HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 28 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular Council Meeting
July 28, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter L. Ward Nelson
Marlene Dawson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Imhof announced that during Committee of the Whole executive session there was
discussion regarding a proposed land acquisition (AB98 -020).
Imhof also announced that during Committee of the Whole executive session the Council
was briefed by legal counsel on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision filed by
Michael Rosser (AB98 -142)
Dawson moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF HEALTH — JUNE 9,1998; COUNCIL
JUNE 30,1998; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — JULY 14, 1998
Dawson moved approval of the minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
Michael Rosser, Box 158, Pt. Roberts, asked for clarification about why the Hearing
Examiner's decision was upheld by the Council. Imhof responded that the decision was upheld
based on information provided in the record. Rosser replied that the Taxpayer's Association in
Pt. Roberts is opposed to the project. The public was cut out of the process. They did not have
an opportunity to present their case. Initially there was no publication of the issue in the
newspaper in Pt. Roberts. The notification posted at the lot was inadequate. It did not meet the
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 1
I requirements of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He quoted from the Whatcom County Code
2 (WCC), section 20.84.200, and stated that the tower is not harmonious with the objectives of the
3 County Comprehensive Plan, is not designed to be constructed in accordance with the existing or
4 intended character of the area, could be hazardous or disturbing to future uses in the
5 neighborhood, activities and equipment could be detrimental to person, property, or welfare of
6 the community and would result in the loss, destruction, and damage of natural and scenic
7 features of major importance. That section of the code could also be reinforced by WCC
8 20.72.652, referring specifically to the trees in Pt. Roberts. Also, it would endanger rare and
9 unusual animal species. Parties of record were not notified when changes were made. There
10 were administrative changes to the CUP without any public input or knowledge. The CUP was
11 twice extended without public knowledge. The public has been cut out of the process and the
12 Character Plan appears to be under attack according to the County Comprehensive Plan and
13 several areas of the Whatcom County Code. There are a number of issues with this decision. He
14 requested an opportunity for discussion with the Council at a later date.
15
16 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, stated that she is frustrated with the administration
17 and the slow -down that has taken place in preparation for water hazard studies, flood study work,
18 and the activities that are intended and directed by the County Council. There have been
19 administrative tangles, bureaucracy, and indecision. The process is not moving forward fast
20 enough. She has formed a group called The Initiative Group. The first meeting is Wednesday
21 evening, July 29. She distributed invitations to the Council Members. Every other week the
22 group will be addressing topics of general community interests regarding the fundamental facts
23 and circumstances necessary to make rational decisions about county water.
24
25 Alan Buium, 1956 Saturna Place, Pt. Roberts, spoke on behalf of the Pt. Roberts
26 Taxpayer's Association and stated that the Character Plan is being eroded. If the Council does
27 not uphold the Character Plan's major objectives, then Pt. Roberts will be degraded in its future
28 development. There is a lack of enforcement of issues that are put forth by the County. They
29 understand there is a lack of funding for an enforcement officer. There is also erosion of the
30 Comprehensive Plan with the decision to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. There is no
31 real economic benefit for that tower to be constructed. There are no job opportunities that will
32 be created. The Council should consider job opportunities for the citizens of Pt. Roberts.
33 Residents don't know what type of broadcasting will take place. The broadcast is directed
34 toward British Columbia for advertising revenue. The residents also question the future of the
35 broadcasting tower once it is constructed.
36
37 Carl Weimer, Executive Director of Resources, updated the Council on the school
38 recycling education program. The Board of Directors decided to fund the program. Those funds
39 were earmarked to expand the Restore, but the Board decided to fund the school program
40 instead. There is a commitment to make sure the kids in the County know about recycling and
41 waste reduction and build a conservation ethic for the future. All the savings will be expended
42 on funding the education program for the next two years. The community will be asked to
43 contribute funding. It is not their responsibility to provide the education service. The County
44 has a contract with the state to provide education programs. All the various comprehensive plans
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
call for waste reduction and recycling programs, including education and hotline services. There
is a contract with the state to provide these services, which the County is not doing.
Elena Robertson, 2605 Sunset Drive, stated that she is sad the recycling programs have
been cut.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and announced that
an 18th item was added to the consent agenda during committee regarding a grant contract with
the state Department of Ecology (DOE), and moved approval of consent agenda items 1 through
18.
Sutter stated she had questions regarding item #17. Dawson stated that the Council will
request the administration send a letter to DOE and then have a public hearing and request the
fees come forward to the Council in the future.
Sutter questioned the section of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that was cited
and whether the flood control tax is considered an improvement tax. The RCW addresses Local
Improvement Districts (LID) and other assessments for improvements.
Imhof stated that this item should be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion.
Brown withdrew item #16 for Council consideration.
Brenner withdrew item #15 for Council consideration.
Hoag withdrew items #12 and #13 for Council consideration.
Motion to approve items #1 — #11, #14, and #18 carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE GROUP
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,840 (AB98 -284)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE
INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $79,620 (AB98 -285)
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND CURRENT
INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE PRE- VOCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $169,320 (AB98 -286)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE
GROUP SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,400
(AB98 -287)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE
INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $92,400 (AB98 -288)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND LOCAL FOCUS TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY ACCESS
SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM
COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,892 (AB98 -289)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE PRE-
VOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,480 (AB98 -290)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND VANGUARD NORTHWEST INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $37,584 (AB98 -291)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND VANGUARD NORTHWEST PRE- VOCATIONAL SERVICES
TO PROVIDE PRE - VOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $233,040
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
(AB98 -292)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING TO
PROVIDE CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,968
(AB98 -293)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING TO PROVIDE
COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,416 (AB98 -294)
12. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
THE SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO
WCC 1.10 (AB98 -295)
Wareing stated that there was a question regarding two categories of items which are
refrigerators and televisions. There are four refrigerators. Employees donated two for use in
County facilities and are no longer useful. They don't run well. The other two refrigerators
don't work at all.
Imhof stated that this resolution is only to declare a hearing date. The time for these
questions is during the public hearing process.
Hoag stated that the resolution authorizes the items to be declared surplus. She also had a
question about the desks and file cabinets that were listed.
Wareing responded that the televisions are not serviceable. All of the equipment would
be available to any department if there was a need. Most of the televisions were removed as they
failed.
Hoag questioned the condition of the 23 desks and 80 file cabinets. Wareing responded
that the file cabinets are the old style and are difficult to operate. Some were used in the old
building. The departments are still utilizing the ones that are good. These cabinets are not
serviceable and are being designated as surplus. Administration has determined that the items
are appropriate to be designated as surplus and the money should be returned to the general fund.
Brenner stated that the file cabinets may not be pretty, but they could be functional. She
questioned whether Wareing had seen the equipment. Wareing stated that he and other
departments have been through the items to see if anything is serviceable.
Dawson moved approval and suggested that, instead of intimating that department heads
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 5
I are not making good judgements, the Council Members look at the items.
2
3 Hoag moved to remove the file cabinets and stated that it isn't a wise use of taxpayer's
4 money to sell equipment that is useful and then buy new equipment. File cabinets can be used
5 forever.
6
7 Brenner stated she is disturbed that the Council is accused of micro managing. The
8 Council has been elected to make these decisions.
9
10 Imhof stated that Council Members should have looked at the items to determine whether
11 they are usable before commenting that administration is auctioning items that should not be
12 auctioned.
13
14 Brown questioned the location of the items and how accessible they would be to look at.
15 Wareing responded that the items are at the Smith and Northwest location. The Council
16 Members can go out there anytime and look at the equipment.
17
18 Brown stated he would support setting the date of the hearing.
19
20 Motion to amend failed 2 - 4 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
21
22 Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously.
23
24 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
25 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
26 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE TO PROVIDE FOR
27 THE ASSIGNMENT OF A FISH & WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST TO WHATCOM
28 COUNTY TO ASSIST IN PREPARING AN ESA RESPONSE PLAN, PROJECT
29 IDENTIFICATION AND PERMITTING, AND OTHER WORK ACTIVITIES AS
30 ASSIGNED, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 (AB98 -296)
31
32 Hoag stated that she supported the idea of having the Fish and Wildlife biologist on staff.
33 However this person would retain employment standing with the Department of Fish and
34 Wildlife. She questioned whether it would be better to hire a person permanently.
35
36 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the plan would be developed by the end
37 of the one -year timeframe. That would be sufficient time to address the County's need. Should
38 there be an extended need beyond one year, the County has the opportunity to fill the position
39 permanently with Council appropriation. This project is to address the Endangered Species Act.
40
41 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the proposal is to accomplish two things.
42 The first is that procedurally the County can get the expertise on board faster this way rather than
43 to through a supplemental budgetary process. Second, it gives the County a chance to utilize the
44 skills to determine what the County needs long -term. Initially, the areas are Endangered Species
45 and project activity, but there are a lot of water matters that need to be sorted through. This
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
method does not create an obligation for a full time equivalent (FTE) employee.
Hoag questioned whether it was appropriate to use flood district funding if he will be
addressing the Endangered Species Act. Monsen stated those areas utilizing the services will
pay for the services. Primarily both flood and road funds will be used. The time will be allotted
to the tasks that are performed.
Wareing stated that flood district money is relevant because flood work impacts the
salmon fisheries.
Dawson moved approval of the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
14. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 997014 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF WICKERSHAM ROAD
BRIDGE NO. 125 OVER THE SAMISH RIVER TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
BIDDER ONE WAY CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $259,150 (AB98 -297)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID # 98 -83 TO
THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, COASTLINE TRACTOR, TO PURCHASE A
ROADSIDE MOWING TRACTOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,939.42 (AB98 -298)
Brenner questioned the number of mower tractors the County owns and the age of the
one being replaced.
Mary Ewing, Public Works Equipment Rental Division Manager, replied that the mower
that is being traded is a 1986 International with 11,000 hours. The County owns seven mowers.
The new mower is smaller in length and width. It will be used in the more populated areas. This
includes the tractor and the mower. The mowers are purchased to be interchangeable with long -
arm or short-arm rotary.
Brenner requested that future information regarding equipment replacement include how
old the equipment is and how much it has been used.
Brenner moved to approve the request.
Motion carried unanimously.
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RE SOURCES TO PROVIDE
A RECYCLING HOTLINE TO PROMOTE WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING
AND PROPER HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,175 (AB98 -250A)
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Brown opposed the funding and stated that the services can be done in- house. Sanitary
Service Company advertisements and discussions with disposal services people say they can
handle the services.
Brenner moved approval and stated that there is a conflict in a assuming a disposal
company would have enough expertise to take over the service. Also, this should be kept away
from anyone with incentive to direct something for a financial reason. This service is supposed
to be for the public good. Some disposal facilities would reduce what they make financially to
give answers to recycling questions. There is a financial conflict of interest.
Hoag stated that ReSources does an excellent job on this service. She thanked the
company for continuing the education.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed.
17. RESOLUTION TO CANCEL FLOOD CONTROL FEES AGAINST DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES TIDELANDS (AB98 -299)
Sutter requested clarification on Revised Code of Washington (RCW) section 79.44.010
regarding state lands subject to local assessments. The RCW lists the types of lands and states,
"It may be assessed and charged for the cost of local or other improvements, specifically
benefiting such lands." She questioned whether the flood control tax is an improvement tax that
falls under the RCW that is cited.
Frakes responded that she is not prepared to give an opinion. The statute is confusing.
Imhof clarified that this resolution cancels the fees.
Sutter questioned whether the correct RCW has been cited.
Frakes stated that in her conversation with Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, he was
not sure that this is the correct statute and there is no hurry on this matter.
Sutter moved to table the resolution for two weeks until the correct RCW is clarified.
Motion carried unanimously.
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSESSING THE STATUS OF WAER RESOURCES IN THE COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $250,000 (AB98 -306)
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 8
I PUBLIC HEARING
2
3 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY
4 PUBLIC AUCTION, REQUEST #98 -1 (AB98 -261A)
5
6 Barbara Cory, Treasurer, gave a staff report and requested to speak to Public Hearing
7 items #1 through #4 together, then items #5, #5A, and #6 separately because they are slightly
8 different. All items have come before the Property Management Committee. The duty of the
9 Committee is to review the properties to see if there is any public use for any of the properties
10 and then recommend they be held or be sold. The Committee determined that there is no public
11 use for these properties and recommended that they be sold. The fourth request, #98 -6, is a
12 request to sell by negotiation. The committee determined that the property is non - buildable due
13 to lack of a water source. It would be buildable if there was water to the property. Any lots that
14 are non - buildable can be sold by negotiation. The Council needs to set a minimum bid on all
15 items. Appraisals have been done and are included in the Council packet.
16
17 Imhof stated that the Council objective was to try to recoup the costs of foreclosure and
18 set those costs as minimum bid. That would be the minimum bid for all properties.
19
20 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
21
22 Mark Good, 14900 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, discussed item #4 in Glenhaven. He
23 questioned why the lot does not have water. Cory stated that the information is based on
24 information from Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Building Services Division
25 Manager, who looked at the properties. There is no water share that goes with the property.
26 Good stated that recently there was a fire across from the lot. Regarding property by negotiation,
27 he has not been contacted since he put in the bid. Cory explained the process and stated that the
28 Committee can determine whether to negotiate or sell by public auction. The statute is clear as
29 to what can be sold by negotiation. That statute states that if the property is non - buildable, it
30 could be sold by negotiation. It doesn't make a difference in the sale itself. The negotiation is
31 between the Treasurer and usually the person who submits the bid. Cory clarified that Good was
32 discussing item #3. This item is up for public auction.
33
34 Good stated that there has been a fire across the street, if that effects the bid level. He
35 questioned whom he would go to in the County to remedy the lot across the street from the
36 property.
37
38 Imhof directed Good to talk to Cory.
39
40 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, questioned whether the determination
41 had been made that there was no reasonable use and no foreseeable need for keeping the
42 properties on the County tax role. She questioned whether any properties are located within the
43 Lake Whatcom watershed. Imhof clarified that most of the properties are within the watershed.
44
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 9
I Beddill stated that properties within the Lake Whatcom watershed have an influence on
2 the water quality and the care and control of the Lake Whatcom reservoir. A proper use would
3 be to retain the properties and place them in permanent hold status as undeveloped lots.
4
5 Brenner stated that the law does not allow the County to hold onto the property because it
6 is tax title property.
7
8 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, clarified that the County has no obligation
9 to sell tax title property.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
12
13 Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
14
15 Dawson moved approval of item #1.
16
17 Hoag stated that she would like more information on the County's ability to retain or sell
18 the properties. Frakes stated that she has been involved in and is familiar with this issue. To her
19 knowledge, the County has held some tax title property for many years and can sell tax title
20 property if it is in the public interest. However, there is nothing that requires the County to sell.
21 The County must sell at public auction under certain circumstances.
22
23 Brenner clarified that the County does not have to auction properties if they do not want
24 to.
25
26 Imhof asked about the ongoing negotiations with Water District #10. He questioned
27 whether these properties have been looked at for inclusion in those negotiations. Cory responded
28 that these Sudden Valley lots are parcels she received applications for before negotiations began
29 with the Sudden Valley Association and Water District #10. There are other issues that will be
30 discussed during Public Hearing item #5, such as the loss of dues to the Association. If someone
31 wants to purchase the lots, the County would go forward with the individual sales and include
32 the remaining lots in item #5. She couldn't deny the application request.
33
34 Brenner moved to remove all parcels in the Lake Whatcom watershed and give them to
35 the Treasurer for negotiation so they will not be sold as buildable lots.
36
37 Dawson stated that there would be a restrictive covenant on the large amount of parcels
38 in item #5. The County should not be held liable.
39
40 Sutter asked Cory if the Council would place restrictions on the property, will County be
41 liable with individuals that have submitted the application. Cory responded that if there are
42 restrictions placed on the property and there is no public auction, the applicant has the option to
43 withdraw the application and have a refund of the application fee.
44
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
Hoag stated that she is concerned about removing the properties in the middle of the
application process. She questioned how many Sudden Valley lots are being negotiated with
Water District #10. Cory stated that those negotiations are separate from this issue.
Hoag stated that in the future she would like to pursue a policy to not put lots in the
watershed up for sale. However, there have already been applications made before the
negotiations began.
Brenner stated that the applicants would get their application money back and the
Council made a commitment to protect the watershed. The majority of the people were going to
purchase lots for green belt anyway.
Brown asked for clarification on whether the people who wanted to purchase the lots
were for buffers from other lots. Cory stated that is her understanding. The lots would be on the
tax roles.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Sutter and Brenner in favor.
Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY
PUBLIC AUCTION, REQUEST #98 -2 (AB98 -262A)
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved approval.
Sutter clarified that the minimum bids for public hearing items #1 through #4 are the
foreclosure costs.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY
PUBLIC AUCTION, REQUEST #98 -5 (AB98 -263A)
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Tom Soliz, 1305 Sudden Valley, stated he supported density reduction in Sudden Valley.
The majority of the lot owners are trying to create buffers in the area. It is important to keep the
integrity of the neighborhood. He would like to purchase a lot to do density reduction and create
a buffer.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, gave her support of density reduction.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ed Siemans (sp ?), Lynden, stated that density reduction is great except for the people
who own the lots. He will gladly sell his lots to anyone who wants to pay the money. Density
reduction should not happen at the price of people who have spent a lot of money on lots. His
purchase agreement states he will get all utilities. The County approved all the utilities and gave
the realtors the right to sell the lots. The County has done assessments and collected taxes, but
has not provided promised services through Water District #10.
Brenner asked for clarification from Siemans on his opinion.
Imhof stated that he doesn't see the connection between density reduction and lack of
services and the sewer moratorium. By reducing the density in Sudden Valley, there may be the
possibility of providing sewer services to the area.
Siemans stated that some lots should not be lots because they are not buildable. His lot
can be built upon when utilities are available.
Brenner stated the County does not have anything to do with the moratorium. Water
District #10 imposes the moratorium. Siemans stated that the County gave the realtor the right to
sell the property because it was developed as property that could be sold.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY
NEGOTIATION, REQUEST #98 -6 (AB98 -264A)
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved approval.
Sutter questioned whether the location of the lot is on Chuckanut Mountain and whether
the lot is buildable. Hoag clarified the lot is not buildable. Cory further clarified that the
Committee does not review physical locations, only the plat maps. It was determined to be non -
buildable because water is unavailable.
Wareing clarified that the area has been platted on paper, but does not exist. The streets
do not exist and the blocks are not there. The reason the applicant wants to buy the property is
speculative in the real estate market.
Motion carried unanimously.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 12
1 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY
2 NEGOTIATION, REQUEST #98 -7 (AB98 -265A) (HEARING REQUIRED)
3
4 Cory gave a staff report and stated that there is a joint proposal between Water District
5 #10 and the Sudden Valley Community Association to purchase all of tax title inventory of
6 Sudden Valley lots, other than the earlier ones, for a total of 160 lots. A number of Sudden
7 Valley lots have come into foreclosure. Other property owners have a sizeable amount of lots
8 that have come in and out of foreclosure. The County has the potential of foreclosing on 300
9 more lots. Sudden Valley lots are a big percentage of foreclosure activities. Those properties
10 should not be held in inventory because that creates tax dollars lost. The proposal is that a
11 restrictive covenant would be put against all the lots (see item #5A) which makes the lots non -
12 buildable. The Council must adopt the restrictive covenant. The proposal is to pay the taxes
13 only, which totals $30,514.65. The proposal does not include interest and penalties of
14 $12,392.98, foreclosure costs of $36,606.44, and title search fees of $14,740.00. That is a
15 concern because the Treasurers Operations and Maintenance (O &M) fund would be significantly
16 lowered and it would become a difficulty in the office. It is a statutory obligation of the County
17 to do that process. The annual budget for that process is approximately $60,000.00, depending
18 on how many lots are in foreclosure. Water District #10 and the Sudden Valley Association are
19 only interested in paying the taxes. The County Comprehensive Plan has a goal of using
20 foreclosure properties to do density reduction in the watershed area, through the foreclosure
21 process. When there is a goal like that, there is a cost associated which must be passed on to the
22 purchaser or the County needs to take on the costs. The Treasurer's office needs to recover their
23 hard costs, including title search fees and advertising costs, which are estimated to be around
24 $3,000.00. She would like to see $17,740.00 refunded to the Treasurers O &M fund. There are
25 two possible ways to refund the money. One way is from the Conservation Futures fund if it
26 would be legal. The other option would be to use the Flood Control fund.
27
28 Imhof stated that those concerns need to be discussed at another time. It would require a
29 budget amendment.
30
31 Brenner stated that Cory's question is who is responsible for paying the hard costs. The
32 Council has to stipulate what the shared costs are. Cory stated that the proposal is only to pay
33 the taxes and does not include payment of the hard costs.
34
35 Hoag stated that when these lots come off the foreclosure list, there would not be any
36 costs in the future. The fund wouldn't be reduced by foreclosure of these lots in the future. This
37 is a benefit to the County to reduce the ongoing cost. She supported the sale and funding the
38 hard costs from the Conservation Futures fund.
39
40 Brown gave his support of reimbursing the hard costs from the Conservation Futures
41 fund. He requested clarification of whether the lots would be made available to adjoining
42 property owners as buffers or whether Sudden Valley would hold the properties. Cory
43 responded that Sudden Valley or Water District #10 would have to answer that question. The
44 lots would go into joint ownership and it would be up to those two parties how the lots would be
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 13
I managed. Brown stated that his concern is that the lots are not in County control and the County
2 does not have liability. This is a good way to use the Conservation Futures funds.
3
4 Kremen stated that the Conservation Futures funding option can be considered but the
5 County would need a legal opinion to determine if the fund could be used for that purpose.
6 There may be a problem because Sudden Valley is a planned private community and not
7 accessible to the public.
8
9 Brown stated that the ordinance allows for conservation easements. Kremen responded
10 that if that is the case, the administration approves the use of conservation futures.
12 Imhof suggested combining the public hearings on items #5 and #5A.
13
14 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
15
16 Charles Murray, Sudden Valley Community Association General Manager, spoke on
17 behalf of the Association and stated that density reduction is not a new concept. The current
18 Board has identified density reduction as a high priority. There are about 2,700 vacant lots in
19 Sudden Valley. There have been 256 lot line erasures, which cancels dues for the lot that is
20 combined with another piece of property. The Sudden Valley Community Association currently
21 owns 160 lots. There are municipal lots owned by the Community Association, Water District
22 #10, or Whatcom County. He displayed a map of the municipal lots. There are 340 lots
23 displayed. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program will have a limited application
24 because of the Sudden Valley dues requirement. Sudden Valley and the Water District agree on
25 the process. Sudden Valley will purchase more than 160 lots, some of which are lots that could
26 be built upon. Sudden Valley will make sure that the lots that can be built upon will be built
27 upon and the others will be taken out of circulation forever. If there are two lots that are sold
28 together, there is a mandatory lot line erasure. By purchasing the 160 lots and placing the
29 restrictive covenants on the lots, the Association will give up $67,000.00 of recurring annual
30 dues. The amount they are offering in the proposal is a fair share of the cost. The Association is
31 giving up the annual dues, the Water District is paying for the covenant on the properties, and
32 Whatcom County is collecting the taxes that are owed on the properties.
33
34 Tony Freeland, 1269 Sudden Valley, is a Commissioner of Water District #10 and spoke
35 on behalf of the Board of Directors of Water District #10. They support the efforts of the
36 Sudden Valley Community Association and the County. They support voluntary density
37 reduction. Two things are important to the Water District. One is that the proposal protects the
38 lake and the other is that the proposal reduces the demand for sewer services. It is also a very
39 cost effective way to address the sewer services problem on the south shore. The hard costs for
40 sewer district to provide a water /sewer service to a lot is $6,000.00. This proposal was identified
41 in their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS determined six ways to address the
42 sewer issue on the south shore in Sudden Valley. One of the six adopted policies was density
43 reduction. There will not be a more cost - effective opportunity to address watershed and sewer
44 issues in the watershed.
45
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
(Clerk's Note: The following section is a verbatim transcript.)
Dawson: And I would move approval of 5 and 5A.
Imhof: Okay, is there, the motion is to approve, let's take them one at a time. 5. Miss
Hoag.
Hoag: I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble finding the actual deed restriction that we
keep referring to.
Dawson: Exhibit B.
Imhof: It's in 5...
Sutter: Page 386.
Brenner: I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Council Member Dawson's
motion. You did make it? I would add a friendly amendment that the hard
costs will be born by one of our funds, or the general, the current expense
fund rather than coming out of the Treasurer's pocket.
Imhof: Well, we'll have to make that right. I don't think that's a... I think we need to
address that and why don't we just research it and see what maybe...
Brenner: I know, but you know what Bob, I think we have to stay somehow in this,
otherwise it will stand as is. We can change it later, but it will stand with that
those costs...
Imhof: All we have to do is add it to a budget amendment as it comes through if the
administration doesn't
Brenner: I would like to hear from Barbara Cory. I think it does need to be part of a
motion so that we know what's happening with these costs.
Cory: I do need to know whether or not those costs are going to be addressed
because the Treasurer has to give approval or denial to this sale. I have some
real concerns if those costs aren't addressed as so if I know going in..
Dawson: That there's going to be some kind of a guarantee.
Brenner: That's my friendly amendment.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 15
I
Imhof:
Why don't we just, that the hard costs for a total of $17, 740.00 will be
2
addressed in a budget amendment in the next budget amendment. We'll
3
decide...
4
5
Dawson:
Not addressed, but guaranteed.
6
7
Brenner:
Well, you know what, my motion still stands because I think if I was Barbara,
8
I would have a hard time approving this without knowing... In budget
9
anything can happen. She needs to know that...
10
11
Imhof:
This is a resolution. Anything can happen, Barbara.
12
13
Brenner:
My motion is still that we, at least, state that the costs of the hard costs, that
14
the hard costs will not be born by the Treasurer's office. How about that?
15
16
Imhof:
They already are.
17
18
Brenner:
Not if we find them in other funds.
19
20
Brown:
Will be reimbursed.
21
22
Brenner:
What?
23
24
Brown:
Will be reimbursed.
25
26
Brenner:
Will be reimbursed. The hard costs will be reimbursed.
27
28
Dawson:
So we need to vote.
29
30
Imhof:
The motion is to approve item #5, the resolution authorizing the, okay and the
31
32
Dawson:
We have to do the amendment first.
33
34
Imhof:
Is that accepted as a friendly amendment?
35
36
Dawson:
Um hum.
37
38
Brenner:
Yes.
39
40
Imhof:
Okay, that will be a friendly amendment. It doesn't need to be voted on.
41
42
Brenner:
Oh, Barbara didn't hear it. I just want to state it for her. The amendment is
43
that the hard costs will be reimbursed to the Treasurer's office.
44
45
Imhof:
And we'll deal with it in the budget amendment.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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: On the restrictive covenant, I have a question on the restriction on building.
The item A says, "No building structure or other improvement shall be
constructed, erected, or placed on a lot unless," and then it says, "the lot is
consolidated with another buildable lot within the plat of Sudden Valley by
means of a lot adjustment, etc." By another buildable lot, would this make it
possible for them to take two of these lots that we're trying to take out of this
and combine them, or would these no longer be considered buildable lots?
Imhof: That's part of it, to combine two or three of them.
Hoag: Well, yeah, but what we were looking at... The impression that I was under
was that this would be not buildable and they could be added onto a lot
someone already has, so you would only have your existing structures. But
the way this reads, I'm a little vague on what they mean by buildable lot
`cause it almost sounds like you could take two of these lots that we don't
want built on, combine them, and then you would have a new lot that you
could build on.
Imhof. And if I remember right, that's exactly what part of the negotiations are.
That's why they are transferable, so you can transfer them from one lot to
another. You're going to have 160 lots that don't get built on, but they're not
going to be specifically these 160 lots.
Hoag: No, that's item B. That talks about the transfer. This is talking about item A.
Can you clarify that for me?
Cory: Unfortunately I can't. This is a covenant that was worked on with Karen and
the Association.
Frakes: These lots are not going to be considered buildable lots.
Hoag: Okay. Thank you.
Imhof: Mr. Brown.
Brown: I wanted to add a friendly amendment to Barbara's friendly amendment. I
think emphasis ought to be used to use the Conservation Futures Fund because
that was one of the main reasons for putting that thing in place anyway, rather
than just leaving it to whatever fund comes out. If it's in our resolution,
saying that is the first fund to be utilized, if possible.
Dawson: I think the motion leaves that open.
Imhof: I just think we need...
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
45
Brown: Well, it does leave it open. It leaves it open to anything you want to use for it
and I think we ought to go to where it should be.
linhof: Do you want to take that as a friendly amendment`?
Dawson: I don't think it's necessary. I think we're all kind of in agreement that we'll
do that.
Brown: Well then I'll make it as an amendment.
Imhof: Okay the amendment is before us. All those in favor of the motion say signify
by saying "aye."
Hoag: I'm sorry could you restate it please?
Imhof: To use Conservation Futures funds...
Dawson: If at all possible.
Imhof: I mean, that's what we're going to do, if possible. All those in favor signify
by saying "aye."
All Present Council Members: Aye.
Imhof: Opposed, "no."
Imhof: Okay, the resolution, item #5, is before us, as amended. All those in favor of
the motion, signify by saying, "aye."
All Present Council Members: Aye.
Imhof: Opposed, "no."
Imhof: `Kay. That passes unanimous.
5A. RESOLUTION PLACING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON CERTAIN SUDDEN
VALLEY PARCELS (AB98 -265B)
(Clerks Note: This item does not require a public hearing, but is related to the prior
resolution.)
Dawson moved approval.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
45
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY,
REQUEST #98 -8 (AB98 -266A)
Cory gave a staff report and stated that this is a request that the Property Management
Committee received from the Executive's Office. They are in negotiations with another
governmental agency on this property. The Committee determined there is a public use for the
property. The request is to surplus the property so the Executive can use it in negotiations.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Brown moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE
ACMENAN ZANDT SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT, SETTING
A DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES, AUTHORIZING
COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND PENALTIES ON DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION
AND FORECLOSURE OF LIENS RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES (AB98-
279)
Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
that the Sub -Zone Flood Control Zone District Committee met and decided that they needed
$46,000 in operating expenses for next year. In order to levy that amount, they have proposed a
levy of $75 for each parcel in the flood plain and $50 for each parcel outside the flood plain.
(Clerk's Note: End of Tape one, Side B.)
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Sutter moved approval.
Brenner stated that when the general flood zone tax was done, she was concerned that the
people who benefit the most should pay the most. People that only have an incidental benefit
should pay incidental costs. That concern was covered with the general flood control tax. She
does not agree with the percentages as outlined. The costs should be born by parcels partially or
wholly within the flood plain and within $20,000 - $30,000 of assessed value. People outside of
the flood plain should not pay two taxes for flood control.
Imhof stated that people outside the flood plain have an effect on the water in the flood
plain and they have a responsibility for a cost.
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 19
I Brenner clarified that everyone has a benefit, but people within the flood plain have a
2 greater benefit. People outside the flood plain have already been hit with the general flood tax.
3 She would like to see site - specific cases if someone outside the flood plain is a major
4 contributor, then that contributor should be taxed accordingly
5
6 Brown stated that when the County began a program to implement the sub -flood control
7 zones, it was clear that the Council was looking for an assessment distribution that was equitable.
8 It is inequitable that parcel owners pay the same fee regardless of the assessed value of the land
9 they own.
10
11 Hoag stated that people outside the flood plain should not be taxed. Taxes should be a
12 better ratio and it needs to be a more fair assessment based on the value of the property that is
13 being protected.
14
15 Imhof moved to table for two weeks to determine the Commissioners' reasoning for the
16 method of assessment that they have proposed.
17
18 Brown stated that another zone member stated that they couldn't get information from the
19 Assessor's office to base the taxes on assessment.
20
21 Sutter stated she was not clear on whether the tax was based on who would benefit or
22 who was causing damage. Depending on which angle the tax is based on, there would be
23 different guidelines for setting the assessment.
24
25 Motion to table carried unanimously.
26
27 8. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE
28 LYNDEN/EVERSON SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT,
29 COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND PENALTIES ON DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
30 OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION
31 AND FORECLOSURE OF LIENS RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES (AB98-
32 280)
33
34 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
35 that this is a similar proposal as the previous item. The Committee decided they needed
36 $122,000 dollars and came up with same assessment amount of $50 for parcels outside of the
37 flood plain and $75 for parcels in the flood plain.
38
39 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
40
41 Steve Jilk, 323 Front Street, Lynden, represented the City of Lynden and stated that his
42 concerns have already been raised by Council Members. There are three points of concern and
43 the City requests the Council not approve the proposed fees for the Lynden/Everson sub -flood
44 zone and consider three factors. 1.) Based on the County funding mechanism for the countywide
45 flood control zone district, which states the funding methodology includes funding which
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 20
I provides resources to plan, manage, design, construct, maintain, revise, and upgrade the storm
2 drainage and surface water runoff system within the County's drainage basins. The City
3 questions whether this assessment is for storm water management purposes or flood control
4 purposes. 2.) If the purpose is for storm water management, the City already has a storm water
5 utility fee. The purpose of that utility coincides with the verbiage in the County funding
6 mechanism for flood control. If the sub -zone district will be taking payments from the property
7 owners within the city limits of Lynden for storm water management, it would be a duplication
8 of activities. There may be a benefit question. 3.) If the assessments were for storm water
9 management purposes, there would be a duplication of efforts. Taxpayer dollars would be better
10 spent on supporting a coordinated effort between the County and the City. Finally, the budget
11 that was used to establish the request for the fees should be reviewed to determine whether the
12 programs that are proposed are to be conducted through the implementation of the budget. If
13 those programs exist, they must be duplication of the City's efforts in constructing and
14 maintaining storm water management facilities.
15
16 Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
17
18 Sutter moved to table for two weeks to get answers to the City of Lynden's concerns and
19 get representation from the district.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 The Council concurred that these items will be scheduled in Public Works Committee.
24
25 9. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE
26 SUMAS/NOOKSACK/EVERSON SUB -ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT,
27 SETTING A DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES, AUTHORIZING
28 COLLECTION OF INTEREST AND PENALTIES ON DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
29 OF ASSESSMENTS, AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR RECORDATION
30 AND FORECLOSURE OF LIENS RESULTING FROM DELINQUENCIES (AB98-
31 281)
32
33 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that the zone needs
34 $160,000.00. This area is a zone that has more financial resources and is the largest sub -zone. It
35 includes the Cities of Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas as well as the agricultural land around
36 those areas. The proposed assessment fees for this district are $55 for parcels in the flood plain
37 and $37.50 outside of the flood plain.
38
39 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
40
41 Fred Nowicke, 3341 Bird Road, Everson, spoke on behalf of the Flood Control Zone
42 District. Half of the funding will go to collecting data. Most flood damage is done in this
43 district. If there is a major flood, various roads are all under water in a major flood. Sumas
44 would be inundated. The district must also look at the Van Dalen area and Swift Creek, which is
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
2/3 of the budget and doesn't account for what may happen in the future. If the Council has a
better way to come up with funding, they should do it.
Hoag questioned where the money came from that dealt with Swift Creek. Nowicke
responded that it came out of money budgeted from last year. There are projects on the docket
for the future.
Hoag further questioned whether it would be acceptable to come up with same amount of
money in a different way. Nowicke responded that a burden may be placed on Barbara Cory,
Treasurer. If funding can be done differently, it would be acceptable.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to table for two weeks to work on a more equitable proportion.
Brown stated that he received calls and people are having a hard time reaching a decision
because this may not be the fairest way to fund the district, but the district doesn't have the
means to do it the proper way.
Motion to table carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1998 BUDGET, REQUEST #7 (AB98 -277)
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated that
there were two items in the budget request. The first item was for developmentally disabled
services and the second item was to appropriate a grant from the State Department Of Ecology
for watershed planning.
Dawson moved approval of both items in the ordinance.
Wareing stated that scrivener's errors needed to be corrected on the agenda bill, the
ordinance, and the budget summary form.
On the agenda bill under the summary statement, item (2) should read, "To appropriate
$250,000 from the Department of Ecology grant No. G9800290 to Take Wh ate ,..,
Management for- .t,ate fshe faa-nageme „* the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #1
project for watershed management.”
On the ordinance under the General Fund category the language should read, "Lake
)Vha4,.,,m Nfgir*. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #1 project"
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 22
I On the Summary of the 1998 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 7 under the category
2 Department /Fund, the language should read, ""bake W,,,4,.,,m Mgm4 Water Resource
3 Inventory Area (WRIA) #1" Under the Description category, the language should read,
4 "To appropriate $250,000 from the Department of Ecology grant No. G9800290 to Lake
5 the Water Resource Inventory Area
6 (WRIA) #1 project for watershed management."
7
9 Hoag stated that the language in Wareing's amendments to the scrivener's errors should
10 reference "watershed planning."
11
12 Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
13
14 2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
15 APL98 -0001, FILED BY MICHAEL ROSSER (AB98 -142)
16
17 See "Announcements."
18
19 3. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE SEWAGE CONTROL APPEALS
20 BOARD (AB98 -157A)
21
22 Sutter nominated Beddill.
23
24 Motion to appoint carried unanimously.
25
26 4. RESOLUTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF FOREST BOARD LAND TO
27 WHATCOM COUNTY (SOUTH FORK OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER) (AB98 -301)
28
29 Roger DeSpain, Parks Department Director, gave a staff report and stated that the
30 Council packet contains a memo regarding the reconveyance of 200 acres of State Department of
31 Natural Resources (DNR) land back to the County. He has created a schematic, conceptual plan
32 for the use of the land. The area is on the south fork of the Nooksack River. The application for
33 reconveyance requires a resolution in support of the County accepting the acreage. There are a
34 number of steps to create a regional park. He asked for approval of bringing the acreage to the
35 County.
36
37 Imhof questioned whether the County owns the trail at location #3 on the map. DeSpain
38 stated the County does not own the area designated as #3 and also does not own the area
39 designated as #1, the Nesset Farm. Item #1 will come back before the Council in the following
40 month. There is a potential for getting an easement to connect the trail.
41
42 DeSpain stated that item #4 on the map is property that the County currently owns. That
43 property is 262 acres. In that area, there is more of an active recreation program planned. If
44 revenue were produced in that area, it would be from camping fees or other kinds of activities.
45 Item #2 outlines more natural areas. Item #1 would be the interpretive area, with the Nesset
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 23
I farm. There would be 4.5 miles of riverfront and over 700 acres of land. DNR will be holding a
2 hearing on August 3rd at 9:00 a.m. in the Council chambers on the reconveyance of the land.
3
4 Hoag asked about the logging issue in the area. DeSpain stated that the issue will come
5 back before the Council. In the Goodyear - Nelsen section, DNR only traded out the land. The
6 timber company still owns the timber. The County may be able to purchase the timber rights.
7 The gravel road access is the road to get into the property. One incentive is that a logging road
8 would be needed to take the timber out.
9
10 Brenner understood that the County would be talking to DNR regarding logging the
11 portion away from the trail so that the area that people would be enjoying would stay in its
12 natural state.
13
14 Brown stated that there are 1,385,277 acres in Whatcom County and public lands amount
15 to 966,708 acres in Whatcom County, not including land owned by municipalities. There are
16 only 400,00 acres of private land left for logging and building. In the long run, when the
17 resource lands become more valuable, the public will need this acreage for resources. The land
18 should be on the tax roles producing revenue, and the resources should be available for future
19 generations to make a living. Also, Council Members believe that people in close proximity to
20 logging or farming operations usually discourage those operations. There has been discussion
21 that DNR restrict their activities and create a buffer so the logging operations are not visible.
22 This will further impact what is available for County revenue and jobs. There are currently no
23 trespassing signs on County -owned property. He would not support taking a large amount of
24 productive land off of the tax roles.
25
26 Imhof stated that with the Chinook listed as an endangered species, he would rather have
27 more control of the riverbanks, not less. The Council is not necessarily taking the land out of
28 production. There are other ways besides clear- cutting to use the land. The options are managed
29 logging and selective cutting to use the sale of the trees as a cash flow. The County must
30 negotiate with the present timber owners. That area is a necessary part of the Chinook habitat.
31
32 Brenner stated that the area is public land is very accessible for many reasons. The
33 County doesn't get an opportunity to have accessible property on the river. This would be a
34 good way to protect the interest on the river. Once the properties are developed, the "no
35 trespassing" signs would be removed. Money from an interest - bearing fund will pay for
36 maintenance and operations.
37
38 Brown stated that the critical Chinook habitat is during the summer when the public will
39 be using the river for recreation. The County will increase the ability for people to get into the
40 habitat areas.
41
42 Brenner stated that it was her understanding that the proposal does not provide access to
43 rafters and kayaks. DeSpain responded that the design would not allow people to enter the river
44 from Saxon Bridge to Acme.
45
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 24
I Hoag requested clarification on the intent to not let people in the river. DeSpain stated
2 that currently there are too many people in the river at once. The County does not have authority
3 in the river. The DNR and Federal government have authority over the river. The County will
4 allow people to fish, but there are times when it is not appropriate to have people in the river.
5
6 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed.
7
8 5. COUNCIL TO APPOINT A QUALIFIED PERSON TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE
9 BLAINE CITY COUNCIL (AB98 -302)
10
11 Imhof stated that there are three people who applied for the vacancy and he allowed two
12 of the applicants to speak. The third applicant was on vacation.
13
14 Bonnie Onyon stated that she has shown her commitment to the community in various
15 ways, including membership on the Chamber of Commerce as vice - president, president and
16 board member. She has received awards from the Chamber of Commerce including the
17 Exemplary Leadership Award, Chamber's Number 1 Citizen, Dedicated Service, and
18 Outstanding Board Member Awards. The Blaine Banner also awarded her the Outstanding
19 Community Service Award. The Westside Record Journal named her Blaine Woman of the
20 Year in 1987. For 13 years, she and her husband owned and operated a market and deli in
21 Blaine. She knows the challenges of running a business in Blaine with the fluctuating Canadian
22 dollar. She will support the downtown businesses. Behind every thriving community is a
23 thriving downtown market place. During her business years, she donated utilities and rent -free
24 space, equipment, and food items to the food bank. She has encouraged the spirit of
25 volunteering in her son. She has the support and encouragement of her family. As a founding
26 board member of the Marine Education, she was involved in the initial plans and designs of the
27 marine park and interpretive center. As a result there is a waterfront park. As a Blaine City
28 Council Member, she would support parks and recreational activities for all. She served on the
29 Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Blaine Performing Arts Center and volunteered in the
30 Blaine High School music department. Cultural enrichment is a vital part of any community.
31 She served six years on the Blaine planning commission and worked on downtown revitalization,
32 the East Blaine annexation, zoning land use, wetlands, and other issues. Because of her
33 involvement in various organizations, she has attended City Council Meetings. Blaine has
34 wonderful amenities, including the school system, a world -class resort community, and the
35 waterfront location. There have been great strides recently with an improved airport, an
36 accelerated street re- building program, and continued improvement of infrastructure and city
37 government.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of Tape two, side A)
40
41 Chuck Green, 9735 Lincoln Lane, Blaine, stated that the City needs the representation of
42 the East Blaine annexation area on the Council. He has family background in the area. He is
43 self - employed in downtown Blaine as co -owner of Harborview Realty. It is important to have a
44 businessperson from the downtown area on the Council. He is on the Board of Appeals and
45 Adjustments and coaches and sponsors Blaine youth sports programs. Blaine has made great
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 25
I progress, such as the downtown revitalization, the marine park, and the recent addition of the
2 food processing company that may stabilize the economy. The current administration has
3 worked hard and he can bring a positive contribution to the Council. He is in touch with citizens,
4 business owners, and City staff on a daily basis. He is familiar with the ordinances and zoning
5 procedures. If appointed, he can bring stability, accountability, and vision to the Council. He is
6 capable of listening to the public and can focus on the community as a whole. He has the time
7 and energy to serve and will make a personal commitment to the Council. His time in the
8 community in past, present, and future involvement with various City boards and school
9 activities, along with his availability to the public, makes him the best candidate for the position.
10
11 Hoag stated that both candidates are highly qualified and Blaine will come out ahead, no
12 matter what the decision will be. She is uncomfortable with the selection process because she
13 knows little about the applicants.
14
15 Brenner stated that she would abstain from the vote because there is a financial conflict
16 of interest. The County is in direct financial competition with Blaine for various issues such as
17 grants and growth boundaries. Another option would be for the Council to abstain from making
18 a decision and let the Governor choose the new member.
19
20 Members of the audience requested an opportunity to speak for the candidates.
21
22 Hoag asked Imhof to allow the people to speak in support of the candidates. Imhof
23 allowed two members of the public to speak.
24
25 Kathy Bates, Bates Realty, stated that her business is in direct competition with Green's
26 business, but she still supports his candidacy. The City needs someone to move it forward and
27 make the it less dependant on the Canadian dollar.
28
29 Gary Godell, Blaine, stated that he is an employee of Chuck Green. He deals with Green
30 on a daily basis and hears him talk to all parts of the Blaine government, the school board, and
31 others. He was instrumental in bringing Nature's Path food company to the community and will
32 bring other manufacturers to the community. He is doing this on an ongoing basis. He would be
33 an asset to the community.
34
35 Imhof clarified that there is a third person vying for the position and called for a roll call.
36
37 Sutter voted for Onyon.
38 Dawson voted for Green.
39 Imhof voted for Onyon.
40 Brown voted for Green.
41 Hoag voted for Onyon.
42 Brenner abstained.
43
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
Imhof announced that there is no majority of the Council. Frakes clarified that the rules
of procedure state "majority" is a majority of the members present. There is a majority of the
members present. Onyon is appointed.
6. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HOUSING FOR THE MENTALLY ILL (AB98 -304)
Brenner stated this item came forward in the Mental Health Advisory Committee. Sun
Community Services did not fall within the licensing guidelines until recently. Sun Community
Center provides excellent services. There are no egregious violations and problems, they've
only fallen through the cracks. The request is asking for a reasonable timeframe for the Center to
get their license.
Brenner moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Sutter stated that there is a substitute manure ordinance.
Hoag stated that the farmers at the Natural Resources Committee work session in Lynden
expressed concern about the inflexibility of the dates specified in the ordinance. The language in
the substitute ordinance is clearer than the language of the ordinance in the packet.
Imhof stated that the Council will accept the substitute as the one to be introduced. There
will be a public hearing on that item.
Brown stated that Council should make an effort to have this issue advertised in the
Lynden Tribune.
Dawson moved acceptance of the introduction items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NOS.
APL98 -0005 AND APL96 -0002, FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, FOR ENVIRO -CHEM / KEITH SCHEFFER (AB98 -240)
2. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER' DECISION ON FILE NOS.
APL98 -0005 AND APL96 -0002, FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, FOR F.L. AND BETTY SMALLWOOD (AB98 -233)
3. RESOLUTION APPROVING VAN WYCK ROAD ASSESSMENT
REIMBURSEMENT AREA AND ASSESSMENT (AB97 -413C)
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, 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
45
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 97 -045, ESTABLISHING A CODE OF
ETHICS FOR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS (AB98 -194A)
5. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.28, MANURE AND
AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT (AB98 -254A)
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB98 -295A)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sutter questioned, on packet page 286 regarding the 1999 Integrated Roadside
Vegetation Management Plan (AB98 -300), what is the County Council Public Services
Committee. Brenner stated that referred to the County Council Public Works Committee.
Dawson stated that the Courthouse Journal reported that only Bellingham and Bellevue
refrained from raising taxes.
Brenner stated that Public Works Committee held a discussion regarding video taping
of Council meetings (AB98 -283) and recommended contracting with a provider on an interim
basis until the end of the year when the Council can develop a permanent solution. Some
Council members have volunteered their expense money for the service. Council staff will
create the contract.
Brenner moved to authorize Council staff to create a contract on the behalf of the Council
and contract with someone for the services.
Sutter asked if this service is related to the City of Bellingham's Request For
Qualifications (RFQ). Brenner responded that the City will also issue a contract for services to
be provided in an interim basis and that the City's RFQ has been issued. At some point the
Council will have to decide what they want for video taping services. The RFQ involves both
the City and County. The County will get a presentation from the Cable Television
Administrative Board members regarding this issue.
Dawson asked whether there were Council Members serving on the Cable Television
Administrative Board. Brenner responded that she and Sutter served briefly ad hoc until the
Board was established.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter commended Lynn Barten for her volunteer efforts.
Hoag announced that there was an update from the Administrative Water Group
regarding current planning and progress on water issues (AB98 -303) in Natural Resources
Committee and stated that the committee has concerns about the Council having input on the
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
make -up of the Land Use Committee. Hopefully the Council will hear from the County
Executive on this issue at a later time. A number of issues were brought up that are important to
the public, including Lake Whatcom, flood hazards, and groundwater issues.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
These minutes were approved by Council on 91998.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Member
Regular Council Meeting, 7/28/98, Page 29