study showed, if the power
companies did not have to pay the taxes that PUD's are able to avoid, then they
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
47
48
could cut their rates by 40 %. It is not a fair comparison. She wanted the public to
be aware there is more going on than what had been stated. Anderson stated he
could provide similar studies that make similar arguments about taxes, that look
the other way.
CONSENT AGENDA
Brown reported for Committee of the Whole, acting as the Finance and
Administrative Services Committee, and stated item #17 was withdrawn for further
review of contract conditions and requirements. It will be rescheduled for the next
meeting. Items #1 through #16, #18, and #21 were all recommended for
approval 5 -0 with Imhof and Nelson absent. Items #19 and #20 were
recommended for approval 4 -1 with Hoag opposed, and Imhof and Nelson absent.
Hoag pulled items #19 and #20.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, asked about item #17.
Brown stated the contract, when it came back, had some further conditions
attached to it. There had not been time for review and discussion on the changes.
That was the reason it was held.
Sutter stated she also requested the scope of work in this project be
compared with the scope of work for the PUD's water rights investigation project,
because the tasks look nearly identical. She wanted to ensure money won't be
spent on overlapping tasks.
Motion to approve items #1 - #16, #18 and #21.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
THREE -YEAR LEASE BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FRIESEN
ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE RENTAL OF WAREHOUSE
SPACE TO STORE ELECTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $11,460 PER YEAR (AB99 -227)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SEAMAR
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, TO PROVIDE OUTREACH SERVICES
FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS WHO MAY BE IN NEED OF DRUG
INTERVENTION AND /OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT, IN THE
FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $52,383 (AB99 -228)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LOCAL
FOCUS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$95,580 (AB99 -229)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
CHILDREN AGES BIRTH TO THREE AND THEIR FAMILIES, IN THE
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $105,984
(AB99 -230)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM
COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES FOR PERSONS NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR
OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $47,676 (AB99 -231)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUAL
SUPPORTED SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS
IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $72,432 (AB99 -232)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CURRENT
INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$174,924 (AB99 -233)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KULSHAN
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUAL
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $127,716 (AB99 -234)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KULSHAN
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR GROUP
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $30,828 (AB99 -235)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $25,704 (AB99 -236)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR GROUP
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $66,060 (AB99 -237)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GENESIS
II TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR INDIGENT AND
LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $44,968 (AB99 -238)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
CHAMBERS & WELLS COUNSELING, INC. TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT FOR INDIGENT AND LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $277,283 (AB99 -239)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $32,594
(AB99 -240)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND VANGARD
NORTHWEST TO PROVIDE FOR PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $34,562
(AB99 -241)
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR) FOR A BATHYMETRIC STUDY
OF LAKE WHATCOM, FOR THE TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTER OF THE
USBR TO PROVIDE STAFF AND EQUIPMENT TO DETERMINE RELATIVE
DEPTHS IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAKE TO ASSIST IN
DETERMINING INSTREAM FLOW, IN THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $69,300, WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19,300 (AB99 -242)
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
TO COMPILE AND ASSESS AVAILABLE HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR WRIA
#1 AS OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK, WRIA #1
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, AND IDENTIFY DATA NEEDED
TO CONSTRUCT A HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE WRIA, AND A
PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE MODEL, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$244,000 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$184,000 (AB99 -243)
18. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999002
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER
CALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR VAN WYCK SHOULDER WIDENING,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,635 (AB99 -244)
19. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 998012
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF
RAINBOW ROAD — KICKERVILLE ROAD TO MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $327,629 (AB99 -245)
Hoag stated there were items in the bidding of this item and the next item
that looked very odd. Also, the amount of item #20 is too high. The answers she
received in committee were not satisfactory in her mind. One of the contracts, in
the engineers estimates, says the County will be paying for raised pavement
markers at an amount of $550 per hundred markers. However, on the other bid
they estimated they would only be $200 per hundred markers. The difference in
quantity was not that great. It was not appropriate, and raised questions about
what is going on with the bidding process. She would not support this item and the
next item.
Dawson stated it was brought out in the discussion that no one presenting
bids sees what the County's estimates are. The County has several engineers that
make estimates. They also have different quantities that affect the price. There
will be differences on set items. The bottom line is that the people who present
their bids do not see the engineer's estimates. The County is obligated to take the
lowest bid.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
47
Brenner stated she shared Hoag's question. The numbers are strange, but
they are taking it as a package, and it is the lowest bid. She questioned the
mileage on the next item, Northwest Road.
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering, stated that project is just over four
miles long. At an average of $250,000 per mile on an overlay, it falls within the
normal estimates. It will be a structural overlay, which is generally more than one
layer of asphalt.
Brenner questioned the mileage of this item, Kickerville Road. Mills stated it
is about �Y4 of a mile.
Brenner stated they are within the same estimate.
Brown moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #19 and #20.
Motion carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
20. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999016
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF
NORTHWEST DRIVE — BELLINGHAM CITY LIMITS TO WEST AXTON
ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,007,175 (AB99 -246)
See above item.
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
66, FOR THE ANNUAL DRY DOCK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF
THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
FOSS MARITIME COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,182 (AB99-
247)
Dawson questioned whether the Council wanted to wait on sending the letter
regarding BPA until after they get the information from Tom Anderson, which was
discussed after the special presentation.
Brenner stated she was comfortable with the letter as it is. She wanted to
know how soon the decision would happen. She appreciated Anderson's comments,
but they should lobby to keep the rates down.
The Council concurred.
Kathy Larson stated the BPA is in the middle of the rate case right now. The
deadline could be anytime this summer.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PACIFIC
FIBER LINK, L.L.C., FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS PURSUANT TO STATE
LAW AND SECTION 9.30 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB99-
204)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated this is a non - exclusive franchise
agreement for a cable television operator. However, this is purely transmission
through the County with no customers in the County. Therefore, the agreement is
classic, as it relates to utilities. It did not resemble the other cable television
franchises. Those relate to those customer service vendors within the community.
This is a transmission line only, and an issue regarding protection of right -of -way
and road.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Gene Welch, 655 Telegraph, Water District #12 Manger, asked about the
location of the line relative to Lake Samish. He would like an inspector on the job
site, which he requested from the company. Previous work in the area caused
disruption damage to other utilities.
Brown questioned whether the County will have an inspector on -site.
Sutter questioned whether this route will be in an area to intercept or disrupt
other utilities. Monsen stated it is not common to have a full -time inspector
watching the work, but only periodically monitoring the progress. They rely heavily
on other utility providers to let the County know that these issues are present, so
they can be there at the critical times. If there are a number of locations that are
of particular concern, then they can require reimbursement for the cost of a full -
time inspector.
Brenner stated the County Council is the authority that allows the franchises
into the County. She questioned what the County does to get the Water District
reimbursed for properly fixing their utilities. Welch stated they have already been
reimbursed for the last incident. That is not the problem now, they want to avoid it
in the future. If that sewer line breaks, then the sewer water goes directly into the
lake.
Brown questioned whether it would be possible to have a list of where the
utilities currently are.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Brown continued to state the County should be reimbursed for having an
inspector on -site at the critical times.
Sutter questioned whether the County knows whether this is anywhere in an
area where it may possibly impact utilities. Monsen stated they will make sure the
permitting conditions will be to insure the contacts are made with the utilities and
that the appropriate marking occurs. The County, from a road standpoint, have
encountered the same kinds of problems in the past as well. That is why there is a
permitting inspector available to be on -site. They will ensure there is clear
coordination with any utility that may be encountered.
Ron Gustafson, Pacific Fiberlink Services, spoke on the good record of the
company. There is a utility service in which all utilities that participate in the
service will come out and mark the roads and look over their shoulders. They are
heading from Seattle to Blaine. There were no problems in Seattle, Redmond, or
Bellevue.
Brenner questioned whether they were comfortable working with Water
District #12. Gustafson stated they will do whatever Public Works tells them to do.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
(Clerk's Note: There was no motion to adopt.)
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
2. PETITION FOR THE FORMATION OF THE EVERGREEN WATER -SEWER
DISTRICT (AB99 -201)
Dawson stated the Auditor has verified the petition has the qualified number
of signatures. She opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Rolf Beckhusen, 2014 Iron Street, Bellingham, stated he is the attorney who
helped residents with this petition. 1,600 - 1,700 hook ups are probable. It is a
petition to help administer the existing water system, in place of the Paradise Lakes
Country Club. Over the last five months, 1,300 of the original 1,600 members of
the Country Club have withdrawn. What are left are three subdivisions. The other
1,300 withdrew in part due to problems regarding the mishandling of their money.
The situation now is there are 300 people left in the Country Club who are in a
position to call the shots for the other 1,300. They are looking for a government
agency in which people can have a vote and public accountability. There are other
water districts in the area, whom they have consulted. This is the best solution.
One problem is who would own the water system. This is an entirely new system.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
46
Hoag asked about the process. Beckhusen explained there are two ways to
create a district. One is by a Council resolution, based upon a health necessity or
safety issue. The second is to put it on the ballot for voter approval, and then duly
elected commissioners. This action would put it on the ballot. There may have to
be a second public hearing.
Brenner questioned why there would have to be a second public hearing.
Beckhusen stated the statute regulates the procedure.
Dave Rorey, 817 Erin Drive, Lynden, Paradise Lakes County Club General
Manager, stated most of the people in the area reside in motor homes or are
campers. These people are mostly Canadian, and don't want to run a water
company. They want to come down for recreational purposes. The water system
will become a water district or a utility regulated by the UTC. They would like to
have a decision as soon as possible, so they can go forward and operate. The
group that is now Paradise Lakes Country Club will be more than willing to discuss
any aspect of this with the group, should a water district be set up.
Brenner questioned whether there would be anything to prevent them from
negotiating with the district to be the purveyor. Rorey stated he understands the
Country Club owns the water system.
Beckhusen disagreed.
Rorey stated everyone realizes the last thing they want to do is spend a lot of
time in court. They would just as soon resolve this.
Moren Aldspagh, 8333 Beaver Court, Paradise Forest Estates, stated the
Paradise Forest Estates is no longer, and had separated from the Paradise Club.
The residents don't feel comfortable with the temporary residents running the water
system. They want a permanent water system run by the County. Residents total
about 1,300.
Joe Shearer, 6238 Limerick Way, Paradise, said the 1,300 residents withdrew
the covenants. Legally they may still be members. The members have been
assessed several million dollars for the water system and fire hydrants. He
questioned whether the water system should just be given to the County. The
residents have also been approached to sell the system. If they are going to form a
new water district, then there are lines available to hook to Water District #13. He
was told by the County Auditor several years ago there would be no more water
districts, and they would have to hook to Water District #13.
Shorty Bjornsted, 8510 Cimmaron Way, Paradise, felt this is a step in the
evolution of the neighborhood. He would like to see this be put on the ballot, so
they have the right to vote on this as it accepts them.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Barbara Schultz, 7897 Santa Fe Trail, Paradise, stated a lot of money has
been put into the system. She wanted to protect the system. She supported
establishing the district and putting the issue on the ballot.
Gordon Travis, 6277 -81 Lariat Place, Paradise, stated the money paid to
Paradise had been mismanaged.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN
COUNTY ROADS (AB99 -214)
Jeff Monsen, Director of Public Works, gave a staff report and stated the
request was received from citizens to reduce speed limits. He believed the request
was for the reduction to go to 25 miles per hour. A number of years ago, the
county -wide speed limit was 35 mph if there was not a speed limit sign. At that
time, they drove the entire arterial system to establish which roads should have
speed limits higher than 35 mph. At that time, Laurel was determined to be
appropriate for a 40 -mph speed limit. Based on reconsideration of that location,
and to be consistent with speed limits in that area, they recommend that 35 mph
be an appropriate speed on this road.
Brown questioned what specifically changed in the area. Monsen stated the
area has continued to develop. There is more traffic in the area. It is evolving
more and more into residential traffic. The 40 -mph speed limit now is an unusual
limit for that area.
Brenner stated it would be good if they could start standardizing the speed
limits. In the same area, there is another road, W. Smith Road, which is exactly
like Laurel with just as many houses.
Hoag stated there is confusion about the speed limit between a 35 mph
"unless otherwise posted" sign and a 50 mph sign. On Halverstick Road, there is a
hill that should have signage warning people of a dangerous area and that the
speed limit should be 35 mph.
Monsen stated he would look into Hoag's and Brenner's concerns.
Brenner questioned whether there has to be a sign noting the 35 mph
unless otherwise posted" when crossing from a city limit into the County. Monsen
stated those signs were put in as an alternative to putting a speed limit sign on
every road. Until they put a sign on every road, there has to be those "unless
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
otherwise posted" signs to enforce the speeds. There is no law requiring those
signs be posted at the city limits. It is a matter of legal enforcement for the
Sheriff's deputies.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Hoag asked if people residing on the road have been notified. Monsen said
this request came forward due to a request by citizens. He was unaware of the
notification given specifically to the residents.
Dawson stated that notification is normally through a legal notice in the
newspaper. The County doesn't send out letters.
Brenner stated she had received complaints on that part of the road. There
are many kids, and not much of a shoulder.
Hoag stated she supported it, but it was important that people know it will be
changed. The County may need to change the policy to notify residents of a
potential change in speed limit. Monsen stated that in a lot of situations, they
physically post a notice in the vicinity, but didn't know if that occurs on a speed
limit change. It is possible they could post a notice in the area as a policy. Also, if
it comes forward in the form of a petition, they are in contact with the petitioners.
Brenner stated she would rather post a notice in the area.
Monsen stated they can provide more notice. However, the bottom line of
how they decide to make the adjustment is based on technical analysis and not
necessarily the wishes of the community, although they take that into account.
Hoag stated that at times the community has the technical information to
provide regarding safety.
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
4. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY RESULTS AND FUTURE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROGRAMS (AB99 -216)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Division
Manager, gave a staff report and explained the County received a community
development block grant in 1996 to do a study of affordable housing demand and
supply. The County contracted with Paul Schissler and Associates, who worked
with the Whatcom County Housing Authority and the Opportunity Council. The
Housing Authority contracted with William T. Follis Realtors to do the market
analysis of that study. It is complete. Copies of the summary will be available for
the public in several different locations.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
46
Dee Stall, Real Estate Appraiser and consultant for William T. Follis Real
Estate gave a presentation. See handout "Summary of Trends in Affordable
Housing in Whatcom County Exclusive of the City of Bellingham." The goals of the
study were threefold. 1. provide an inventory of affordable housing and baseline
for continued monitoring of the affordable housing market, 2. determine the supply
of affordable housing, and 3. to assess the demand for affordable housing. The
study was divided into seven geographic areas. Four types of housing were
considered as affordable. To address the three goals for each type of housing, they
obtained data from a variety of sources. Additionally, a rent survey was performed
on all multi - family or apartment units with four or more dwelling units, totaling over
2,000 apartments. Included is additional rental data for 1994 through 1996. The
second set of data was derived from the public record of all sales in Whatcom
County from 1995 through 1997. The analysis of all properties within the
parameters constituted the three -year demand for affordable housing. The third
data set was obtained from the multiple listing bureau. They used the historic data
of all agency listed sold properties. Lastly, the supply of affordable housing was
developed using agency - listed properties in the multiple listing bureau. The
estimated total supply of each property was then compared to the historic demand
for each property in each geographic area. The single - family data involved over
12,000 properties that they analyzed. Within the Interstate Five corridor, the
supply slightly exceeds the demand for single - family homes. The multi - family
market has an overall vacancy rate of 7.8 %. The condominium supply and
manufactured housing supply exceeds demand as well. In the central County, the
demand the for single - family homes exceeds the supply. The vacancy rate for
multi - family housing in that area is 2.1 %. The condominium supply exceeds the
demand. In the east central County, the single - family supply exceeds the demand,
the multi - family vacancy rate is 6.1 %. There was insufficient date to analyze
condominiums. The manufactured housing supply exceeds demand. In the east
County, the single - family and condominium supplies exceed demand. There are no
multi - family units. In the south County, there is a shortage of single - family homes
and there is insufficient data to analyze multi - family, condominium, or
manufactured housing. In Sudden Valley, the single - family homes demand exceeds
the supply. There is no multi - family housing, and the condominium supply exceeds
the demand. Countywide, the demand for manufactured homes on leased lands
exceeds the supply. Many seniors consider this type of housing affordable, and
there is a definite shortage countywide.
John Harman, Whatcom County Housing Authority Executive Director, stated
the rental survey is a continuation of a project the Housing Authority has been
doing for quite a number of years. They've been contracting with Follis Realty to do
a rental survey when they contemplate new development efforts. The study was
expanded greatly to include single - family homes, condos, and manufactured
housing. Manufactured housing is an important resource for this County. There are
high - quality ways to do it. They are going to see increasing pressure on mobile
home parks to go to a higher and better use, which will generate more revenue. If
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, Page 15
I Whatcom County begins seeing park closures, there will be significant relocation
2 problems for people. Regarding single - family homes, the major provider of
3 affordable home ownership is Whatcom County Self -Help Homes. The Housing
4 Authority has attempted to get grants through the State to do such programs, but
5 have been unsuccessful in their applications. It takes a significant amount of
6 subsidy to bring a very low- income person into home ownership. In the Ferndale
7 market, there is a slight over - supply, but the demand will catch up. In north
8 Bellingham and central County, there is a need for more supply. The east central
9 County has an over - supply. In the east County, there is also an over - supply. Many
10 people have located to this area because of inexpensive housing. There is a
11 shortage of jobs and services in that area. They don't feel there should be any
12 encouragement of affordable housing development in that area because of the
13 shortage of jobs. In the south County and Sudden Valley, because of the
14 moratorium on water and sewer, there is a shortage. Because of all the
15 environmental constraints, they don't see that as a likely place for more affordable
16 housing at this time. Regarding multi - family housing, there is a higher vacancy
17 rate overall in the Interstate 5 (I -5) corridor. There isn't any need for a supply
18 right now. They've watched the vacancy rate significantly shrink from 1994 to
19 1998 in the central County. There is a need for a supply in the central County. The
20 east central County is in balance. Regarding condominiums, he summarized by
21 saying that overall, there doesn't seem to be any more needed. The Condo market
22 has been weak in areas outside of Bellingham.
23
24 Dawson questioned what is pushing the mobile home park closures in the
25 Seattle area. Harman stated that it was the land values. Selling the land for
26 apartments or industrial use gives a higher return.
27
28 Brown stated there was a comparison study of manufactured homes on both
29 leased and owned land. Yet, the same upper end value was given for both. It
30 would seem that if a person who owned the property would have more value. The
31 investment is considerably different. He questioned how that end result was
32 determined. Harman stated when they designed the study originally, they picked
33 $110,000 as the top end of housing they considered to be affordable for the market
34 they were targeting, which was below 80% of median income. It is now at about
35 $40,000 for a family of four. These numbers are established by the Department of
36 Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The difference is in the low end. They
37 had $20,000 for the leased parks and $50,000 for those on fee simple land. The
38 reason is that the land and improvements had value, which add to the basic
39 dwelling. They tried to ferret out dwellings that were so substandard they basically
40 had no value. They tried to establish a dollar value of the assessment, rather than
41 do a physical inspection of all the dwellings. He clarified that the definition of
42 affordability does not apply to people who are at the bottom of the economic run.
43
44 Brenner stated that the report's reference to the North Bellingham area is
45 misleading. Also, she questioned what income is 80% of the median. Harman
46 stated that, for a family of four, median income is approximately $46,000.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Brenner questioned whether a family earning $38,000 can afford a $101,000
home. Harman stated that, with the current interest rates, it is possible.
Brenner stated she received information that addressed incomes and
affordability. According to her information, someone with an income in that range
would not be able to afford a home of that price. Harman stated it depends upon a
person's overall debt ratio.
Brenner stated that she wanted to see any information that showed a family
of four on $38,000 could afford that price of a home. Harman stated they checked
with lenders when designing the program. There used to be an old ration of 2 Yz
times one's annual income. It also fluctuates with the interest rates.
Hoag questioned the difference between market and non - market units in
multi - family housing. Harman stated that market units are ones constructed purely
with private capital, with no government regulations or strings. Non - market units
are those that have some sort of government subsidy involved, such as direct
subsidies through the federal government. Those are things that are not strictly
controlled by the market. Many of the non - market developments are privately
owned. Tax credits, a major source of non - market fund, are available to the
private sector. They are used more by the private sector than the non - profit or the
public sectors.
Hoag requested clarification on "rental level" of a unit. Harman stated they
meant the amount of the rent.
Hoag questioned whether the amount of the rent was used for determining
the affordability. Harman stated that most of the rental market is geared to some
degree of affordability. If one looks at the rental market as a whole, not much of it
is at the top end. They averaged rents out. In this marketplace, meaningful rental
averages give a good feel for what the market is like.
Hoag stated that she is from the central County. What she saw in the report
doesn't match what she experiences. She questioned whether it was possible to
determine if sales are occurring where there is not actually demand, due to a lack
of availability in another area. For instance, people locating in Lynden are not from
there or do not work there. They are locating in Lynden because the demand was
not being met in Bellingham. When she ran for office, she was amazed how many
vacant rental units there are in Lynden, yet people are still building more. She was
surprised the report says there is an unmet demand in Lynden. She also
questioned why some complexes were not included in the survey. Stall stated that
she had been doing the rent survey for the Housing Authority since 1993. When
they started, they only surveyed complexes with six or more units. She soon
realized that a lot of the fourplexes in Lynden were owned by the same people.
Therefore, if one person owned 4 fourplexes, then they became a 16 -unit project,
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
46
and they became included in the surveys. During this last survey, they decided to
include all fourplexes. There are multi - family projects, duplexes, and triplexes that
have not been counted.
Hoag stated that she was not talking about duplexes and triplexes. Stall
stated that is what multi - family housing is.
Hoag stated there are large vacancies in the Lynden area. That isn't what
the report reflects. She wondered why there is a discrepancy. Stall stated the last
survey was completed at the end of 1998. At that time, the vacancy rate for
market rent units in the central County area was 2.6 %. In 1996, it reached a high
of 8.1%.
Hoag stated that the 2.6% doesn't match what she had seen. Stall stated
that she called every single complex. She offered to show her data collection
information.
Hoag stated if there are units available for sale in one area, and a demand
not being met in another area, then people are going to move to the area with units
available. That will make it look as if there is a demand for an area where there
really isn't a demand. That is what she had seen in Lynden. There is a flaw in logic
to say that the demand is based on the sales. Stall stated that she didn't know how
else to measure demand.
Hoag stated that there has to be a different way. If the report is based on
sales, and units are not available for sale, which means the demand is not met,
then it will not show up in the data.
Harman stated that the classical way to measure demand is based on rental
occupancy or actual sales. Everything else is just conjecture.
Brenner questioned whether there is a shortage of affordable housing in
Bellingham. Stall stated she hadn't completed the single - family study for
Bellingham. She completed the multi - family, condominium, and manufactured
homes. They are not commenting on Bellingham during this report.
Hoag stated the logic of sales relating to demand is faulty logic. Wherever
the sales are taking place is where the units are available to be sold. In terms of
vacancies, that logic is legitimate. If something is built, available, and is not
rented, then the demand is not there. Basing demand on sales doesn't work.
People may be moving to an area because the demand is not being met in the area
they were in.
Brenner stated that someone may just want to get out of town.
Stall stated that she didn't know how one would measure demand that way.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Dawson questioned Hoag about whether she had any suggestions on
measuring demand.
Hoag stated if they don't know how to measure the demand, then they
should say that. Stall stated she believed they can establish it.
Hoag stated Stall was saying they can establish demand, however she
believed it was with faulty logic. Stall stated most people would not choose to
make their greatest financial investment in a place they didn't want to live, based
on the fact they couldn't get something they did want to live in. Most people come
into a real estate office and talk to an agent, who asks them right off where they
want to live. They then look at houses in that area. They don't ask them how
much they want to spend and find houses to match that level.
Hoag stated they are talking about two different things. In her mind, the
demand for affordable housing in an area is in terms of people who live in the area
that are trying to find affordable homes. She said Stall referred to where someone
would like to live if they had a choice.
Brown stated Hoag may be drawing the wrong conclusion that people want to
live in Lynden and not in Bellingham. Some people think the cost of living in
Bellingham is too high, like the lifestyle in Lynden, and they are trying to find
places in Lynden to live, while still working in Bellingham. There are many reasons
for moving to a different location.
Hoag stated they can't establish demand based on their logic. She had a
problem with a flawed study.
Brown suggested she not accept it.
Brenner stated demand is demand. If there are people buying in an area to
the point there is more demand than supply, then it is a high demand area. People
won't buy somewhere the demand is higher than the supply. This works its way
out.
Hoag stated it doesn't. She brought it up because, wherever the units are
built, that's where people will buy them. That is the driving force. It isn't about
where the demand in the community is. If one builds a bunch of affordable units in
a particular area, then that is where people who need affordable housing will go.
Harman stated that wasn't necessarily so. Some developers go broke doing that.
That's why they do market surveys and is the entire purpose of this exercise. They
are trying to figure out where the demand is, so they can appropriate locate
housing in areas where the market has too much supply.
Hoag stated that was backwards.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Harman stated, if an area has too much supply, then they don't want to
introduce more supply in the marketplace. That is their whole purpose.
Brenner questioned whether the hassles with the Lake Whatcom watershed
are a major factor in the shortage of housing in the area. Stall stated the land
values in the watershed are increasing as well.
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Jack Petrie, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, encouraged the Council to look this
over carefully as it related to growth management. Brenner's comments were
appropriate. For instance, in electronics manufacturing, the top end wage in this
County is only about $10 per hour. The much - touted phone center that is coming
to Bellingham pays only $8 per hour. That tends to also be the range for the
industrial jobs the County is getting. His opinion is that the County discourages the
higher -wage jobs. The Council needs to look at the report and figure out the
implications. There is a serious situation in Bellingham in which there is a badly
constricted land supply. Policies are resulting in high land costs in Bellingham,
forcing development in other locations. His son moved to Nooksack because it was
more affordable. Part of the Council's duty is to insure an adequate land supply in
the Urban Growth Areas. If it isn't in the Urban Growth Areas, then people are
forced to go outside the Urban Growth Areas and put up a mobile home.
Sarnia Clumpner, Lummi Island, appreciated the study. She works with
people on Lummi Island about affordable housing. She encouraged everyone to
look at the report as a first step, go into more depth in the future, and look at
specific instances in Lynden and on Lummi Island. She hoped for more studies in
the future.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to accept the study. She questioned the differences in the
prices between 1996 and 1997. Stall stated there was an error in that location.
She would recheck that number.
Hoag expressed a need for affordable housing but she felt the study is
flawed. Her family owns low- income rental housing. They used to get hundreds of
calls on one of her vacancies. Now, they don't get many calls at all. Statistics in
the County don't match what she has seen in the County. She couldn't support the
study.
Brenner supported the study. There are pieces missing, however. Stall
stated the study was broken down into different municipalities. They separated out
Lummi Island, the reservation, and as many different small, geographic areas they
could, within the larger geographic areas.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
Motion to approve the study carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
OTHER ITEMS
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
TRAVEL AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022I)
Brown stated there was a request for mileage to Olympia.
Sutter stated she submitted another claim this morning. The first one was
for mileage for $66.65. The second item was a request for mileage in the amount
of $96.10 and hotel accommodation in the amount of $109.82. The total would be
$272.57.
Brown stated the unanimous recommendation from Committee of the Whole
was for approval.
Motion carried 4 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB99 -
221)
Brown stated this item came forward with a 5 -0 recommendation for
approval, with the following change to the Budget Modification Request in the
amount of $168,000, "Conservation FutuFes General Fund." The motion during
Committee of the Whole was to change the funding mechanism from the
undedicated ending fund balance to the undedicated ending fund balance from the
Conservation Futures Fund.
Hoag stated that this is for the transfer of monies for the "Pit ".
Sutter moved to amend the ordinance, "Censervatien Futures General Fund."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brown moved to adopt the ordinance as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ANNUAL REVIEW OF WHATCOM COUNTY FERRY RATES, AS
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 89 -103 (AB99 -226)
Brown reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
47
48
Motion carried 5 -0.
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services Committee and
stated that this item was held in committee for further work.
S. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE
TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB99 -210)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services Committee and
stated they received eight applications, with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to approve seven of them. One is to be held by the Planning
Commission for further information from the applicant.
Goodwin stated that all of the applications were held in committee. She
would bring forward more information for the next meeting.
Sutter stated the requirements placed on the County through the Growth
Management Act (GMA) bring up questions regarding Open Space. For example,
they questioned why commercial forest is allowed as an open space designation.
Some of the incentives created in the past no longer seem to be applicable. They
would like some changes made to regulations at the State level.
Sutter moved to request approval to draft a letter to the State to ask
questions regarding Open Space.
Dawson stated the letter could be sent upon approval of four of the Council
Members.
The Council concurred.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.42, TO ALLOW MEETING FACILITIES FOR
NATURAL RESOURCE -BASED EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES; AND
RELATED USES INCLUDING RENTAL CABINS OR OTHER LODGING
STRUCTURES, COOKING AND DINING FACILITIES, RETAIL SALES OF
MEETING SUPPLIES AND GIFTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE, IN THE
FOOTHILLS SUBAREA, SOUTH FORK VALLEY SUBAREA, THE
NEWHALEM EXCLAVE AND THE BAKER LAKE EXCLAVE (AB99 -215)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services Committee and
moved approval. The Planning Commission made a few changes to this item, but
not many.
Motion to adopt carried 5 -0.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT DR.
BRENT HOEKEMA TO SERVE ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY AMERICAN'S
WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE FOR HIS
SECOND THREE -YEAR TERM, ENDING MAY 31, 2002 (AB99 -249)
Dawson moved approval.
Motion carried 5 -0.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Sutter moved to add the ordinance adopting amendments to the
Whatcom County Title 20 zoning text and map (AB99 -184), specifically
relating to the Gateway Industrial item.
The Council concurred.
Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER, TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT (AB99 -191)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, TO
PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF A RURAL
COUNTY SALES AND USE TAX (AB99 -250)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dawson announced a meeting on July 14 regarding the State Department of
Ecology's hearing on shoreline changes. It will be in Bellingham.
Sutter stated she attended the Government Council on Natural Resources
Committee and also the American Water Resources Association meeting. There are
amazingly bad ideas out there regarding salmon and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
issues. Also, the County Council does not have to approve the proposed zoning
amendments to the Planning Commission's docket. However, if they want to add
anything to it, the deadline is June 30. There are items she would like to add, with
the Council's concurrence.
Goodwin stated that all of the items are suggested amendments. She did not
recommend initiating all of them because it would be more work than they could do
in one year.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, Page 23
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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Goodwin says that the procedure is that the Planning staff will look at the list
of suggested amendments by citizens. All of the Council- docketed items will be
considered. She requested any input by Council members on the citizen - suggested
items. Otherwise, they will look at the staff - suggested items and prioritize them.
Sutter stated she wanted to include cottage industry, home occupations,
rezone criteria, and average lot size. She would like to create a list for Planning
staff. Other items to be docketed should include clustering, road standards, older
mobile homes, motorhomes and RVs, the Pellaboer issue. Goodwin stated that the
Pellaboer issue is a citizen - suggested amendment. Unless there is Council
direction, she didn't recommend it be initiated.
Sutter stated she also wanted to docket non -road impervious surface
standards, specifically the use of alternative methods. In addition, she wanted to
docket a review of the County's open space criteria and the issue of on -site
stormwater detention standards.
Hoag questioned whether the Hearings Board would frown on other types of
incentives for clustering.
Sutter stated it depends on what the incentives are.
Goodwin stated the clustering is an acceptable and encouraged practice. The
density is the issue. As long as there is the same rural density, then it is allowed.
Sutter stated it is more expensive to do that kind of development.
Hoag distributed a copy of a letter to Christa Colouzis, State Department of
Ecology Hazardous Waste Toxic Reduction, regarding Drayton Harbor Shellfish
Protection District. She asked for approval to send the letter.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated she also had a discussion about a farmer who was tilling his field
and hit an oil pipeline that was only 10 inches deep. She wanted this issue
addressed one of the Council committees. They need to ensure the pipelines are
being adequately monitored. She suggested the different pipeline company
representatives, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and Federal
pipeline safety administration organization.
Brenner stated she wanted an update from County staff to begin with. She
also expressed concerns about the pipeline, and they first need an update on what
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, 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
the County's jurisdiction and authority are. She wanted to see a map of all gas and
oil pipelines in the County.
Hoag stated she would draft a letter requesting information on monitoring
and requesting them to come to committee to answer questions.
Brown concurred with Brenner that the committee should first found out
what the County's jurisdiction is, before talking to oil and gas company
representatives. The County's Emergency Management people should have a map.
Brenner questioned whether the County has any authority over the gas lines.
Knapp stated there is land use jurisdiction, but is related to the conditional use
permit process. The County has no jurisdiction if it already exists. Olympic Pipeline
gas pipes have existed since the 1950's. If they relocate the pipeline, it would
trigger a conditional use permit process.
Brenner stated they should be able to have some jurisdiction, due to the
health and safety of the public. It is a legal issue.
Hoag stated she referred to monitoring. Even if the County doesn't have
jurisdiction, she would like the monitoring questions answered on behalf of her
constituents.
Dawson suggested Hoag draft a letter to the representative of the various
companies requesting answers to the Council's monitoring questions, either in
writing or at a meeting.
Brenner stated she would schedule an update from Neil Clement, Whatcom
County Sheriff Emergency Management, in Public Works Committee in two weeks.
Knapp stated he will give an update on the conditions imposed during the
conditional use permitting process.
Brenner stated the idea regarding co- occurring substance abuse and mental
health disorders is a good one, but hasn't been happening. The biggest hurdle is to
get substance abuse prevention people to be able to view a mentally ill client
differently than a client who is not mentally ill.
Brown addressed employees at Olympic Pipeline taking the Fifth Amendment.
It was not a reflection on the company.
Brenner stated she read the employees were told to take the Fifth
Amendment.
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on August 10 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 6/29/99, Page 26