HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil December 8 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular Council Meeting
3
4 December 8, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9
Also Present: Absent:
10
Kathy Sutter None
1 I
Marlene Dawson
12
L. Ward Nelson
13
Connie Hoag
14
Barbara Brenner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tom Brown
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Imhof announced that Boy Scout Troop 23 was attending the meeting to achieve a
Citizens' of the Community award.
Council Chair Imhof also announced that during Committee of the Whole the following
items were discussed:
1. Resolution for adopting policies and a salary schedule for unrepresented Whatcom
County employees for 1999 (AB98 -418) Unrepresented Salary Resolution, Appeal of
a Hearing Examiner decision filed by Kris and Sandra Olgeirsson, c/o Phil Serka,
Attorney at Law (AB98 -387),
2.
33 3
34
35
36
37
Discussion regarding Master Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations (AB98 -
360)
Consideration of the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on file CUP98 -0025,
filed by Kris and Sandra Olgeirsson, c/o Phil Serka, Attorney at Law (AB98 -387)
Brenner moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner with 2 specified conditions.
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
41
42 PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
43 REGARDING FIRE SAFETY ON FOREST LANDS (AB98 -019)
44
45 Anthony Raab, 2834 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated that he was a proponent of
46 housing in forested areas if done correctly. This is the philosophy of the farm foresters.
47 However, living in the forest has its responsibilities. The most important responsibility is fire
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 1
I prevention. One problem from a careless homeowner could spread rapidly and affect thousands
2 of acres. He distributed a booklet by the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) about
3 fire prevention for the homeowner located in the forest. It should be available to the County
4 Council and the Planning Commission for reference.
5
6 Boyd Norton, DNR Protection Forester, gave his background. Hazard mitigation needs
7 to be considered as the planning process for land use is continued in Whatcom County. The
8 population is going to continue to increase. As the increase grows, hazards grow. The fire
9 departments are responsible for structural protection within their districts. Sometimes that
10 includes forestland. The DNR is mandated as an agency that is responsible for wild land fire
11 suppression. Priorities are life, property, and private structures. People think that fires are not a
12 problem in western Washington. That is not true. In late July, August, and September, it is as
13 dry as in eastern Washington. The field moisture, which is the amount of water contained in the
14 vegetation, becomes as low as it does in eastern Washington. Western Washington has a strong
15 growth of vegetation early in the spring and summer. As that vegetation begins to die off, the
16 light fuels have dried out and they get a flashy fire that moves fast over the ground. In the
17 middle of the summer, the flashy fuels have dried, and the heavy fuels have dried also, which
18 causes a flashy fire with hot and heavy vegetation that maintains the fire. In the fall, the dead
19 material picks up the moisture so it doesn't spread quickly, but the large fuels are dry and creates
20 a hot fire that burns deep for a long period of time. It poses a threat to homeowners. In 1958,
21 there was a fire in the Alger area that burned 1,800 acres. At that time, the Commissioner of
22 Public Lands made a statement that the fire crews had stopped the fire. With the homes and the
23 interface with the forest, it becomes more of a problem. It becomes more expensive to fight
24 those fires. Large fires threaten life and property, and they cost a lot of money. The State loses
25 opportunities for revenue from timber that is burned. Recreational opportunities are also lost.
26 People are inconvenienced for a long time. By employing a few techniques and common sense,
27 most of the hazards from wildfires could be substantially reduced. By reducing the hazards,
28 firefighters are allowed to concentrate on the fire fighting effort and not on structure triage.
29 People need to be aware that homes could be isolated from view with trees and still be fire safe.
30 The trees do not need be right up to roofline. Homes could be constructed of fire safe materials
31 and still be pleasing to the eye. Cedar shake roofs, cedar siding, and T111 siding could be
32 replaced by more fire safe materials. Road grades should be gentle, and turnouts should be large
33 enough for fire equipment. This allows for egress and access. Green belts can be maintained,
34 but should be managed to reduce lighter fuels and a build -up of forest fuels on the grant. Water
35 systems in developments need to meet fire flow requirements. A recommendation of safety
36 zones of non - combustible plants and vegetation setbacks near homes should be standard. A few
37 simple actions by a landowner, or simple development recommendations, will reduce the hazards
38 to homes, the public, rural fire fighters, and State fire crews. The public believes that
39 government is in place to protect and provide mitigation for hazards. As they begin to become
40 familiar with the hazards, they need to take action. With knowledge comes responsibility. He
41 urged the Council and the County staff to become familiar with the practices outlined in the
42 booklets. He also provided a backyard forest stewardship packet that is available landowners
43 through the DNR.
44
45 Brenner questioned what should be done if there are old, soft cedars that exist next to a
46 home.
47
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 2
I Norton responded that the lighter fuels underneath should be removed. Lighter fuels tend
2 to bring the fire up into the trees. A park -like setting should be maintained underneath the trees.
3 Limbs could be cleaned out, which would also help prevent the tree from blowing down. He
4 also suggested keeping needles off the roof, gutters open, and keeping limbs away from the
5 house.
6
7 Sutter stated that this would be valuable information and the public has asked they
8 consider allowing homes in forestlands. There may be parts that could be included in the
9 development regulations.
10
11 Hoag questioned Norton's opinion on allowing houses in forestlands. Norton stated that
12 it is appropriate to have homes in forestlands. They need to be fire safe and people need to be
13 fire -wise. If the fire crews don't have to spend as much time doing triage work, which the
14 landowners could do before hand, then there is a better chance to have the crews fight the fires
15 and a better chance of not having to spend money worrying about one or two individual houses.
16 They could control the fire, keep it small, and keep it away from the structures by maintaining
17 the size of the fire.
18
19 Brenner questioned whether DNR is liable for a fire that is started by an individual on
20 DNR lands, which then spreads off DNR lands and to homes. Norton stated that DNR has a
21 liability to do everything they can to protect the forestlands. Whether or not DNR is held liable
22 for the fire in court is a decision by the lawyers. They are responsible to take aggressive initial
23 attack, provide for safety of individuals, protect resources, and protect private property.
24
25 PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE — 1998 BUDGET AWARD BY GOVERNMENT
26 FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (AB98 -019)
27
28 Pete Kremen, County Executive, presented Brad Bennett, Administrative Services
29 Finance Manager, with an award for an outstanding budget document. The award is the highest
30 form of recognition for governmental budgeting. Its achievement is significant in that there are
31 only four of 39 counties in Washington State that have ever achieved the award. Those counties
32 are King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Clark counties. It is a tribute to the excellent quality job that
33 the Finance Division does under the direction of Brad Bennett. It also bolsters Whatcom
34 County's financial position. It will allow the County to get a better bond rating, which would
35 save the County taxpayers money. He also thanked Kristin Frank, Kellie Eiswald, Eva
36 Browning, and all the Finance Division employees.
37
38 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, thanked the Executive and
39 explained that this was a major project performed by a great team in the Finance Department.
40
41 Kremen also thanked Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, for a great job.
42
43 OPEN SESSION
44
45 The following people addressed the Council during Open Session:
46
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 3
I Mark Asmundson, Mayor of the City of Bellingham, stated that the water program is a
2 very important matter. The County has taken lead under ESHB 2514 with the support of all of
3 the initiating governments and the support of the community. The County has many water issues
4 to face. The community looks to the County to serve as leaders. It is critical that the program be
5 funded. The issue will not go away and will not be cheap. The population will only grow. The
6 demands for water and the issues related to water are not things that are going to solve
7 themselves. It must be dealt with in a leadership way. He questioned whether the next
8 generations will be grateful for the actions the County took. The reality is that is not just money.
9 The watershed planning is a unique collaboration of five governments, the initiating
10 governments. They are in the process of putting together a program, which would involve
11 significant public input and widespread support in the community. The County must understand
12 that its role is to lead, not direct. The County must allow the other initiating governments to
13 initiate through the planning unit and to develop the program that will preserve the assets for
14 future generations. If the County is unwilling to allow the watershed planning process to occur
15 in accordance with the provisions of State law, and as envisioned in ESHB 2514, then he
16 recommended that the County not lead.
17
18 Louise Bjornson and Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Members, stated that the
19 Council was concerned about the Whatcom Connector design study funding. It would be a new
20 road in the Lake Whatcom watershed with an estimated cost of $15 million. She read the letter
21 from the City Council into the record. Ryan stated that they are looking forward to working with
22 the County Council on the stormwater management program to determine what should be done
23 to mitigate the impact from the development and the roads that are already in the watershed. She
24 urged the Council to delay decision to build another road that would add to stormwater run -off.
25
26 Frank James, 3511 Chuckanut Avenue, encouraged the audience to vote. There are
27 people that represent special interests and there are those that represent the people. As they
28 observe the goings -on, people should vote according to what they see at the meeting.
29
30 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seely, Bellingham, urged the County Council to remove Consent
31 Item #6 regarding the Whatcom Connector and consider it independently. She urged the Council
32 to defer or completely eliminate funding of the engineering study, whose objective is to prepare
33 final design route and recommendations for implied construction. The road would contribute
34 negatively to the watershed. Its presence would contribute additional pollution and
35 contamination into the watershed and the Lake. Its presence will encourage development along
36 the route. The road and the study are not needed at this time. She also addressed the Water Plan.
37 She supported taking steps to implement the Comprehensive Water Plan, in terms of establishing
38 a central manager or managing activity. She discouraged taxing the public for a large
39 expenditure on a vague, nebulous, multi - pieced Water Management Plan, which is necessary but
40 not yet defined.
41
42 Margaret Cardell, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee,
43 supported the comments of Asmundson and Beddill. The County needs the Comprehensive
44 Water Plan to address the water problems and the septic and sewer problems. After two years of
45 working on the Committee, there are a large number of towns and agencies that are involved.
46 They've got to find a way to look at the issue by the County as a whole. The County should use
47 caution in how much money is spent.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Ken Henderson, 107 Crown Lane, Bellingham, urged the Council to delay consideration
to fund the Lake Whatcom Connector Study. Before he sat on the County Council, there was a
study and a debate about the route. It was then determined that there wasn't enough of a need to
justify the expense. The Council at one time removed it completely from the six -year road
program. They made provisions to the Lake Louise road. It should be removed from the
Consent Agenda. It is a waste of taxpayers dollars. Future Councils will decide that there isn't
enough traffic to justify the millions of dollars it would take to build the road. In the broader
sense, it is time to look at other ways to protect the watershed, such as buying up property. The
water from Lake Whatcom and the Nooksack River goes to the majority of the citizens in
Whatcom County. There is justification for looking at it as a county -wide resource in raising
taxes to protect it.
Earl Baker, 4175 Sucia Drive, Sandy Point, Co -Chair of Sandy Point Alliance, which
represents all six of the Sandy Point community groups. He discussed their concerns regarding
the Lummi Tribe permit request for closure of the Sandy Point Harbor. It would have a
devastating effect. The harbor provides the only safe harbor for a 32 -mile stretch of water. The
U.S. Coast Guard, Canadian Coast Guard, Whatcom County Sheriff, and many other agencies
and groups have all used the harbor to protect the boaters and in law enforcement. Rather than
blocking the harbor, he would like to see a cooperative effort to restore the tidelands. The
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) is striving to renew a tidelands lease that was entered
into years ago by a single individual, which covered a group of property owners, without
knowing that the right -of -way damages had already been paid on a permit by the Department of
Interior. Fees were paid for each cubic yard that was removed from the harbor. Their request
was that the County Council urge the Army Corps of Engineers to extend the public comment
period beyond the holiday and to hold a public hearing. This would allow sufficient time for
property geological studies and to work toward an environmental impact statement. There are a
number of people present at the Council meeting that are concerned.
Rose Black, 2751 Dakin, Bellingham, stated that there was a joint resolution between the
City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Water District 10 in 1992 or 1993. She was pleased
that Executive Kremen wanted to preserve the watershed, but should not pay for a $12 million
study to enhance something that they already know, which is that they should buy back land at a
fair market value. She concurred with the Bellingham City Council about the Lake Whatcom
Connector. The sewage retention pond in Sudden Valley was supposed to prevent the overflows
that are currently happening. If they start planning for more construction, it will back up the
system even more.
Jeff McKay, 4693 Sucia Drive, Ferndale, spoke for his friends and neighbors at Sandy
Point. He stated that the County Council is the government level closest to the citizens. They
should understand the needs of the citizens of Whatcom County. This is an issue that affects
everyone in the County. The economic impact of the closure means the loss of millions of
dollars of assessed valuation. It would impose an increased tax burden on the citizens of the
County. It is the only safe refuge between Blaine and Bellingham. If the harbor is closed,
people will die because it is often used as safe refuge. He asked the Council to pass a resolution
urging the Corps of Engineers to keep it open.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Warren Hanson, P.O. 3058, Bellingham, WA 98227, opposed closure of the Sandy Point
Harbor.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hanson continued to state that the population grows and the County is not making much
headway regarding the protection of the Lake Whatcom watershed and the County water supply.
He also spoke against the Lake Whatcom connector.
Roger Borham, 1923 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, Bellingham, represented members of the
Lake Whatcom Boulevard Safety and Preservation Association. Lakeway is the third busiest
road in the County. He read from the Reid - Middleton study of 1991. The title of the study is the
Lake Whatcom Transportation Study.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated that it would cost $2 per month for
a tax increase to fund the water plan. He was willing to pay that. A lot of people are. There
may be a problem of lack of details to the water plan. The reasons for that may be that there is a
lack of current staff and resources to put forward a complete plan. Staff also may not be sure
what would be needed in the long run. That needs to be defined. If there is staff, they will be
committed to getting grant funding from the State and federal governments. There are potential
cost savings to the County. If there were a water division within the County government, they
would be able to provide help to the Health Department, Planning and Development Services,
and Public Works Engineering.
Donna Clark, 1041 Coronado Street, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the Lake Whatcom
Connector. It was put on the docket the same time as Barkley Boulevard in the late 1960's. The
County cannot stop the growth. There are 112 units currently being built in the Geneva area.
There are 600 lots in Sudden Valley and 200 lots on Birch. The traffic on Lakeway is bad any
time of the day. It is not going to pollute the Lake. It needs to be looked at for 30 years into the
future.
Galen Manuel, 3122 Bennett Drive, Bellingham, spoke against the Whatcom Connector
due to impacts on water quality.
Don Peterson, Mayor of Sumas, urged the Council to support the Water Plan as proposed
by the County Executive. Everyone is aware of the problems. It is time to address them. The
people that voted for the County elected officials have basic expectations. One of those
expectations is for pure water, which is the end result of the plan.
Nancy Keene, 1318 Sara Court, supported Executive Kremen's water plan and is willing
to spend $25 per year. There are also water problems in the County. She has a child who had
leukemia. Her area of the County has a rate of incident for childhood leukemia that is 6 times
higher than the national average. Since the early 1980's, the various County and State Health
Departments knew that a large number of the wells that were tested had carcinogenic and
fungicides.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 6
I Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, told the Council to build the Lake Whatcom
2 connector. Also, he is willing to spend the money on the water plan. He wanted to get
3 something for the money.
4
5 Carl Weimer, Director of ReSources, 1155 N. State Street, Bellingham, supported the
6 County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan. It's not perfect, but it's a start. The Council can
7 begin to look at things that impact water and remove the Whatcom Connector from the agenda.
8 The Council should also pull from the agenda anything else that encourages build out around
9 Lake Whatcom so that they don't damage the water resource before a team has even looked at
10 those things.
11
12 Ray Rupke, Lot 40, Sandy Point, stated that a man traveled from Boston, through the
13 Panama Canal, and then up toward Birch Bay. He lost control of the boat at Sandy Point, and
14 tied to the pilings at the marina. Sandy Point is a safe harbor for boaters. It would be a mistake
15 to close the harbor.
16
17 Dave Schmaltz, 1807 Eldridge Avenue, Bellingham, spoke as President of the North
18 Cascades Audubon Society in Bellingham. He stated that there is a need to pull together the
19 existing water related programs and to also create a predictable, adequate funding mechanism to
20 address the County's water issues. For these reasons, he supported the water plan, including the
21 shellfish and groundwater protection, Lake Whatcom management, salmon recovery, and
22 watershed planning. The plan needs some revision to include mechanisms to monitor how well
23 it is doing the job that it is intended to do. However, the need to fund and coordinate action is
24 most important. Also, he opposed more funding for the Lake Whatcom Connector, which would
25 have significant impacts on the lake.
26
27 CONSENT AGENDA
28
29 Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
30 approval of Consent Items #1 through #7. There was an eighth item, which was approval of the
31 general obligation bonds for the repayment of the interfund loan for the Civic Center building in
32 the amount of $3,335,000, with the expectation of an approximate rate of 4.6 %.
33
34 Imhof stated that item was item #6 under Public Hearings.
35
36 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that it was inadvertently left off of the
37 Consent Agenda. It should have been discussed in Finance Committee, but it wasn't on their
38 agenda.
39
40 Imhof stated that the item is scheduled for a public hearing and would be addressed then.
41
42 Dawson stated that item #4 had one modification to amend language to "up to 15
43 vehicles." She so moved.
44
45 Hoag removed item #6 for discussion.
46
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 7
I Brown stated that in item #2, there was a discrepancy in the dollar amounts. Hoag
2 replied that was addressed in Committee.
3
4 Brenner removed item #2 for discussion.
5
6 Motion to approve 1, 3 -5, and 7 carried unanimously.
7
8
9 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
10 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
11 SERVICES AND TIDEMARK COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., TO INCREASE THE
12 CAPABILITIES TO RESPOND TO WHATCOM COUNTY PERMIT TRACKING
13 SOFTWARE FOR YEAR 2000 UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,233 (AB98 -419)
14
15 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID
16 NUMBER 98 -128 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER RL BATES
17 CONSTRUCTION, FOR A WHATCOM COUNTY STORAGE BUILDING FOR THE
18 PURPOSE OF VEHICLE AND BOAT STORAGE FOR USE BY THE SHERIFF'S
19 OFFICE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $182,721 (AB98 -420)
20
21 Brenner stated that the County does not need to build a building for boat storage.
22
23 Dawson stated that it would house evidence for the Sheriff, as well as the boat.
24
25 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, explained that Sheriff's patrol boats and seized
26 vehicles would be stored in the building. It is being paid for out of State dedicated funds for
27 boats, as well as the drug fund.
28
29 Brenner stated that there has been availability for evidence storage in the past. This
30 really has to do with the boat storage. The County does not need to spend the money to store
31 boats. There are areas currently that could be locked.
t'%
33 Nelson moved approval
34
35 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
36
37 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID
38 NUMBER 98 -133 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER DIEHL FORD, FOR
39 TWO SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES TO BE USED BY THE SHERIFF'S
40 DEPARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,671.70 (AB98 -421)
41
42 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID
43 NUMBER 98 -134 WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER FRONTIER FORD,
44 FOR 13 REPLACEMENT SEDANS FOR USE BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
45 PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
46 COUNCIL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $331,889.25 (AB98 -422)
47
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 8
1 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
2 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RUSTAND, INC. FOR OFF -
3 SITE WORK RELEASE HOUSING FOR PARTIAL CONFINEMENT OFFENDERS,
4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,000 (AB98 -423)
5
6 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
7 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH JONES ENGINEERS, INC., FOR A DESIGN
8 ROUTE STUDY FOR THE WHATCOM CONNECTOR FROM YEW STREET ROAD
9 TO LAKE LOUISE ROAD, CRP 997016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 (AB98 -424)
10
11 Hoag expressed concern based on City of Bellingham's concerns and citizens concerns.
12 The City Council opposes the road, it would add an additional impervious surface in the
13 watershed, and studies indicate that new roads would bring in new traffic instead of alleviating
14 current traffic problems. It is premature at this time. The Planning Commission has not yet
15 determined how much development could occur in the watershed without damaging the water
16 supply. Lake Louise Road reconstruction has not been completed. They don't have the results
17 of the comprehensive stormwater study.
18
19 Brenner stated that the Council had a study which came to the conclusion that, by the
20 time the connector was built, it would be obsolete. It would not alleviate the traffic on Lakeway.
21 It would create more traffic problems. The price tag has gone up and will keep going up. It
22 won't solve problems, and may create more problems. They need to respect the City Council's
23 opinion
24
25 Brown stated that since it is not a decision to build a road, but to determine the route, he
26 would support it.
27
28 Nelson stated that two years ago, the public spoke in favor of the road when it was put
29 back on the six -year road program. They need to have the answers if it is going to be a
30 mechanism used to protect against stormwater hazard from Lake Whatcom Boulevard. It is an
31 appropriate use of the funds to make educated and informed decisions. The Council needs more
32 information.
33
34 Hoag stated that the stated goal of the study is to prepare a final design route for the
35 roadway. It is not a study to determine whether or not they should construct the road. Also, the
36 City Council brought up additional concerns about traffic flow on Yew Street. It would be
37 directed back down to Lakeway, which is already congested. More problems will be created.
38
39 Dawson stated that everyone on the Council is concerned with public health and safety.
40 It is how the Council gets to public health and safety that differs in opinion. Zoning, not the
41 building of a road, will affect density.
42
43 Sutter stated that now, during the stormwater study, is the appropriate time to explore the
44 potential routes. She read one of the elements of the study. A road will be needed someday.
45 They should be looking at methods to reduce development in the watershed. They should work
46 with the City of Bellingham on where the connector will come into the City. It needs to be done
47 now.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 9
2 Hoag stated that they need to wait until other things have been determined. On one hand,
3 they are buying lots in Sudden Valley to reduce congestion in the watershed. On the other hand,
4 they are proposing to spend $200,000 for a study to build a $12 - $15 million dollar road that
5 would only encourage development in the watershed.
6
7 Brenner stated that she would never support the Lake Whatcom Connector. If the study
8 was really a feasibility study, then she may support it. It is not about if it is needed, but how it
9 would be done. She questioned why they would fund a study on how to build a road if they
10 don't yet know if the road will be built. The Growth Management Act gives the County the
11 charge of working with the cities. Rarely has the City Council approached the County Council
12 and requested something be deferred.
13
14 Nelson moved approval of the request in recognition of the citizens that support the
15 connector.
16
17 Hoag moved to postpone until after the comprehensive watershed plan has been
18 completed and the Planning Commission has determined the amount of development that is
19 appropriate.
20
21 Motion to postpone failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
22
23 Motion to approve carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
24
25
26 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
27 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
28 HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC
29 CLINIC, TO PROVIDE FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE RAINBOW ACTIVITY
30 CENTER, WITH FUNDING FROM COUNTY MILLAGE DOLLARS, IN THE
31 AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,161 (AB98 -425)
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING
34
35 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO
36 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
37 PURPOSE OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
38 COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169F)
39
40 Dr. Susan Kay Ronning, 3015 Silvern Lane, Bellingham, urged the Council to vote to
41 protect the watershed until there is stormwater management in place and comprehensive
42 planning is done. Children get rashes when they play in the lake. Some County Council
43 members have not supported water quality. The next generation will be saddled with the burden
44 of dirty water, congestion, and a watershed that will no longer sustain the community. There is
45 fecal coliform in the water. Doing detention ponds only mitigates the problems. It does not solve
46 it. She asked the Council to limit development in the watershed.
47
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager stated that the purpose of the development
regulations is to implement the Comprehensive Plan and to make the zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act is
to concentrate in the urban growth areas (UGA) and to allow some in -fill within the existing
small towns and resort recreational areas that are already established. There are also goals in the
Comprehensive Plan relating to concurrency that ensure there are public services and facilities
that can serve all of the development. The development regulations have rules relating to those
issues. There are also goals relating the protection of agricultural land, mineral lands, forestland,
and all the rural and resource -based lands. There are policies in the development regulations
relating to those issues. The regulations establish additional rules for development outside of
UGAs, small towns, and resort recreational subdivisions. Those rules result in restricted land
use, single family attached dwellings are now restricted in outside of UGAs in small towns.
Multi- family dwellings, light fabrication and assembly, and public and community facilities are
also restricted. Many other uses are restricted outside of UGAs. The development regulations
restrict density outside of UGAs, and small towns.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Goodwin continued to state that references to subarea plans have been deleted in several
areas. In some areas where the subarea plans provide additional detail, the subarea plan
language was retained. These are not water quality issues, but it is all tied together.
Development and density are tied directly to water quality. The County has to deal with water
quality on one hand and development and regulation on the other hand. If people are worried
about water quality, then they should also be worried about land use regulations. The resort
overlay was a proposal in the original ordinance. It was deleted because it was adequately
covered in other areas. There was an overlay district added at Cherry Point that reserves those
large parcels for large tract industrial. It keeps the minimum parcel size at forty acres and is set
aside for truly large industrial projects for which they were reserved. There is similar language
for Custer, creating a provisional urban growth area and establishing a few rules on how that
would be processed. There were other general changes, including the reference to agricultural
right to farm was expanded to deal with use of natural resources. There are cross - references to
title 14, where the other rules are located. Additional definitions were added. There was general
information added to clarify the code and make it more consistent with current terms. That is the
summary of the changes. It is a continually changing document. There is opportunity to review
annually. Staff is currently working on additional changes to the agricultural protection overlay
zone and the LESA studies. An agricultural land committee is working on additional policies to
protect agricultural land. The Custer UGA approval process is going to be studied in more detail
by the Planning Commission. The Lake Whatcom watershed issues are also on the Planning
Commission's docket for public hearings. There are scrivener's changes and clarifications.
There are scrivener's errors on pages 5, 7, 10, 18, and 33. On packet page 171, regarding the
agricultural overlay zone, staff needs clarification in the purpose statement about long -term
agricultural needs.
Hoag stated that the language, "long- term" was left in the statement, but the following
sentence was deleted. The reason reference to "long- term" was left in was because the GMA
requires that the County set aside lands of long term commercial significance. This particular
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 11
I section was relied upon to provide additional acres that were not met under the agricultural
2 district.
3
4 Sutter stated that both those items were deleted. The revised version of the ordinance, as
5 of November 10, 1998, shows the language stricken by the Planning and Development
6 Committee. The language as presented was correct.
7
8 Brenner stated that there is a missing section and questioned whether the sections
9 included are only the sections that have been revised. Goodwin responded that only the sections
10 that have been revised were included. Also, she distributed a revision earlier in the day. The
11 committee deleted in Title 20.40, regarding the agricultural zone, changes to acreage for retiring
12 farmers. The acreage was to be left at five acres.
13
14 Sutter stated that the version of the ordinance in the packet is the November 10, 1998
15 version. There have not been any changes because the item had not been discussed since then.
16
17 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
18
19 Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated that the development regulations give
20 life to a Comprehensive Plan that is internally inconsistent. The Plan allows the current
21 watershed population to grow from 10,000 people to 40,000 people. Comprehensive Plan page
22 2 -23, Policy 2S -6, is regarding areas within the Bellingham urban growth areas. The
23 development regulations, such as the agricultural protection overlay zone, implement parts of the
24 Comprehensive Plan. There is a policy, 2S -6, which designates Lake Whatcom watershed areas
25 as a resource protection area. There is nothing in the development regulations that reflect that
26 designation. There is no such designation in the Lake Whatcom watershed. It has been one and
27 a half years since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. There is no meaning to the policy.
28 Also, the Council is working out of a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) document that
29 was borrowed from Water District #10. There are many problems with that Environmental
30 Impact Statement (EIS). It doesn't address forestry, the municipal leaching dump, or boats on
31 the reservoir. It only addresses a portion of the potential growth in the watershed. There are
32 documents that show deterioration in quality in Lake Whatcom. She suggested that, until the
33 Council has a comprehensive, scientifically valid environmental impact statement addressing
34 cumulative impacts in the Lake Whatcom watershed, it is appropriate for a moratorium on
35 development. The densities are too high to protect Lake Whatcom.
36
37 Nelson questioned whether it was her point that they should downzone what is currently
38 there.
39
40 Wells stated that the Council is required by the Growth Management Act to protect water
41 quality.
42
43 Hoag questioned where Wells would fit the resource protection areas into the
44 development regulations. Wells responded that the agricultural protection overlay zone was
45 given specific criteria so that it has meaning. It is a designation in the Comprehensive Plan, but
46 it has a section of the Whatcom County Code to give it standards and criteria. Currently, this
47 designation has no meaning.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Hoag questioned what the EIS from the Water District refers to. Wells responded that the
EIS was done to allow the development of the south shore area of Lake Whatcom.
Brenner questioned what language in the development regulations would allow density to
go from 10,000 people to 40,000 people. Wells responded that the development regulations
implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has rubber- stamped the old
zoning and the old platting. Under that old zoning and platting, according to County documents,
a quadrupling of the population was considered a minimal increase.
Matt Harmon Craig, 620 Boulevard Street, stated that there should be environmental
protection measures in the development regulations. Everyone is concerned about the drinking
water. The Council members have consistently voted pro - industry and pro- development. He
urged members to vote pro -human and pro- citizen of Whatcom County.
Fred Miller, 3229 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated that the County received a large
grant from the State of Washington to create a special set of development standards for Lake
Whatcom. That was never done. Applications should be reviewed from the standpoint of an
attempt to reduce development in the watershed. Also, standards should be compared to other
development standards in the County.
Robin Dexter, 3726 Broad Street, Bellingham, stated that no one is speaking specifically
to the overlays. That shows that they did a reasonable job. He questioned why the Council
doesn't get going on the overlays for Lake Whatcom. He suggested fast - tracking the Planning
Commission consideration of those items.
Glenn Henderson, 2541 Blackbird Valley, Sumas, stated that there needs to be a starting
point. There are adequate provisions for making changes to the future. He encouraged Council
to adopt the plan.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Sutter moved to amend language on page 169 of the packet, section 20.36.315(6) to state,
"...on the face of the map of the division..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner requested that Sherilyn Wells attend the Planning Committee meetings and that
the Council work on more specifics about the watershed. It is lacking. She wouldn't support the
plan.
Hoag questioned the reason the contents of sections were not listed on packet page 152.
Goodwin responded that those sections were not changed at all.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 13
I Hoag questioned whether it would be more appropriate to add a resource protection
2 district for Lake Whatcom during this procedure or as a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
3 Goodwin suggested the Council send the suggestion to the Planning Commission. It is on their
4 schedule of items to work on currently. They may have a recommendation for the Council by
5 March. If anyone has input, it needs to be specific and it needs to go to the Planning
6 Commission.
7
8 Hoag moved to recommend the Planning Commission establish a resource protection
9 district for Lake Whatcom since it is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. A chapter should
10 include the details of what that would look like.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Hoag moved to re -insert the words on packet page 171 "the long term" in the first line of
15 20.38.010. In trying to meet the goals of growth management, they are required to set aside
16 lands of long term commercial significance. That is why they established the overlay.
17
18 Brown stated that the statement says they are promoting commercial agricultural activity
19 within Whatcom County. It is already addressed in the second line.
20
21 Sutter stated that it is more appropriately met in the second line.
22
23 Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson in favor.
24
25 Hoag moved to amend page 172 of the packet, section 20.38.060(3), to read, "property
26 line of any existing farm or any parcel..."
27
28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
29
30 Brenner questioned whether there are any farms that are not considered agricultural
31 reserve tracts. Goodwin stated that there are.
32
33 Brenner questioned whether there is already language that requires that a well must be
34 100 feet from a farming operation.
35
36 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
37
38 Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 173, section 20.40.251(e) to amend the
39 language, "...shall not be further divided for- period of at least 15 years ff °m the date e
40 division puf!suant to this seetio„ except as provided..." The Conservation District and the
41 Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS) are concerned that, as long as that language is
42 in place, eventually there will be no agricultural land left. They would like to see a retiring
43 farmer break off five acres and live on it, but they don't want to provide the ability to the retiring
44 farmer to continually break off five -acre parcels and sell them one by one. This is the
45 agricultural district section. It is not in the agricultural overlay zone.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 14
2 Brenner stated that the purpose of the retired farmer's exemption was to respect and
3 acknowledge that these people were caught in a zoning change. It used to be there were not
4 minimums and they could do more. This is not for future people to be able to divide up pieces of
5 agricultural land. The County made a commitment to the agricultural land. Most of the farmers
6 who have agricultural land in agricultural zoning have gotten tax breaks for it. The point was to
7 do this as a middle ground compensation for people who got caught in the zoning change. It is
8 important to eliminate any ability to section out five -acre parcels.
9
10 Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Dawson in favor.
11
12 Hoag moved to amend packet page 173, section 20.40.251 to add language, "Requests for
13 divisions of land in or rezones from the Agriculture District..." and to add a sentence at the end
14 of the sentence that states "This committee shall forward its comments to Planning and
15 Development Services and/or the Planning Commission"
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Hoag questioned the reason the Planning Commission recommended adding section
20 20.71.010. Goodwin stated that the Council did it in the development regulations that were
21 adopted with the Comprehensive Plan. At that time, the intent was that there would be no further
22 subdivision in resort recreation areas. That would include Point Roberts, the Columbia Valley,
23 and other areas. When the Council looked at the urban residential zoning during the committee
24 meeting, people thought that the intent was to allow additional development where there is water
25 and sewer availability. However, it wasn't the committee's intent to put a moratorium on future
26 divisions in those areas. That is why it was deleted.
27
28 Hoag questioned whether this was an item the Planning Commission added. Goodwin
29 stated that the Planning Commission recommended that it be added. The Council recommended
30 that it be added when the interim development regulations were done. The Planning
31 Commission recommended that it stay in there. The Planning and Development Committee
32 decided to remove it.
33
34 Nelson stated that it was a part of the growth management challenges of the Hearings
35 Board. The County did not have those results at the time.
36
37 Goodwin stated that a part of the issue is that the rural legislation was adopted that stated
38 there could be in -fill and expansion in areas that were previously established. Areas that already
39 have a pattern of partially developed urban areas, or more intense rural development, can
40 continue to in -fill.
41
42 Hoag questioned whether the Planning Commission supports its removal. Goodwin
43 stated that she didn't know. She wasn't privy to why they wanted it added.
44
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 15
I Goodwin stated that she believed they wanted it added before because they were
2 concerned about allowing additional subdivisions outside of urban growth areas. Now with the
3 in -fill of the rural area, it may be more appropriate.
4
5 Brenner stated that there are few areas that this will affect. Goodwin stated that the two
6 major areas are Point Roberts, which will be reviewed next year, and the Columbia Valley. Most
7 of the other resort recreational subdivisions are fully platted out.
8
9 Hoag questioned the differences allowed in a Heavy Impact District and a Light Impact
10 District and whether it would be more appropriate to have those match the districts being created.
11 Goodwin responded that there might not be a lot of difference because the accessory uses are
12 things such as support services. Conditional uses in the Heavy Impact Industrial districts are
13 things such as solid disposal sites, treatment and storage for hazardous waste, and transitory solid
14 waste. It is all treatment of waste generated on -site. They would be appropriate in either zone.
15
16 Hoag moved to amend packet page 179, section 20.74.050 to state, "Conditional uses
17 shall be the same as those permitted in the appropriate district, ,
18 WCC"
19
20 Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Nelson in favor.
21
22 Hoag questioned the reason for eliminating section 20.88.125 on packet page 182. If it is
23 to be removed, the language above also needed to be removed. Also, section 20.92.205(3) on
24 packet page 183 would have to be changed. Goodwin responded that the Comprehensive Plan
25 discusses general terms on how a rezone would be processed for the Custer area. It is fairly clear
26 that it should go to the Hearing Examiner, but it is not 100% clear. This would clarify how that
27 would be processed. This item is under discussion by Planning Commission currently. At this
28 time, it would be more efficient to process it as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) than as a
29 Major Development Permit, because a Major Development Permit is processed like a Planned
30 Unit Development. It didn't seem to make sense to get specific at this time since there will be a
31 hearing on it in the next couple of months.
32
33 Brenner questioned whether the C.U.S.T.E.R. group supported it as a PUD. Goodwin
34 stated that they supported that the master plan had to be done before the rezone. This would still
35 do that. There isn't detail about what is to be done with the master plan once it was done. The
36 language in the Comprehensive Plan is for 400 acres.
37
38 Hoag questioned what is being referred to with the definition of substantial on packet
39 page 184, section 20.97.434. Goodwin stated that 10% is an arbitrary amount. Several sections
40 in the Code were reviewed. If a PUD or a plat is amended, any change that is not more than 10%
41 doesn't have to go back for further review. There are other sections that discuss 10 %. It seemed
42 like a logical number. The definition was put in because the Code was vague when addressing
43 significant amendments or substantial. It addresses a lot of different areas. Generally substantial
44 is left to the discretion of whoever is deciding it. The Planning and Development Committee
45 requested a definition.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Hoag stated that she preferred to amend it to 5 %. If it is more than 5 %, then it needs to
be considered.
Brenner stated that she would rather it be left to the discretion of the person making the
decision.
Nelson stated that he raised the concern about the definition of substantial. His concern
was for staff and the Hearing Examiner. He suggested striking the entire reference. He hoped
that something in previous development standards existed that would set a standard.
Hoag moved to strike the definition of substantial in section 20.97.434 and all references
in the document that refer to the definition.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned what language was added to section 14.02.050 on packet page 185
regarding the Right to Farm section. Goodwin responded that the only language that was added
was, "or rural" in line two of section (A).
Hoag stated that the entire Iowa State Right to Farm was thrown out by the Iowa
Supreme Court. They declared the law and a local land use decision violate state and federal
constitutions. They said that a clause in the law, which grants immunity from a nuisance suit,
creates a common law easement over the neighbor's property, which amounts to a taking of
private property for public use without the payment of just compensation. This may be appealed
to the Supreme Court. Section A of the development regulations is almost word for word of the
Iowa law. Goodwin requested to research the issue and bring it back as an emergency
amendment. It is existing language.
Hoag stated that she wanted to retain the sections that notify people to expect farming
activities, but didn't want to put the County in the position of being sued by removing a
neighbor's right to go to court. Goodwin stated that if they wanted to address the issue now, the
appropriate motion would be to move to delete the section.
Hoag moved to remove the language in section 14.02.050 regarding agreement to refrain
from legal action at this time, then bring it back after review.
Sutter questioned whether there was a way to suspend it rather than delete it completely..
Hoag questioned legal counsel where that would leave the County legally.
Sutter stated that it may completely go away if it is deleted. She would rather put it some
kind of suspension.
Goodwin suggested a sunset clause that would bring it back at a certain time.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether that option still leaves the County open to be sued.
Imhof suggested sending it to the Planning Commission for review.
Hoag suggested leaving the rest of the right to farm section, but removing the section that
removes a person's right to sue.
Sutter stated that the legal question was whether the County could require someone to
waive their right to sue.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she could not answer that
question at the time. There may be a State law that dictates this.
Imhof stated that he preferred to leave the language in, research the issue, then remove it
by an emergency ordinance if necessary.
Brenner stated that she supported removing the language. This was brought up when
they did the Right to Farm ordinance. No one knew of anything in the court system at the time.
This is now in the court system. This was already judged on in another state. The County is
better off suspending it for now, and bringing it back after it has had careful, legal scrutiny.
Motion to delete the section and send it to the Planning Commission for review carried 5-
2 with Nelson and Imhof opposed.
Brown stated that he very much opposed the agricultural overlay zone, however there has
been a lot of work put into the document, so this one time, he supported it.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a short break. End of tape two, side B. Council resumed to
address Public Hearing item #4)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF
APPLICATIONS FOR, AND ISSUANCE OF, USE PERMITS AND BUILDING
PERMITS, AND BUSINESS LICENSES FOR ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, ADULT
THEATER, AND ADULT USE ESTABLISHMENTS (AB98 -394)
Michael Knapp stated that the Executive, the Prosecutor and he recommended approval.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Sutter moved approval.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
had.
Sutter questioned whether the SEPA checklist had been completed. Knapp stated that it
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
(Clerks Note: Council moved to Other Items #1.)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91 -076 TO CLARIFY GOVERNING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE FOR COUNTY -WIDE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT (AB98 -408)
Dawson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated that the public doesn't want to vote for a
blank check for a chunk of money for someone to grab. The County did not say what they
wanted to do and why it was good for the people.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance. The Council set up the Water Advisory
Committee, which Council Member Sutter has been involved. These are not simple issues.
Funding is essential. Coordinated water system planning was a concept that began four to five
years ago and is just now coming to fruition.
Monsen stated that Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson wrote the proposed
ordinance. He did not know which language was new and which was current.
Hoag moved to delete the language, "AWEREAS, in , that positieft is
filled by the Dir-eetor- of the Publie Wofks DepaAment, who operates under- the administfative
ever-sight and dir-eetion of the Geunty Exeeutive rather- than the Geenty Getmeil; 51
15th.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Motion to adopt carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Brown, and Hoag opposed.
Imhof stated that there was a request to cancel the Board of Health meeting on December
Sutter stated that she preferred to take care of business.
(Clerk's Note: Council moved to Public Hearing item #6.)
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 19
1 4. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
2 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND CLARIFYING THE
3 GOVERNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE DISTRICT (AB98-
4 409)
5
6 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that items #3 and #4 are related in the
7 administrative and clarification issues relative to the flood district and the County. Item #4
8 would be the way the flood fees are doubled from what they are currently to fund the water
9 resource plan.
10
11 Brenner questioned the purpose for the clarifications. Monsen stated that the clarification
12 goes back to the audit of the flood control program. This is how they have been functioning. It
13 formalizes that the Executive plays a role relative to the Board of Supervisors. It is consistent
14 with the Home Rule Charter.
15
16 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
17
18 Kellie Linville, 3113 Eldridge Avenue, Bellingham, urged the Council to take a strong
19 leadership position on water protection funding and water resources. She commended the staff,
20 the Council, and the Executive, for coming up with a comprehensive water plan and a dedicated
21 source of funding. The State may come forward with additional funding and additional support
22 for local communities to do watershed management. They are also pushing the federal
23 government, since implementation of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are
24 federal regulations, which the State is required to implement and comes down on local
25 governments.
26
27 Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Chair, stated that the
28 Committee supported the Executive's water plan, with some reservations. Those reservations are
29 that the flood fund integrity is kept by keeping separate accounts. The funding is critically
30 needed. If the County is not proactive and takes the lead, then the alternatives are something that
31 the County would not want to face.
32
33 Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail, Public Utility District Manager, asked the Council
34 to support a funding mechanism for the process. They are facing a potential budget of $12
35 million to do this, based on a grant application. A significant portion of that money would have
36 to come out of local pockets. The State will probably come up with more money, and the federal
37 government will also probably provide some money, although not early in the process. There
38 needs to be a commitment by the Council that the County is prepared to fund this budget. The
39 second thing that is needed is clear indication and a direction for initial funding for the County
40 staff to increase staff to do adequate planning. This process is dependent on public input and
41 education. Public input is not possible if it is not done well. Well done public input costs money
42 and takes staff time. There has also been confusion about the participation of the State and
43 federal agencies. The State agencies participation is clearly for State buy -in to what the County
44 will eventually ask the State to do. If the State agencies are at the table and agree to what the
45 County works out, then the State is committed to doing it, according to the law. The State
46 agencies also have an agreement amongst themselves that two State agencies can represent all
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 20
I State agencies. As an initiating government, he needs to know that the funding is going to be
2 there and to know what quality of project will be created.
3
4 Robin Dexter, 3627 Broad Street, Bellingham, spoke on behalf of purse seine vessel
5 owners. He has no objection to the flood funds. There is no reason not to use an existing
6 mechanism to fund this. This should be funded well beyond the level to which the Council can
7 see the need. There needs to be a blank check with very careful oversight. Just because the
8 money is available in a fund, it doesn't mean that it has to be spent. It takes that one -year lead
9 time for all the jurisdictional budget processes.
10
11 Jim Lapalla, 2674 Haxton Way, Bellingham, supported the water plan and the funding
12 process. The people in the Nooksack River watershed are in the same position as the people in
13 the Lake Whatcom watershed. There have to be controls and funding. The amount per person is
14 a small amount.
15
16 Rod Pemble, 2915 Cedarwood, Bellingham, stated that he dropped off a letter earlier in
17 the day to the Council Members. He stated that the County should act to deal with the problem
18 now, at a reasonable cost, before a disaster happens.
19
20 Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
21
22 Nelson moved to approve the resolution.
23
24 Hoag requested a review of the plan, Other Item #6, before addressing the funding.
25
26 Brenner spoke against increasing the tax. There are parts of the plan that are important.
27 She wanted those parts funded only. The County does not need to increase the tax to fund those
28 portions. She suggested freezing all County government salaries and use that money for funding.
29 Everybody that works for the County is a public servant. There is not a lot of extra money for
30 increases in salary.
31
32 Brenner moved to amend to fund the next three years through a freeze of the County
33 government employee salaries.
34
35 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
36
37 Sutter stated that Tom Anderson was under the impression that this funding would be
38 used for ESHB 2514 efforts. She was under the impression that it would be used for all of the
39 efforts in the water plan, which includes ESHB 2514.
40
41 Sutter stated that the last two "Whereas "' in the resolution, on packet page 196, indicate
42 that the Flood Control Zone District is going to be responsible for the plan. She questioned
43 whether that was correct. Monsen stated that the District would not be responsible for the plan,
44 but would provide the revenue to begin initial elements. Under the statute, the District can
45 assume those kinds of responsibilities and finance the efforts.
46
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Sutter questioned how that relates to the whole thing when the County is dealing with
other jurisdictions with ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496. It is not just the District that is involved.
Monsen stated that the District, through agreements, convey those revenues to any other entity to
carry the work out.
Sutter stated that the resolution does not address the increase in the flood tax going
specifically to these efforts. Monsen stated that it would be then appropriate to add language
such as, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the revenue generated in the
increase be set aside specifically for ... (describe the purpose)."
Sutter proposed that type of language. She suggested dedicating the additional 3 %.
Dawson supported Hoag's suggestion to go through the plan prior to funding. The plan is
not specific enough. Programs have to be mandated and tested. The County must have
measurable results to get off of the listing. They don't care about the number of fish.
Sutter stated that she wanted to see the first year's funding toward beefing up the plan
and securing other sources of funding.
(Clerk's Note: Council began discussions of Other Items #6, on packet page 244)
(Clerk's Note: Council resumed discussion after discussions on Other Items #6.)
Hoag stated that the change of the structure of the district has been said as being done in
response to the audit that was done. However, the audit that was done does not call for the
proposed changes outlined on packet page 198. On packet page 199, language was added
including the County Executive as a member of the Board of Supervisors. That was not
recommended in the audit. She read from the audit recommendations.
Monsen stated that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the operation of the
District is similar to that as the structure of the County.
Hoag stated that it doesn't clarify what the Flood Control Zone District would look to
from the Council or the Executive. Duties are not divided.
Monsen stated that the clarification is that the duties are the same as assigned in the
Charter.
Hoag stated that the Charter does not clarify the responsibility for leadership and
administration for the District.
Brown referenced packet page 191 and stated that inference is that, since the Public
Works Director is directly involved with the County Council, the Executive should also be
involved because the Public Works Director is an administrative position. However, prosecuting
attorney staff advises the Council, yet Prosecutor McEachran is not involved in the operations.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
People from the administration can work with the Council without administrative oversight. It is
not necessary to change the wording.
Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee member, stated that he
has no opinion one way or the other. The State Revised Code of Washington (RCW) surmised
that the County was governed by a three- member board of commissioners. The powers of those
commissioners were divided between the County Council and the County Executive when the
County went to the Home Rule Charter.
Brenner stated that there are many instances in which the County Executive is not
involved. The audit doesn't suggest that the procedures be changed, only clarified.
Imhof stated that the resolution is only clarifying the system.
Kremen stated that he has no desire to serve on another Board. The Public Works
Director informed him that he needed to be a member of the Board. There may be some
benefits, such as working together in a collaborative way. The most important issue is to be able
to work together with other organizations, public, administration, and Council. If there is no
cooperation, they could have all the money in the world, but nothing would get done. He
stressed the necessity of the Council and the Executive to work together.
Dawson stated that the concern regards giving direction. There might be a division.
Dawson moved to remove the reference to the County Executive.
Monsen suggested holding the item in Council until clarification could be received. The
hearing that just closed was regarding the resolution, item #4. The ordinance, item #3 hasn't yet
been before the Council. If the language is troubling and confusing, he suggested a separate
discussion on that issue specifically.
Sutter questioned whether Monsen's suggestion was to strike the sections in the "Now
therefore be it resolved..." that referenced the County Executive. Monsen stated that it was. He
also suggested they confer with legal counsel.
Sutter moved to approve the resolution and to delete sections #1, #2 and #3 of Exhibit A
on packet page 196, and strike the references to those sections in the resolution.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Sutter suggested setting aside the entire resolution.
Monsen stated that the ordinance deals only with the creation of the district. The
resolution by the Board of Supervisor's sets the funding.
Sutter stated that her amendment was to also re -word the title of the resolution.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 23
2 Imhof restated the motion to delete references to sections #1 through #3 in the resolution,
3 to delete sections #1 through #3 from Exhibit A.
4
5 Brenner stated that section #1 of the Exhibit A was the funding.
6
7 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the ordinance in Public Hearings item
8 #3 creates the same bifurcation of responsibility between the Council and the Executive that
9 existed in the previous form of County, prior to the existence of the Home Rule Charter.
10
11 Sutter withdrew the motion.
12
13 Hoag stated that the audit report shows the organizational chart of the District, which
14 includes the County Council, the County Council staff, the Public Works Department, and the
15 Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. There is no reference to the Executive. It
16 does not call for the Executive to be added to the District, but to only clarify the by -laws.
17
18 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the Home Rule Charter is not
19 what is being discussed. The State RCW talks in terms of Board of Commissioners, which work
20 fine in counties with commissioners with legislative and administrative functions. Whatcom
21 County has a different system. If the Executive is added to the Board of Supervisor's, he won't
22 be invading on the legislative business, he'll be just doing the administrative functions, such as
23 entering into contracts and supervising staff. He does those things anyway. The way the
24 ordinance currently reads, he should be added to the Board of Supervisors. He will not be
25 changing the way the County Council does business.
26
27 Brown questioned whether there is a mechanism for the Executive to veto or stop
28 legislative action in the current process.
29
30 Frakes stated that, the way it is currently written, the Executive is entirely out of the
31 process.
32
33 Brown questioned whether including him in the process would give him authority to veto
34 decisions or curtail actions.
35
36 Wareing stated that the current problem is that the Council is dealing directly with the
37 Public Works Engineer. The structure of the Home Rule Charter is that the Council makes a
38 legislative decision, then delegates to the Executive to execute the decision.
39
40 Brenner questioned the membership of the Health Board prior to the County Home Rule
41 Charter, when there were commissioners instead of Council /Executive.
42
43 Frakes stated that the RCW doesn't address the Board of Commissioners. It may say that
44 the legislative body of the county shall be the Health Board.
45
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, 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
Imhof moved approval of the resolution.
Sutter moved to amend by adding the following language, `BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the 1999 increase in the service charge be dedicated to the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Water Resources Plan."
Kremen stated that the intent of the language offered by Sutter is agreeable to the
administration. The way it was proposed is a bit confining and administration would like more
latitude and flexibility. He believed that her intent was to separate the increase from the current
amount. Sutter stated that it was.
Kremen agreed that the two funds needed to be separated to ensure that the increase goes
to fully fund the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan.
Sutter stated that she wanted to see the money leveraged as much as possible.
Kremen stated that another thing to consider was that the other participating governments
are concerned that the County Council would dictate, rather than participate. Language should
be included that would be in a positive spirit with the other participating governments for ESHB
2514.
Sutter stated that she did not want all of the money going to one effort, such as ESHB
2514 or salmon.
Kremen stated that the County Council has control of the purse strings for ESHB 2514.
If they don't agree, then it doesn't happen. They have that control as lead agency and as a
participating government.
Sutter was concerned that Lake Whatcom management doesn't take a back seat to salmon
recovery or ESHB 2514. They all need to be on a more equitable level with each other.
Kremen suggested creating language that would clarify that there would be an equitable
and prudent distribution of the funding to cover the items within the Comprehensive Water
Resources Plan.
Sutter stated that is why she suggested that the first year's funding go towards developing
the scope of work of this plan, which includes all of those.
Wareing suggested language, `BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the funds generated
shall be used to appropriately facilitate the implementation of the Comprehensive Water Plan
and all of the included elements in an appropriate manner so as to maximize the acquisition of
any state and federal funds to this purpose and the intent of the aforementioned plan."
Sutter stated that the County is not ready to implement the plan.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Brown stated that the scoping document needed to be done.
Wareing stated that is where they would start.
Kremen stated that implementation could be handled in various ways. The purpose of
implementation is to get the plan off of the ground, not actual implementation of actual projects.
A better term would be to "fund the plan."
Sutter stated that the plan is not complete enough to fund.
Wareing stated that the plan is a place to start. There has to be agreement to finalize
where the Council wants to go with it. They are creating the mechanism to move the process
forward.
Sutter questioned what the administration will do once they have the pot of money.
Wareing stated that the administration would sit down with the Council to decide how it
is going to be spent. The Executive will not move forward without the agreement of all of the
parties involved. Once the money has been allocated to be generated and collected, it cannot be
spent without the approval of the Council through the supplemental process. They will have to
come forward at the first of the year with a supplemental and a further flushing -out of the plan.
Sutter amended her amendment to state, `BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the 1999
increase in the service charge be dedicated to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Resources
Water Plan."
Brown stated that the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) recommendation was that
before any expenditures took place, there be a plan.
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Hoag stated that the assessments for the flood fund are very inequitable. She proposed
that the increases be changed. For instance, group 3 on page 200 should have a $5.00 increase in
fee instead of a $13.00 increase.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
Hoag stated that the proposed fees need to be re- apportioned so they are more equitable.
Imhof stated that when this was done, there was thought that went into it.
Nelson questioned whether Hoag received any public comments on the fee structure.
Hoag replied that she did not, but comments would be received if the fees were doubled.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Hoag moved to approve the resolution with the condition to put the fee structure into a
work session for reconsideration.
Brown stated that, when this was first brought forward, it was mentioned that the fee
structure needed to be reviewed. Part of that discussion was that it ended at $400,000. Property
values are much higher than $400,000 and the fee structure should have been extended upwards.
He concurred that the fee structure needs to be reviewed. It should have been done prior to the
current discussion.
Brenner stated that originally, the bulk of the inequitable charges was placed on
properties of which the County has the most. It had nothing to do with the relationship of fee to
service.
Hoag withdrew a portion of her motion to approve the resolution. The motion was only
to add a condition that the fee structure be put into a work session for reconsideration.
Imhof restated the motion to put the fee structure into a work session for reconsideration.
Sutter questioned how it affects the resolution.
Hoag stated that it only does in that the resolution speaks to specific amounts that are
charged to specific parcels. That will become what is charged, unless this is changed.
Motion to put the fee structure in a work session carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Sutter, and
Imhof opposed.
Sutter stated that they will pass the resolution with no money attached to it.
Hoag responded that the money will be there.
Dawson stated that the money is coming from the flood fund, but the amounts are not
specific.
Dawson stated that if the amendment means the money couldn't be collected this year,
then she wanted to change her vote.
Monsen stated that, because of the timing, the Council can make adjustments to the rates.
However, if they put off changing the rates until another time, then the Assessor and Treasurer
cannot create the statements. The Assessor needed the information by the first of December, but
they know the elements of the issue, so they don't need as much time. They are pushing the
limit now.
Dawson moved to reconsider amendment to put the fee structure in a work session for
discussion.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed.
(Clerk's Note: No motion was made to amend the fee structure. The motion was to
approve the resolution as amended earlier.)
Brown questioned whether there was any way that he could convince the Council
Members to use the Conservation Futures Funds.
Nelson stated that he would be interested in looking at other funding mechanisms.
Brown stated that they could amend the Conservation Futures ordinance to allow for
funding for this type of project.
Hoag stated that using the County's savings is a higher priority and should be used to
fund. She questioned whether other Council Members would support funding from the County's
savings. Only Brenner and Brown responded.
Imhof stated that the motion was to approve the resolution as amended.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Council moved to Public Hearing Item #3)
5. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER
2.24A, ON A ONE YEAR INTERIM BASIS FOR THOSE FEE LANDS WITHIN THE
LUMMI RESERVATION AND WITHIN THE MT. BAKER SNOQUALMIE
NATIONAL FOREST (AB98 -415)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Planning and Development Services Planning
Manager, stated that the interim zoning has been extended for 25 years, on an annual basis. This
would extend it one more year. It expires on January 15. The County staff has been working
with the Lummi Nation on a plan, but it isn't done. They are closer. They will finish and
propose permanent zoning, with or without the Lummi Nation, within a year. If there isn't a
joint plan, there will be an individual plan. If a joint plan bogs down, the County can do
permanent zoning without the Lummi Nation. They are getting close to a permanent plan for the
trust plans, but she has not seen a draft. Goodwin stated that they could adopt an emergency
ordinance during the Council meeting on January 12, 1999.
Hoag stated that she was not comfortable with adopting an emergency ordinance in
January. There are a lot of ramifications. Goodwin clarified that the emergency ordinance is
only good for 60 days, when it then goes to the Planning Commission for a hearing.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 28
I Bernice Brannon, 4145 Patos, Sandy Point, stated that Henry Cagey of the Lummi Nation
2 in the past stated that the Lummi Tribe has control of the zoning on the reservation. There are
3 jurisdiction problems on fee lands. Residents want their permits issued through the County, not
4 the Tribe. The Tribe has no incentive to have zoning separating the fee lands.
5
6 Earl Baker, 4175 Sucia Drive, couldn't understand how there is a consideration of Tribal
7 involvement in fee land zoning. On the reservation, fee landowners pay taxes to Whatcom
8 County, follow and abide by the County building codes, pay for County permits and have
9 inspections based on County regulations for those permits, and pay taxes that support County
10 services. He requested serious consideration for permanent zoning.
11
12 Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
13
14 Dawson moved to bring forward emergency permanent zoning at the next Council
15 meeting and to continue with the process of making that emergency zoning permanent.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether the emergency ordinance would include the zoning that would
18 be in the final permanent zoning ordinance, or if the emergency ordinance would be another
19 extension of the interim ordinance.
20
21 Goodwin responded that it would be difficult to determine the zoning that the County
22 wants to see permanently until they see what the zoning of the adjacent trust lands will be and
23 until the water issues are resolved. If they don't know how much water is available or what the
24 adjacent trust lands will be, the best they can come up with is permanent zoning that resembles
25 the interim zoning until the other issues are resolved.
26
27 Hoag questioned whether there is anything different about the permanent as opposed to
28 the interim zoning. Goodwin stated that interim zoning for 25 years has been permanent zoning.
29 Down - zoning property if there is no water, as long as there is reasonable use of the land, won't
30 be lost in court.
31
32 Brenner questioned County Executive Pete Kremen about whether this would have a
33 significant effect on the negotiations with the Lummis. Kremen responded that it is hard to say.
34 He should be able to continue to have a positive, productive working relationship with the Tribe.
35 They are watchful of what the Council does. That has to be a call of the Council Members.
36
37 Hoag questioned Brannon whether permanent zoning will have any different as the
38 interim zoning. It is still County zoning. Brannon responded that they would be able to tell the
39 Lummis that they don't have zoning.
40
41 Brenner stated that if the Lummis refuse to work with the County, it affects everyone in
42 the County. It is not just about fee land areas. It is important to continue to work with the
43 Lummis.
44
45 Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 29
2 (Clerk's Note: Council moved to Public Hearing Item #2)
3
4 6. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL
5 OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,335,000 FOR REPAYMENT OF
6 THE INTERFUND LOAN AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER
7 BUILDING (AB98 -417)
8
9 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that this completes the purchase of the Civic
10 Center building. He introduced Robert Shelley.
11
12 Robert Shelley stated that the financing for the building acquisition turned out well.
13 They had to prepare a prospectus, which they mailed out to all prospective investors. The
14 document was also shared with rating agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor's. Both
15 agencies had good things to say about the County. The County has strong financial management
16 and a strong fund balance. The County is currently rated Al by Moody's and A by Standard and
17 Poor's, with a positive outlook inline for an upgrade to the upper A category. There are only five
18 counties in the State with a higher rating than Whatcom County. The bonds were received
19 favorably in the marketplace. The average borrowing cost of the bonds was 4.49 %. That is
20 within a month and a half of being within a 30 -year low in the bond market. Timing is excellent.
21 The relative interest rates are higher.
22
23 Nelson questioned whether the 4.49% was the average over the 20 years. Shelley
24 responded that is the all- inclusive borrowing costs.
25
26 Wareing distributed the final ordinance, which was slightly different than the ordinance
27 in the packet.
28
29 Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one Imhof closed the public hearing.
30
31 Dawson moved to adopt the substitute ordinance.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether the REET tax could be used towards repayment of the bond.
34
35 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that the REET tax as
36 levied is used for funding the courthouse bonds. The County could increase the REET tax
37 another .5% and double the income. It could only be used for projects on the capital facilities
38 plan.
39
40 Brown questioned whether part of the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET) was devoted to the
41 Economic Development Council. Bennett stated that the Council is required to use the REET tax
42 to offset the impact of development on the community. The law was changed a few years ago
43 that make it more restrictive. The money can only be spent pursuant to the capital facilities plan.
44 However, they grand- fathered in that if they were using the REET tax for outstanding debt, then
45 they could continue to do that.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Council moved to Public Hearing Item #5)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1998 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10 (AB98 -410)
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval of budget items one and two. Item three is for discussion.
Brenner moved to delete $90,000 for the boat storage building.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
EXPENSES AND /OR TRAVEL (AB98 -143L)
Hoag moved approval.
Motion to approved carried 6 -0 with Imhof abstaining.
3. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING POLICIES AND A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR 1999 (AB98 -418)
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval.
Motion to approve carried 5 -2 with Brown and Brenner opposed.
4. REVIEW OF THE WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION ON
THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE PLAN (AB98-
416B)
Sutter stated that the only public input was from the Water Advisory Committee and was
highly praised.
(Clerks Note: End of tape four, side A.)
Sutter continued to state that the Water Advisory Committee comments should be given
consideration in the process of the County's water planning.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 31
1 5. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
2 ON FILE CUP98 -0025, FILED BY KRIS AND SANDRA OLGEIRSSON, C/O PHIL
3 SERKA, ATTORNEY AT LAW (AB98 -387)
4
5 See "Announcements."
6
7 (Clerk's Note: Council continued discussion of Other Items #6.)
9 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE
10 WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE PLAN (AB98-
11 416A)
12
13 Hoag moved to amend by changing the following amounts: Watershed Analyst position
14 amended to $53,280.40. That is what the Council approved for wages and benefits on the budget
15 supplement. The ESA Coordinator should be increased to $75,000. There are a lot of things that
16 need to be done over the long -term with watershed planning. Processes need to begin. The
17 County will be listed in February. If they are lucky, they will get a six -month extension. If the
18 County hired someone immediately, they would be lucky to come up with a local plan between
19 now and a six -month extension beyond February. She also added a secretary for Salmon/ESA in
20 the amount of $20,000. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, the Building Industry
21 Association (BIA) and the Water Advisory Committee have all requested that a scope of work be
22 done before they outline the details of the other plans. Money should be budgeted for the scope
23 of work. The ESA doesn't fall under that. The scope of work should be budgeted in the amount
24 of $100,000. After the scope of work has been prepared, then they can come before the Council
25 and outline what they want to accomplish and what that would cost. One of the things in the
26 recently approved 1999 budget was $1.7 million for one -time funds that is still available to be
27 spent. There is another $850,000 in supplemental monies that are available. All of those funds
28 can be used to begin the items that need to be funded immediately, such as the scope of work and
29 the ESA Coordinator. After the scope of work is done, the County can address the other items.
30
31 Brenner stated that when the County did the flood tax, there were a lot of cautions about
32 basing a fee on assessed value. That makes it a tax. This is taking it to a different level. A lot of
33 the work has nothing to do with flooding. The Council needs to be creative and find other
34 revenues. She supported Hoag's recommendation.
35
36 Sutter stated that taking the funding out of the one -time funds is not appropriate because
37 they are not one -time expenditures. It is not appropriate for the County Council to be setting
38 salaries. There are certain things that have to be done first. The first task is to bring this plan up
39 to a standard that is workable and supportable. The second task is to secure other sources of
40 funding. Those are the two items that have to be top priorities.
41
42 Dawson stated that the County should access the one -time funding to get the specific
43 programs in place, but should not go into reserves. If reserves are used, then they should be
44 replaced.
45
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 32
I Nelson requested clarification for what one -time designated funding can be used.
2
3 Dawson questioned whether regular reserves, if used, could be replaced by the regular
4 flood zone fee. Wareing stated that he would have to have legal opinion. There is $1.7 million
5 designated for one -time expenditures. That has been allocated in the 1999 budget. It is not
6 available for expenditure.
7
8 Hoag stated that most of that money was available according to Brad Bennett, Finance
9 Manager. Wareing responded that $1.7 million was allocated in the budget. It can't be changed
10 unless the Council goes back and changes all the one -time funding requests that were approved
11 in the budget. The second amount of money discussed was $850,000 set aside in the
12 contingency reserve. Net expenditure for supplemental contingency for 1998 was $835,000.
13 That money has to be there. The third amount, the unreserved fund balance, is projected to be
14 $1,236,000. That money doesn't exist yet. It may or may not. It is a reason the Council adopted
15 higher reserve to protect against unexpected shortfalls.
16
17 Brown questioned the amount the reserves were increased. Wareing stated that the rainy
18 day reserve was increased by $250,000. The cash reserve was increased from $1.25 million to
19 $3 million.
20
21 Brown stated that $1.75 million went into the hard cash reserve. The Council could vote
22 to take part of that and use it for funding to get the scope of work completed and determine the
23 funding mechanism. Wareing responded that is a reserve that is needed to maintain the bond
24 rating.
25
26 Hoag questioned with what monies Sutter would fund the scope of work and a grant
27 writer. Sutter responded that she has not attached money to those activities because she doesn't
28 have that expertise. That was a recommendation from the Water Advisory Committee. It is
29 necessary for a first year effort.
30
31 Hoag stated that the programs that have been done have been funded through grants.
32 People in the water business are saying that a scope of work needed to be done and a grant writer
33 needed to be assigned to determine funding sources. That would be appropriate before using
34 County funds.
35
36 Sutter stated that a grant writing position would require money to hire someone.
37
38 County Executive Pete Kremen explained that in order to take advantage of state and
39 federal grant funds, the County will need to be able to match 25 -50 %.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A)
42
43 The County now has an opportunity to obtain $1.4 million from the federal government,
44 through the State government, but the County is required to match 25 %, which is approximately
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 33
1 $360,000. In order to access funding, the County has to come up with a sizeable amount of
2 money.
3
4 Tom Anderson, Public Utility District #1 General Manager, emphasized that, as an
5 initiating government, it is critical to have confidence that funding is available to do a project. It
6 is a critical element of approving the resolution as it is drafted. It should be approved for five
7 years.
8
9 Brenner stated that freezing salaries and setting salaries are not the same thing. Also, the
10 Council would have that money by freezing salaries. She supported Hoag's motion. However,
11 she would not support a coordinated planning manager at this point. A grant writer could be
12 contracted. After the plan is spent, the County may then need an on -going coordinator. It is a lot
13 of money to spend up front before they know what they are doing.
14
15 Dawson stated that she was not comfortable with doubling the flood tax unless a specific
16 plan was in place.
17
18 Brown stated that they could use some portion of the $1.7 million in added reserves. The
19 Council will fund this thing one way or another. His preference was that the Conservation
20 Futures would be the most appropriate fund to amend to provide funding for fish and wildlife
21 restoration and enhancement for future generations. The fund is dedicated to providing open
22 space and public lands for future generations. It makes sense to use it to ensure the natural
23 resources, such as fish and wildlife, are available for future generations. Because the
24 Conservation Futures tax reduces the tax base and increases County obligations for maintenance
25 and liability, it makes sense to utilize the funds for ESA and water related issues, to help relieve
26 the tax burdens on property owners. Brown stated that it is a realistic way to fund this for a year
27 or two.
28
29 Kremen stated that the Council voted on a budget just two weeks ago. The budget
30 process that was used included in it one -time expenditures of $1.713 million. This is a very
31 complex process and a complex document. It was very clear in the document.
32
33 Hoag responded that she was familiar with the document and the one -time expenditures
34 that were allocated. However, at two different committee meetings, she was told there was an
35 additional $1.7 million available in one time expenditures. At the last budget meeting, she
36 recommended the ESA planner. She mentioned that fund as a source for funding the planner.
37 There was agreement that the money was there.
38
39 Nelson called for the question.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: Hoag's motion was not voted on. Council resumed discussion of Public
42 Hearing item #4)
43
44 Kremen stated that they needed to approve the plan.
45
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Imhof moved to accept the water plan in theory.
Sutter stated that there is nothing to vote on.
Wareing stated that they would have to have an amendment document, or they could
amend the budget to include the water plan.
Sutter stated that the budget has to be amended by ordinance and there is no ordinance
before the Council.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that a budget amendment would be coming
forward in 1999.
(Clerk's Note: Council moved to Reports and Other Items)
ADDENDUM:
7. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER
HANDBOOK OF OFFICE AND OPERATING POLICIES (AB98 -428)
Dawson moved to adopt the first two policies, #1 and #2, and add #3 that states,
"Questions of potential liability in correspondence by Council Members will be addressed by the
Clerk. If the Clerk feels there is potential liability, you will be referred to the Council's attorney.
If the author of the correspondence disputes the attorney's opinion, the Council Member may
bring it to the full Council for review."
Nelson questioned the first two elements and whether there would be separate letterhead
or generic stationary.
Imhof stated that everything would go to the Clerk for disposition to staff.
Brown suggested separate letterheads for each Council Member, which would be
formatted on the computer, to be printed on County letterhead.
The Council concurred.
Sutter stated that she did not feel comfortable giving the Council the ability to second -
guess the attorney's judgement of what is libelous.
Motion to approve as amended carried 6 -1 with Sutter opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Council adjourned.)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Dawson stated that she had four letters that she was requesting be approved by the
Council. The letter to the Army Corps of Engineers was discussed during committee. The
committee voted to recommend approval of the letter. Another letter addressed the Lummi
Tribe's attempt to hook into the Sandy Point water line. It was a letter to the Committee of
Indian Affairs asking them to have someone intervene. There was also a letter to the Domestic
Violence Commission, to be delivered by Chuck Benjamin, Health & Human Services
Department Director. The last letter was a request to map tribal trust land on the Lummi
Reservation, by writing to Stanley Speaks, Area Director of the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). Keith Willnauer, County Assessor, reviewed the proposed letter and stated that it is a quit
claim that was referenced, not a quick claim.
Imhof stated that he read all but the one regarding Domestic Violence. He didn't have a
problem with the three he read.
Brown questioned whether there was any way the Council could find out if a certain
location on Highway 9 was being used as a disposal site and whether it is tribal land.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the area Brown referenced is
trust land. It has been officially been determined, through the BIA.
Dawson stated that she had been in contact with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), but they had not yet responded.
Dawson stated that the first letter the Council would address would be the letter to the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Hoag stated that she still had reservations about leaving in the reference regarding right -
of -way.
Brown moved approval of the letter to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Brenner moved to amend by removing reference regarding the right -of -way.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Motion to approve the letter carried unanimously.
Dawson stated that the next letter regarded mapping of the tribal trust lands.
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson stated that the next letter regarded a request to the Committee of Indian Affairs
asking for the appointment of a commissioner to assist in dispute resolution.
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Hoag moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson stated that the last letter was addressed to the Domestic Violence Commission
members.
Dawson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council moved to the addendum item, Other Item #7.)
FI 11 my a0
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on April 7 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Chair
(Clerk's Note: Following is the order in which the Council addressed the items on this agenda)
Tape 1, Side A:
Announcements
Special Presentation
Open Session (partial)
Tape 1, Side B:
Open Session (continued from IA)
Consent Agenda
Public Hearing #1 (partial)
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tape 2, Side A
Public Hearing #1(continued from 1B)
Tape 2, Side B
Public Hearing #1 (continuedfrom 2A)
Tape 3, Side A
Public Hearing #4 (partial)
Other Items #6 (partial)
Tape 3, Side B
Other Items #6 (continued from 3A)
Public Hearing #4 (continued from 3A)
Tape 4, Side A
Public Hearing #4 (continued from 3B)
Public Hearing #3
Public Hearing #6
Public Hearing #5
Public Hearing #2
Other Items #1 through #3
Other Items #4 (partial)
Tape 4, Side B
Other Items #4 (continued from 4A)
Other Items #5
Other Items #6 (continued from 3B)
Reports
Addendum /Other Items #7
Adjourn
County Council Meeting, 12/8/98, Page 38