HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works April 6 19992
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
April 6, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Ward Nelson None
Tom Brown
Brenner announced that item #2 was pulled from the agenda and will be scheduled at the
next committee meeting. In addition, they would first discuss the addendum item regarding
KVOS -TV.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
FOLLOW -UP DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPLAINT FILED BY CITIZEN
DICKINSON (AB98 -180)
Brenner stated that she has a recommendation that the County work with the Public
Works Department to come up with the funds, which would be less than $10,000, to complete
the road, like the County has done on the Van Wyck Road and other roads.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that, as a County attorney, he
recommended that talk of a settlement and the expenditure of County funds, in relation to a
particular matter, be discussed with administration before it is discussed publicly.
Brenner questioned whether there was something pending legally. Gibson stated that
discussion of the County's interest in dispensing with public funds on matters that should have
been aired in private is not appropriate. This is not the place to discuss the settlement of disputes
when it comes to matters of money.
Nelson stated that Gibson was giving advice as the attorney. Brenner could take it or
leave it.
Gibson stated that if the County is prepared to give away money, people don't need to
bring suits.
Brenner stated that it was not called giving away money on the Van Wyck Road issue. If
there is a possibility that the County erred, then she is willing to have further discussion with the
administration. The County has sat on this issue for over a year. She would like to bring a
recommendation forward to send to the administration.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
50
Gibson stated, for the record, that the attorney for the County has advised Brenner
repeatedly that the County's actions in this matter were within the law and that there is no
liability that applies.
Brenner stated that she is not talking about liability. Liability was not the issue when
they dealt with the Van Wyck Road. They were talking about getting a situation resolved.
Nelson stated that his concern was that they are dealing with public money. There are a
lot of roads that need work from previous planning efforts and gravel roads are sitting all over
the County where lots have been divided 30 years ago and are right -of -ways. If the County
begins to pay for all of these types of cases, then there will be a lot of people at the County
wanting money to improve their road. It will set a precedent. They have to establish rules and
guidelines about how public monies are expended.
Brenner stated that they did that with the Van Wyck Road. It was a unique situation.
Dawson questioned whether this is a unique situation.
Brenner stated that she believed it is. She wanted to send something forward to the
administration. She did not want to just leave this floating.
Brown stated that he is not in favor of expending any County funds on this matter. It was
a long, complicated process, but from the information he received, he can't support spending
County funds.
Hoag asked if it would be appropriate to schedule it in executive session to discuss the
item.
Dawson felt that this is not a unique situation. This is the way plats have been addressed
in the past.
Nelson stated that they would have to change the ordinance on how plats are addressed in
general. They don't deal with them individually.
Brenner stated that the law is just fine. The application of the law is where there may
have been a problem. Whenever they do an ordinance, there is always something in it that is
unclear to someone. People get caught in the loopholes.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that staff is prepared to discuss how the
process worked in this situation.
Roland Middleton, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Land Use
Division Manager, stated that there was discussion about the three -lot short plat. Originally,
when the development standards were brought out in 1984, the interpretation at that time was
that a short plat road was built to the very last lot. In this case, it would have been all the way to
lot three, which is the Dickinson's property. It comes off Legoe Bay Road, through lots one,
two, and three. At the time, when the Dickinson's came in, they were in a court battle amongst
themselves. The owners of the short plat were in court with regard to the road and other issues.
At that time, there was a debate amongst the Building Industry Association on the fact that the
development standards did not require a road to go to the last lot. The County was requiring it in
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
50
error. This was in 1991. He believed that, at the time, the Dickinson's were the victims of really
bad timing. Normally this would not be an issue, except that their court case was based on one
interpretation of the standards, while at the same time the County became `enlightened' and
changed their interpretation. At the time, the judge ordered that the road be built to certain
standards.
Colleen Dickinson clarified that their lot was lot one, not lot three. Lot three is closest to
the road, then lot two and lot one.
Middleton continued to state that the original requirements, when the short plat came in
either in 1984 or 1987, were to bring in the road and put the turnaround at the Dickinson's
property. That is what the County originally told them. However, by the time the actual
construction was moving forward. The contractor, who happens to be Mr. Blampied, one of the
lot owners and a parry to the court dispute, was told that the turnaround did not have to put the
turnaround at the Dickinson property, between lots one and two. The County requirements were
to put the turnaround at the boundary of lots two and three.
Brenner questioned who gave Blampied that information. Middleton responded that it
was either himself or Lee Carter, whoever was doing the road inspections at that time.
Brenner re- stated the scenario and stated that, when the Dickinson's came in, they were
told by the County that the road had to be all the way. When Blampied came in, he was told by
the County that the road had to go to the other location. Middleton stated that was incorrect. He
didn't know that the Dickinson's ever came in. Mr. Blampied came in to apply for the short plat.
He, and everyone subsequently, was told that they have to build to the boundary between lots
two and three.
Brenner re- stated the scenario again and stated that it was the Dickinson's understanding,
when they first entered into their negotiation, that the County regulations required the road be
built to lot one. Middleton stated that was his understanding.
Waring stated that it was the individuals involved in this short plat, who were Robert
Dickinson and Mr. Blampied.
Nelson stated that this was designated for a short plat. When the short plat took place,
the same people were involved. The short plat was brought forward and was told that the area
for the road would be to the boundary of lots two and three. The Dickinson's then challenged
the short plat in court.
David Dickinson, 4100 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated that was incorrect. The
short plat was originally challenged because the contract drawn up by the original owner called
for three people buying it. Once an individual paid their portion off, he would give a deed, with
no plat necessary. This was contested by the other parties who demanded that it be platted. It
was platted on a court action. The court action stated that the road be built to lot one.
Nelson questioned whether it specifically stated that the road be built to lot one.
Dickinson stated that it did. A week or two after the court hearing, there was a meeting of the
technical committee, in which Mr. Middleton was in attendance, to draw up the technical
committee review for the plat. Two days after that meeting, came the operative document of
everything that was needed to be done to satisfy County regulations on this plat, including a
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
50
gravel road to short plat standards to lot one. Out of this document came the bids to build the
road to lot one. The reason they were back in court with Lee Carter was because Blampied, who
was the contractor and who did the bid, tacked on an addendum to the bid for his own personal
supervision. They didn't go into court to argue the cost of the road because their bid was
cheaper than the others and there was still work going on.
Colleen Dickinson, 4100 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated that her problem is that
they contested the cost of the road because it was apparent it would not be finished. They
assumed the work would continue on. Carter, at the time, said that the County did not have a
standard for a single driveway. There is a standard because it says a surface must be designated
to hold imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall have an all- weather driving surface. This was
not to be a driveway, it was to be a road for a plat. Because of Carter's testimony in court, she
even had to pay Blampied's supervisory fees. There are standards and they are not
interpretations.
Middleton stated that he understood their pain and appreciates what has been done to
them. However, there are no standards under Public Works, the Development Standards, for a
driveway. The driveway standards that Colleen Dickinson referred to are from the Uniform Fire
Code that was adopted since then. The reason the County adopted those standards is because
they had the interpretation that they did not have development standards for a driveway. They
did then adopt the Uniform Fire Code after that so that they would have driveway standards.
Brenner stated that this is a unique situation.
Middleton stated that, at the technical review committee, the attorney's for both sides
were there. He did not recall ever seeing a judgement of the case. All they have the authority to
do is inspect under the Development Standards. If the judge requires the contractor to build it
above the standards, that is up to them. He will not inspect that.
Nelson questioned whether the judge required the County ensure the road was built to lot
one. Dickinson stated that the judge required the County ensure that it be done. It is specified in
the technical review with all of the other requirements necessary for that plat.
Wareing stated that the court has to put their judgements into an order, or else it is
meaningless. There has to be a court order for the County to follow that order.
Nelson questioned whether there was anything that the court ordered.
Wareing stated that he has been working on trying to find documentation of a court order.
The administration agreed to look at this because of the accusation that the County did
something inappropriately. That is why he is willing to continue to look at this situation. With
this situation, there was an allegation of misconduct on the part of Lee Carter. There is no
indication of that. That allegation has been proven incorrect. They need to hear the rest of
Middleton's presentation in whole before they start questioning the Dickinson's. The last
meeting gave the Dickinson's more than enough opportunity to present their arguments. They
ran out of time for the staff to give their presentation.
Middleton stated again that he didn't fault their issues. He was only trying to explain that
the County Development Standards require that the road be constructed up to, but not including,
the last lot. The four corner short plat came in July 1991, right after the Dickinson's technical
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
49
review. The Public Works Department is only responsible for the front portion. Every
subsequent short plat has been done that way.
Brenner stated that she agreed with Middleton. The Dickinson's were caught in a change
of interpretation.
Middleton stated that he wanted to ask Mr. Raas (attorney for David and Colleen
Dickinson) why he didn't follow up with these questions with Mr. Carter during the court
hearing. Carter repeatedly has been accused of perjury, which is not the case.
Brenner stated that she didn't want to deal with that. That is not the issue.
Wareing stated that the issue is whether or not there was anything done incorrectly on the
County's part. He has not seen any evidence that the County has done anything incorrectly. If
the County did not do anything wrong, then the County has no way of paying any one for
anything.
Brenner questioned whether the County had liability on the Van Wyck Road. Wareing
stated that the County deemed the County had liability. It was a different circumstance. If he
found the same thing in the Dickinson case that he found in the Van Wyck case, then he would
be just as happy to deal with that. They are working with the Dickinson's but they don't have
any indication of what the court intended.
Brenner stated that her concern was not the court thing. When they first came in and
platted it, the understanding from the County was that the road had to go to lot one. If she told
somebody something as a business owner, she would take care of it. This is not about liability.
It is about a mistaken understanding on the part of the County.
Middleton stated that short plats started coming in with subdivision regulations in 1972.
Some of those short plats still exist. They came in for application. They don't sunset. However,
as the law changes, they have to meet those changes. If they came in during 1972, they wouldn't
be required to do a road except what Dick Prieve and Ed Henken thought of in 1973. However,
if they come in today, they will have to bring up the road to current standards because the short
plat is not approved until it is filed for record. The notice of provisional approval is at the day,
the moment it is given. It is not something that can be held for years and years.
Brown questioned when the original short plat was filed. Wareing responded that the
original was filed in 1984.
Middleton stated that it was re -upped in 1987, and re -upped again in 1991. It was finally
filed in 1992.
Brown stated that 1992 is the key date. In this case, the regulations relaxed, which is
unusual.
Brenner re- stated the scenario in that, even though the Dickinson's were told something
originally when the final plat was filed, everyone knew about the change. Middleton stated that
the applicants were aware of the change.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
David Dickinson commented that the file on the plat has the last document with the
requirements, which were the ones that called for the road, out of which came the bids and their
payments. There is not notice that those regulations were ever changed. Looking at the road
ordinances, they read the same today as the ones in 1991.
here.
Nelson stated that there is still the issue of the court order.
Wareing stated that, absent additional information, the County doesn't have a liability
Brenner stated that it is not a liability issue for her. It was a responsibility issue.
Wareing stated that liability means that the County has done something that it shouldn't
and should pony up some money. In this situation, the County can't provide money or resources
to fix something that is not the County's fault. That is the administration's decision. If the court
order is specific, then the County can go assist the Dickinson's to go to Mr. Blampied and make
him do what he was supposed to do.
Wareing stated that the issue the court dealt with was the issue between the people
dealing with the short plat. The question was whether the road met the County standard. At that
time, it met the standard. The County does not have any other recourse.
Hoag stated that the County changed the regulations. She wouldn't so easily dismiss the
County's actions.
Brenner stated that this should be scheduled in Committee of the Whole.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DRAFTING OF A LETTER REQUESTING
FEDERAL AND STATE RESPECT OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS (AB99 -111)
This item was postponed.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSAL TO ALLOW GOLF CARTS ON BIRCH
BAY DRIVE (AB99 -129)
Brenner stated that this item was brought forward by the people at the Birch Bay Golf
Course. There was a petition brought forward that they wanted to add golf carts to what can be
driven on Birch Bay Drive. There is no one present from the Birch Bay Golf Club.
Pat Alesse, 2825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that the shoulder enhancement is great
for Birch Bay. There are communities in the south that allow this activity. But he is he is leery
of this in Birch Bay. Golf carts are not allowed in County roads currently.
Brown stated that they don't meet legal requirements for motorized vehicles.
Alesse stated that they would have to include motor scooters, go -carts, and any other
powered vehicles. For now, he would be more comfortable only allowing them on the side
areas. It would keep people out of conflict.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
50
Brenner stated that a golf cart is wider than most non - motorized vehicles. She can
understand the issue of a motorized wheelchair, because that is a need. This is a desire, not a
need.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is a licensing issue. It has to meet
the requirements of lights and such. They could buy an auto license for a golf cart. There are
exceptions, but a golf cart is not one of them.
Brenner asked if the County is restricted from allow anything because of the licensing
issue. Gibson stated that was correct. Under RCW 46.08, there is preemption, meaning that the
State has occupied the field, or the road as the case may be.
Alesse questioned whether a golf cart that is licensed would it be confined to the road.
Brown stated that an established bicycle line cannot have a motorized vehicle in that lane.
Alesse stated that the County is not establishing the shoulder work in Birch Bay as a
bicycle lane. If golf carts are allowed on Birch Bay Drive and not on side streets, he questioned
how are people going to get to Birch Bay Drive. However, if a licensed cart is up to standard, it
can be brought down a side street.
George Asler, 4815 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that it might be nice to take the cart
to the golfing locations, however there will be some confrontations. The shoulder enhancement
is beautiful and is needed. He has mixed feelings about the golf carts, but at this point it
wouldn't be a good idea. It would require licensing them.
The committee adjourned.
ADDENDUM:
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHETHER THE CUTBACK OF KVOS NEWS
SERVICE EFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO FULFILL THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO
WHATCOM COUNTY TO PROVIDE LOCAL NEWS (AB99 -140)
Brenner clarified that the legal obligation is the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), not Whatcom County. This issue belongs in committee because it is important that the
County work with the media to inform the public, and also because an issue of the County
strategic planning meeting. Some of the departments brought forward the ability to work with
the media to get information out to the community. They focused on TCI, but there was also
discussion about working with the Bellingham Herald and other forms of media. She read into
the record a portion of a letter she received from David Reid, President and General Manager of
KVOS -TV. Her concern is that there is a cutback in local news. Part of it has been replaced
with the Cable News Network (CNN) news. She was unsure of the FCC regulations, but it is
worth exploring. One company has purchased all of the local radio stations. If there is a cutback
in local news, whether it is from a TV station or anywhere else, then they are cutting back on
local information going to the community. The County has made a commitment through Growth
Management to capture the identity of Whatcom County and seeing Whatcom County as its own
place. It is important to work with the media to ensure there is a free flow of and competition for
information. Otherwise, they may end up with a public that is not informed. The Broadcaster's
Survival Guide stated that the FCC must find that the grant will serve the public interest,
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
49
convenience, and necessity. She was unsure of whether the change at KVOS -TV fits into those
guidelines. She has been approached by a lot of people in the County that believe Whatcom
County has a responsibility to help ensure that local news information is provided in a way that
people get more of what they need rather than less.
Brown stated it is a decision to be made by the station. If the public doesn't like it, they
can change the channel. He was not interested in pursuing it.
Brenner questioned to which channel the public would change to get local information.
There isn't any other option. Reed said in his letter that there is another local television station
called KBCB. She questioned whether anyone was aware of it.
Gibson responded that there is a new station, but he didn't know anything about it.
Laura Armitage, 1371 W. Axton Road, Ferndale, stated that there is a reason that the
FCC requires there is community involvement before they issue or renew a license. There are
several reasons outlined in the FCC guidelines. It is worth looking at.
Brenner stated that the community is losing the wealth of community information in what
is being put out.
Nelson questioned the role and responsibility of the County regarding how much County
news is delivered to and by the media. He also questioned whether the County has a right to
question the information delivered by the news media and say that they are not doing enough.
Brenner stated that the Council has a right to address whatever they want. She is not
limiting it to KVOS. She is trying to determine the media's obligation to the FCC.
Armitage stated that it is the FCC's job to regulate actions, but they can't if they are not
aware of them. It is worth looking into. KVOS knows how to file the paperwork with the FCC
so that everything looks okay.
Brown stated that the Seattle channels announce when they are renewing their license. It
is the people's responsibility to write and get involved. If the County Council feels that there is
not enough local news or public access, then that is the time to bring the issue forward, during
the licensing renewal process.
Brenner stated that process just happened a few months ago. No one knew of the change
in the news cast at that time. The renewal process only happens every five or seven years. She
did not hear of any news cast changes during the time of the renewal process.
Armitage stated that they are mistaken to believe that it doesn't affect the community.
Brown stated that it does affect the community, but it is not the Council's responsibility
to go after KVOS. That is the public's job.
Brenner stated that she is not going after KVOS, she was just trying to ensure that there is
enough coverage locally.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
48
49
50
Armitage stated that there is more power in groups, and that the Council members are
elected to represent the community.
Elisa Claassen, 102A Garfield Street, Nooksack, stated that this might not be the best
approach to address the matter, but suggested that a resolution has a greater influence than one
individual. Reid made it clear that he assumed that only a few people would be bothered by this
action. He doesn't realize that this bothers the majority of the people. Local coverage is going
by the wayside for the "CNN" approach. In the past, they have relied on radio stations in
emergencies. KVOS has been absent in this regard. There are enough people in the community
that want to be heard.
Suzanne Blaise, 2621 Cherry Street, stated that she produces the Corner Garden and was
concerned about limiting information to the public. As a producer, there needs to be a venue to
air the information. KVOS is interested in making money, which is valid, but some attention
needs to be paid to the opportunity for the public to see themselves. How it normally happens is
that the supporters withdraw their support if they don't like what is happening. It would be up to
individual consumers. Since the KVOS financial base is in Vancouver, there is nothing the local
residents can do to influence them. The Council should look at how to facilitate more local
programming in the area.
Jane Lowrey, 3016 Cottonwood, Bellingham, stated that when TCI dropped the weather
channel in the middle of the snowstorm, they thought no one would care, but the public did and
they brought it back. Hopefully KVOS will find out the same thing. The difference between
what media are and what they can do is the difference. KVOS is the only television station that
the County has. They have done some spectacular things that are not possible in print or on the
radio. The Seattle stations aren't going to do it for Whatcom County. She would rather hear
local information on KGMI, but they are not local anymore. It is going to take pressure other
than economic for them to make the changes.
Joe Bates, KVOS -TV, stated that KVOS is meeting the FCC guidelines. There are no
requirements, only guidelines. Local news has not gone away. The news show is still there.
They are doing two comprehensive stories instead of five smaller stories. It is a restructuring of
the format. KVOS employs more than 50 people in the community. They employ all local
people. They continue to do the job they have done for over 50 years. They are in the
community daily because they care about the community. News has not gone away, but the
format has been restructured. In this community, there have been many changes in the media in
the last six months. One corporation now owns all six stations in the local area. He questioned
where the outcry was when those people restructured.
Brenner stated that this wasn't just about KVOS. Her concern was that the community
seems to be losing the amounts of information. The comprehensive stories she has seen did not
seem time - critical. When she listens to news, she listens for timely information. She is
concerned about getting enough different information to the community.
Bates stated that it is a federal issue that one company purchased all the radio stations in
the market. Those things have to be changed on the federal level. KVOS is not like the Seattle
stations. Because of the economic climate KVOS has to operate under, it is never going to be
like the Seattle stations. Without the Canadian market, there would be no television station here.
They need to think of serving the community in a different way, not in a lesser way.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
47
48
Brenner asked if there was a community reason for the changes, apart from the economic
reason.
Bates stated that Reid went to bat to save what he could of the newscast. Today is day
two of the new show. They should give it a chance.
Brown stated that he always enjoyed seeing the people around the courthouse doing their
reporting. He appreciated it.
Dawson stated that it isn't County business. The Council gets involved in a lot of private
business actions, but it is usually connected to County business. The phone service issue
affected how the County did business with the community. This does not have a direct or
indirect relationship to the County.
Brenner stated that strategic planning session discussed how to let the public know about
issues. Everything the County Council does is local news.
Nelson agreed that news holds the community together. If the public is disgruntled, then
they have a choice to get their news elsewhere. The media is a business with a bottom line.
They can't make everyone happy.
Brenner stated that she sees everyone as a part of the community. They can't influence
KVOS economically.
Hoag mentioned that people in suburban areas have cable and can watch the TCI
broadcasts of what the Council does. However, the majority of the people in the rural areas do
not have that option. She supported the idea of a resolution asking for more consideration of
more local news.
Bates stated that they don't plan to discontinue coverage of Council news. They are still
going to be in the community. It will evolve and change over time. They may not be covering
as many stories, but they are going to cover the issues.
Brenner stated that she liked the personal -ness she has always gotten from KVOS. She
didn't want to lose that. Also, she would like to see a lot of smaller issues covered rather than
two more comprehensive issues.
Armitage stated that KVOS is licensed in Whatcom County. They are given that license
based on the service to the people of the County. She questioned who is watching to see how
KVOS is taking care of the community.
Brown questioned whether the Council members should give KVOS a chance to try out
their new program. Also, the local newspaper doesn't carry a lot of County and Council issues.
KVOS hasn't even been given a chance to work this thing out. The Council is one step ahead of
itself.
Brenner disagreed. She doesn't want to see CNN news replace local news.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, 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
Blaise stated that there are alternatives to print. The difference is that print doesn't need
a license or much money to start up a newspaper. This is a specific media. People not
subscribing to cable will not have a television source of local information.
Nelson agreed that there is less local news, but it is not just because of KVOS.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A).
Pat Alesse, stated that they should "think globally, act locally." He suggested a late night
news show. They need to have good local information to act locally.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects, 4/6/99, Page 11