HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 24 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular Council Meeting
November 24, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
Marlene Dawson
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Tom Brown
Barbara Brenner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Imhof announced that during executive session there was Consideration of appeal
Hearing Examiner's decision (on remand) on file numbers APL98 -0005 and APL96 -0002,
filed by Jonathan Sitkin for F.L. and Betty Smallwood (AB98 -233).
Imhof also announced that during executive session there was Consideration of appeal
Hearing Examiner's decision (on remand) on file numbers APL98 -0005 and APL96 -0002,
filed by Jonathan Sitkin for Enviro -Chem / Keith Scheffer (AB98 -240).
Brenner moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner on both items.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag abstaining.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
MIKE BRENNAN, BELLINGHAM /WHATCOM COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
TO PRESENT INFORMATION ON THE 1998 SKI TO SEA FESTIVAL (AB98 -385)
Brennan spoke to the Council on festival activities, particularly the Ski to Sea race. He
presented the Council with a framed Ski to Sea poster and each Council member with a tee shirt.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke during Open Session:
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Janet Hansen, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection Committee Chair, stated that a DNA
test referred to by a speaker at a previous meeting is very limited. Samples were taken from
approximately 12 places on four occasions. That does not give a comprehensive picture. There
is a report in the Northern Light newspaper on the most recent Drayton Harbor Shellfish
Protection District meeting. It was a more comprehensive report. She urged the Council not to
rely on the preliminary report, but to wait until the City of Blaine is finished with the complete
testing. She also urged the Council to carefully consider the water plan brought forward by
County Executive Pete Kremen. Water Resources are indispensable and precious. It should be
funded. Everyone should pay his or her share.
Imhof stated that the Council has requested the full report from the City of Blaine when it
is done.
Albert W. Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, concurred with Janet
Hansen's comments and also asked the Council to hold a public hearing about the mineral
resources lands (MRL) designation at the Lummi Island quarry. (Handout on file) The
designation was placed due to misunderstandings and the Planning Commission did not address
the issue. The early stages of the development of the Comprehensive Plan did not include
criteria #6, which relates to the adjacency of residential areas to MRLs. When the Planning
Commission approved it originally, that criterion was not included. It was not sent back to the
Planning Commission when the criterion #6 was put in place. The Planning Commission never
considered the adjacency issue. When it came to the County Council, they decided to approve it
because the Planning Commission approved it. However, the Planning Commission never
considered adjacency. There was a recent hearing before the Planning Commission. That
confusion was never a part of their discussion. They did not look at the written material. He
requested that someone to look at the adjacency issue.
Brenner spoke in favor of holding a public hearing.
Sutter explained that the issue was addressed in Planning and Development Committee,
but until the term adjacent is defined, they can't make a decision. She will ask, when the
Council does the next docketing for the Planning Commission, that they define adjacent.
Ken Thomas, 6688 Kings Lane, Bellingham, represented the initiating governments of
the ESHB 2514 planning group. They support the administration's water plan as a whole. It
adequately and appropriately addresses the water and watershed issues. They would like the
County Council to take affirmative action to provide leadership for the planning effort. If they
do not wish to be the lead agency for that effort, the initiating governments would respectfully
request that they decline that opportunity so that they can select another group to be lead agency.
John Cooper, of Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Director, appreciated the
Council's support of the CVB. He expressed concerns on a proposal to reduce their funding by
$15,000 for 1999. (Handouts on file) The CVB is the central, year- around tourism marketing
organization for all of Whatcom County. They market 365 days a year, serve more than 165,000
people at the visitor's centers, and create more than 15,000,000 exposures for Whatcom County
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
45
through their marketing program. Reducing the allocation will reduce these marketing efforts to
attract visitors. Therefore, visitor spending will be reduced and the hotel /motel tax that is
collected will be reduced. They have recently been awarded a federal grant for $38,000 for
marketing the Mt. Baker region. It requires a $9,700 local match. He intended to carve it out of
the existing budget. His budget will not allow both a $15,000 reduction and $9,700 for a grant
match. The three projects are worthwhile organizations that they work with on a regular basis to
promote the region.
Dick Grout, Department of Ecology, concurred with Ken Thomas' comments regarding
the Executive's watershed planning proposal. In the last five years there have been the water
users steering committee, the Nooksack Initiative, and various attempts to try to solve the water
problems in the County. ESHB 2514 is the last real chance to solve water problems. If the
County loses that, then they look at years of litigation and expense to do it the hard way, in the
courtroom. It is going to require funding. He encouraged the Council to fund the water plan.
Wendy Cosgrove, 9002 Mt. Baker Hwy, Deming, stated that the Mt. Baker Foothills has
• great end tap potential. The CVB contribution in combination with the federal grant would be
• great opportunity to increase the economic development in tourism. To miss this opportunity
would be a great loss. The County needs to promote tourism in every way possible.
Roger Almskaar, 900 Dupont Street, Bellingham, stated that there is a need for a
marketing study in the Foothills area. The area has been hard hit by environmental regulations
over the last several years. Tourism and outdoor recreation are the only industry that they have
left. There isn't a document that addresses potential tourism value of the Foothills area. The
County needs to support the grant for the Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
Susan Robert- Schennell, Whatcom Symphony Orchestra Executive Director, stated that
an active arts presence is important to a community. The arts contribute to the quality of life.
Whatcom County has a wide range of top quality professional performances available. The arts
attract visitors to the County. Without support from outside entities, the arts cannot continue to
offer the reasonably priced tickets that permit the greatest number of people to experience the
arts. She encouraged the Council to support the arts in the community by granting funds to the
Whatcom Symphony Orchestra, the Mt. Baker Theater, and the Bellingham Festival of Music.
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that assessed valuation per capita
in the rural county is decreasing in relationship to the assessed valuation per capita in the cities.
The city is in good shape tax -wise. Regarding the water issue, some people are not paying taxes
for tax purposes, but they may need to be included in the fee because they could be causing some
of the problems, such as forest areas.
Brad Burdick, 4127 Malachite Drive, represented the Mt. Baker Theater and spoke in
favor of funding for the Symphony and Festival of Music. The Theater is planning to bring in
20,000 County students. The County's support of that program will directly affect the prices
charged to the County children. They are trying to get students that may not be able to come to
the theater to experience that type of an event.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Manca Valum, 3169 Mt. Baker Hwy, thanked the Council for supporting the Womencare
Shelter. Womencare Shelter was awarded $290,530 from the State of Washington for
construction funds, which were possible, in part, by the County's support. Sometimes we need
to spend a little to gain a lot. As a professional working in the nonprofit sector, every dollar
invested in the nonprofit sector, is a dollar that works for the community. It safeguards and
promotes the quality of life from which everyone benefits. It is a sound investment.
Andrew Mokola, 216 Hawthorne Road, Bellingham, spoke in favor of funding for the
Bellingham Festival of Music. 54% + of the budget goes to criminal justice. Something is out
of balance. People in the community want the arts funding. He read a quote from author
Thomas Moore. Enlightened people concur that the arts and culture feed and lift spirits.
Wisdom suggests that funding for the arts would bring down the percentage of funding spent on
criminal justice.
Gary Hovde, 3199 North Shore Road, stated that because taxes are going up, people are
forced to sell parcels of land to developers. Consequently, there is an impact on the Lake from
the construction going on in the watershed. Services provided by the County have not changed
in the last forty years. He proposed that the budget be cut.
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, asked the Council to reject the Planning
Commission's recommendation regarding the Ferndale Urban Growth Area. The creation of an
abnormally irregular future boundary is not sufficient reason to deny them their request. The
zoning does not fit the plan designation. UGA and R5 zoning are not compatible. The Ferndale
plan did not include this area as an urban growth area. The expenses are implicit in creating an
additional 429 acres of urban growth, which would need full urban services. Ferndale is in the
best position to decide whether or not they can afford to serve the area. She urged the Council to
consider their recommendation. In addition, she agreed with the Department of Community,
Trade, and Economic Development's (CTED) recommendations. The County has prime
agricultural soils on the site. She also urged the Council to hold a public hearing on the Lummi
Island Quarry. She also supported CTED's analysis of why it makes no sense to create urban
zoning in Pt. Roberts. There is no demonstration that there is the ability to provide the property
services.
Hoag questioned which prime agricultural soils Wells referred to. Wells responded that it
was regarding file #38 -98.
Jon Sitkin, 709 Dupont, Bellingham, representing property owners in Ferndale at
Grandview, file #38 -98, stated that this property is in the urban growth area (UGA) for the city
of Ferndale. It was included in their industrial land supply. The city had the wrong map when it
came to the Council, and it was adopted. The land was calculated in Femdale's land supply, was
incorporated by the County's Comprehensive Plan, and is in the UGA. It could have gone
forward just as a correction to the process, but staff wanted full public process. This was to have
come forward last year with the Brant property, but because it was left off of the map, it had to
come back through the entire process.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Hoag questioned the City's recommendation. Sitkin stated that the recommendation was
to designate the area as industrial.
Susan O'Neill, 2902 Cowgill, Bellingham, stated that there are positive effects that music
and the arts have over people of all ages. It is most inspiring with the young people. She urged
the Council to support the arts. Their vote for the arts shows the community the Council's
concern for the quality of life in the County.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval of items #1 through #6.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT COVERING THE SECOND YEAR OF A TWO YEAR BID,
BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL AND THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
BIDDER, NORTH CAMPUS PHARMACY, TO PROVIDE PHARMACEUTICAL
SERVICES TO THE JAIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,600 (AB98 -402)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL RECOVERY CENTER
FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT FOR INDIGENT
AND LOW - INCOME CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$90,049 (AB98 -403)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS, FOR A LAND USE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING ZONING ON THE GUIDE MERIDIAN, IN THE INCREASED
AMOUNT FROM $15,000 TO $24,062 (AB98 -404)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO IDENTIFY
AND ENROLL INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTHY OPTIONS
MANAGED CARE PLANS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB98 -405)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
JAIL AND NURSE PRACTITIONER ANNE SLATER, AARNP, TO PROVIDE
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
HEALTH CARE FOR OFFENDERS IN- HOUSE, IN A PER HOUR AMOUNT OF $50
(AB98 -406)
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
JAIL AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC, TO PROVIDE
FOR PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES FOR INMATES IN THE JAIL, IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $18,480 (AB98 -407)
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT (AB98 -171B)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that it is not a comprehensive plan
amendment, it is only Title 20 zoning maps. The Comprehensive Plan amendments are adopted
by separate ordinance. The Title of the document should be, "Ordinance Adopting Amendments
to the Whatcom County Title 20 Zoning Text." The ordinance is correct. It is a zoning
ordinance to change two sections of the zoning code to implement the Comprehensive Plan. It
was discussed at Planning and Development Committee. There were three proposed changes.
One dealt with a change to the agricultural text, on packet page 230. The first change was
dealing with the Powers /Twine parcel on Pole Road. There was a proposed zoning text that
would make that use an allowable use in the agricultural zone and allow it to expand. The
Planning and Development Committee has discussed that. It is recommend that the County not
go ahead with the change. The Planning Commission had further discussion and decided not to
recommend the change. They discussed making the parcel a permitted use, but they wouldn't be
allowed to expand. They would have fewer rights than just leaving them as a non - conforming
use. Planning staff recommends that the Council rezone the parcel to agriculture in the
Comprehensive Plan, but not change the text. Leave the use as a non - conforming use. The
second change deals with changes to the rural area. That is Title 20.36. It adds a new section as
a conditional use that rental cabins and associated conference centers would be allowed in the
Foothills area, with conditions. That would be a density not exceeding five sleeping units per
five acres. That was a change made by the Planning and Development Committee. A sleeping
unit is a one bedroom of a rental cabin.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin continued to state that the density would allow five sleeping units on five acres.
It would have an insignificant impact on the rural zone. It is only allowed in the Foothills, where
they are trying to encourage tourism. That change would allow the Logs to then go back from a
resort commercial area to a rural area. It is in an alluvial fan hazard area. It doesn't make sense
to leave the area commercial. That was part of the Comprehensive Plan change. It does make
sense to allow continued rental cabins in the portions of that lot that are appropriate for a rental
cabin. All of the review would be occurring on the site at the time of the building permit. The
last change is a change to the rural forestry zoning text. This is to accommodate the Great
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Western Lumber facility on Goodwin road. It is zoned Light Impact Industrial. In the
Comprehensive Plan, it was left as a rural area. It doesn't make sense for a Comprehensive Plan
designation if it doesn't match the industrial zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan
recommended that it be changed to rural forestry. It is adjacent to a rural forest area. It is a
forestry- related facility. The text change would clarify some of the uses in a forestry area that
helps implement the Comprehensive Plan. There are policies in the Comprehensive Plan that
would allow cottage industries with up to ten employees as permitted uses. That is one of the
changes. The second change would allow forestry- related and wood based industries that are
larger. The other two changes, on packet page 232, section .067, would allow the one use to
expand within the area it is already occupying. It includes several parcels. The text references
the concomitant agreement in the previous use, to allow that use to expand without becoming a
non - conforming use and impacting its financing. The last change would be to allow additional
forestry- related processing facilities, such as furniture fabrication and other timber - related
industries. Timber related industry in forestry zone would allow additional value for the timber,
rather than just exporting raw logs. Staff recommends those changes as amended by the
Planning and Development Committee.
Hoag questioned packet page 232, why the recommendation is to delete reference to a
plywood mill and just reference pulp or paper mills. Goodwin responded that the plywood mills
were considered by Planning Commission to be considered an acceptable use in forestry zones.
Pulp and paper mills need to be on a waterfront area, is more polluting, and requires a lot of
water. Plywood is something that could easily happen in a rural forestry area.
Hoag questioned why a plywood mill was excluded before. Goodwin stated that staff did
not know. At this point, staff feels that plywood is acceptable. This did not used to be a rural
forestry zone. The language was written for another area that wasn't a rural forestry zone. That
zone was light impact industrial.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Hoag requested clarification regarding whether the agenda item was advertised as a
change to the Comprehensive Plan and Title 20 zoning text. Goodwin responded that it was.
Goodwin also stated that the previous zone on Great Western parcels were rural.
Roger Almskaar, 900 Dupont Street, Bellingham, represented the Logs resort. They are
satisfied with the Planning Committee's recommendation.
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, urged the Council to review the handout from
Committee. The first proposed language striking the language is important. Whatcom County's
allowance for expansion of non - conforming uses is quite liberal. It is contrary to the direction
that case law and State law would take. State case law takes the position that non - conforming
uses are meant to be confined. The moment that an opportunity arises to reduce them, one
should do so. The language in the County's ordinance is written so that is not the direction that
the County goes. The site deserves a higher level of protection. This is in reference to section
20.40.134 regarding pre- existing light industrial manufacturing uses. In addition, she urged the
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Council to strike the cottage usage provision regarding rural forestry. Rural forestry can get
along well with wood -based cottage industries. This is in reference to section 20.42.134 on
packet page 230. On packet page 231, item #4 states that the minimum open space requirement
is 40 %. Being in a rural zone carries with it the requirement, according to the Growth
Management Act (GMA), that all development be compatible with protection of water resources.
Significant damage to water resources takes place at the density level of one unit per acre, which
is 10% coverage of the land. This section proposes 60% of the lot covered with some time of
impervious surface. If the visual beauty and rural areas of Whatcom County is the attraction for
tourists, the Council should require more stringent compliance with scenic aesthetics.
Hoag questioned which language Wells wanted stricken from the packet on page 230.
Imhof stated that what Wells was requesting is already proposed.
Wells stated that it was recommended that this is stricken, and they just go straight to the
agricultural zone.
Brenner questioned whether Wells was speaking against the County going to the
agricultural zone. Wells responded that the agricultural zone is appropriate. The problem with
having some kind of language in there is that Whatcom County's non - conforming statutes are
very liberal in terms of expansion.
Hoag questioned whether Wells' intent was to keep the agricultural zoning, but also
include language text change.
Patrick Alesse 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated that the sleeping unit density of
five units per five acres may become permanent residences if language excluding that is not
included. It reduces the assessed valuation per capita. If people move in, it will create more
problems and would lessen the tax base.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, represented Great Western
Lumber. They are currently zoned light impact industrial. By the action that is proposed, it
would rezone them to rural forestry. They were created as a light impact industrial site through a
specific rezone that was requested in 1993, with the corresponding concomitant agreement that
was filed. Great Western Lumber is in support of the rezone subject to the adoption of the
language that allows them to continue doing business as usual. Their only interest is in keeping a
site that is functional in practice and for financing purposes. The language that deals with Great
Western Lumber is section 20.42.067. The other language that is part of the text amendment
does not deal with Great Western Lumber, such as the cottage industries. She urged the Council
to keep that section. Regarding the comments from CTED, they are somewhat confusing. They
may have not understood the origin of the request. They indicate a concern about the concern of
non - forest based industries within this zone. Great Western Lumber is a forest -based industry.
They continue to state that they echo the concerns of the State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). DNR took the stance that the specific circumstances of Great Western Lumber will not
negatively impact the forest base. They are in support of the Great Western Lumber change.
Bulleted items on page four of the letter from CTED, regarding the permitted use, are not
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
appropriate in this case. They were drawn out of a Thurston County ordinance as an example,
but this site is developed. There is very little room for it to grow. The types of parameters that
were placed into the Thurston County ordinance are not appropriate for this ordinance. The
concomitant agreement provides the parameters by which the site can develop out. They are
limited in size to what was originally in the concomitant agreement. The concomitant needs to
be amended and re- recorded.
Hoag questioned whether Great Western would not mind if the section regarding the
cottage industry would be removed from the ordinance. Kroontje stated that language is not
applicable to the Great Western site.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved to approve as presented.
Sutter reported for committee and moved to delete section. 134 regarding pre- existing
light industrial manufacturing on packet page 230. When they get to the map changes, the
committee will recommend adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation to change the
zoning, but not to adopt the text change. She also moved to strike findings one through three on
packet page 228.
Nelson proposed a friendly amendment to include re- numbering of the findings.
Sutter accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag stated that there are prime agricultural soils on this site and it is in an agricultural
area. This language was decided upon to not limit the owner's current operation, but to restrict
him from expanding into the agricultural area. Zoning as agriculture protects the agricultural
land that is there. She supported the language in the packet, not the proposed amendment.
Sutter stated that by changing the zoning to agricultural, they make the current use non-
conforming. For any change to take place, they would have to go through a conditional use
process.
Hoag stated that is why they supported the language in committee originally, because that
is what they wanted.
Sutter stated that it would happen without the language.
Hoag stated that this manufacturing use is not at all related to the agricultural operations
there. It is not a conforming use and should be treated as a non - conforming use and subject to
those conditions.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Sutter stated that is what will happen. If the language is removed and the zoning is
changed to agriculture, it automatically becomes a non - conforming use subject to conditional use
permit.
Brenner agreed with the comments that it will become a non - conforming use in
agricultural zoning. That is what she wanted. With the current language, they can expand.
Goodwin clarified that if the amendment is approved, then the facility could stay there,
but if it wanted to expand or change uses, it would have to go to the Hearing Examiner. It is an
existing, non - conforming use. An existing, non - conforming use could expand with a conditional
use permit and approval. There are criteria, in the Whatcom County Code section 20.83 on
expansion of non - conforming uses, which they would have to meet. If the amendment is not
approved, then it would be confusing because they would have to make a subjective
determination of what is the substantially same intensity and use.
Imhof restated the amendment to delete section .134 and strike the first three findings on
page 228, and to re- number the other findings.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section .176 on packet page 230 to read:
Rental cabins, together with aPA associated eenf fence eentefs meeting facilities and other
customary accessory uses, including but not limited to cooking and dining facilities, retail sales
of meeting supplies and gifts, swim pools and exercise rooms in the Foothills Subarea, provided
the following standards are met_
1) Density shall not exceed five thfee sleeping units per five acres, and hall be
deteFmiaed by site plan ., ,a4;
2) Legally established resorts or rental cabins existing as of the effective date of the
adoption of this ordinance which meet the criteria established above in sub - section 1
shall be permitted outright. However, expansions shall only be allowed by
conditional use, and shall be bound by the density standard above; and
3) Each cabin shall have a maximum of three sleeping units
Brenner stated that she supported the proposed amendment, but wanted to address Patrick
Alesse's concerns about these not becoming permanent rentals. They are supposed to be
recreational.
Goodwin stated that this is in the Foothills area only. The definition of sleeping units in
Title 20 specifically states it is for tourists and transients. A sleeping unit is one bedroom.
Generally a rural five -acre zoning would have one house on five acres. Even if someone abused
this and put in five one -room cabins, it would have about the same impact as one house. There
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 10
Formatted
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
will not be an impact as far as abuse. If someone came in for a building permit for five one
room cabins for permanent rental, then it probably wouldn't be issued.
Nelson stated that this zoning was changed to R5 to protect against development into a
heavier density that what was intended by recreational use. It is going to be up to Councils to
protect that in the future. If there were changes, then they would have to recognize the impacts.
Hoag questioned whether there was a limit on the number of beds or square footage.
Goodwin read the definition and stated that it is fairly specific.
Hoag stated that she was concerned that the number of beds was not specifically limited
to only one bed.
it then.
Imhof stated that they should leave it and if it becomes a problem, then they can deal with
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to delete section 20.42.134 on packet page 230. CTED expressed a concern
regarding growth of non - forest based industries in the forestry zone. There have been problems
about cottage industry in rural zones. This does not limit the type of industry and it is not a
forest - related industry, therefore this should not be in the forestry zone. Section. 135 still allows
for related wood -based cottage industries.
Brenner questioned whether there are still home occupations. Goodwin responded that
there are home occupations allowed in the rural forestry zone. Cottage industries haven't been
allowed. Home occupations have to be in the building and family members.
Brown clarified that they are in rural forestry, which has 20 -acre parcels.
Sutter stated that she did not want to see economic opportunities stifled in the Foothills
area.
Hoag stated that the opportunities that are available should be compatible with the rural
forestry zoning. CTED has an appropriate concern. There are still wood and forest related
opportunities available.
Nelson stated that there are provisions under 20.36.161 that would have to be complied
with regarding the industries. They will also still have to have a final decision and
administrative review. There is adequate protection.
Hoag stated that administrative review consists of looking at the ordinances to see if the
use is allowed. If they allow the use, then it will go in. There is zoning for a reason. This is
zoned forestry and industrial uses should be in industrial areas.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
45
Brenner suggested making the cottage industry a conditional use permit. She questioned
whether a landowner could have their property in open space /forestry in rural forestry and still be
able to do a cottage industry.
Goodwin responded that they could have their property in rural forestry open space, but
the area that they have buildings on, their house, is excluded from that. Usually there is one acre
that is the house and the location of the cottage industry.
Brenner stated that a landowner shouldn't get the tax break on any of the land if they
have a cottage industry in the home.
Brown questioned whether a residence is taxed differently in agricultural open space.
Goodwin stated that she would research that.
Motion to delete failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
Brenner moved to make cottage industry in section 20.42.134 on packet page 230 a
conditional use.
Sutter questioned why they would do that in this section, but not other places where
cottage industry is allowed. Brenner responded because it is a designated resource area.
Sutter questioned whether they would require a conditional use in agricultural areas.
They are resource areas. Goodwin responded that they do require it in rural. There is also a
comprehensive plan policy that states that they would support cottage industries and make it
easier for people. Cottage industries are a conditional use in the rural zone and the agricultural
zone.
Nelson stated his concern was that in agricultural lands, there is production that occurs on
a yearly basis and provides a regular income. Forestry is a 20 — 30 year turn around.
Imhof stated the reason they instated rural forestry was to get people to do sustainable
forestry, and harvest trees on a yearly basis.
Brown questioned whether there would be a conflict with section. 135 if they make that a
conditional use. He suggested a friendly amendment to state that it would exclude forestry-
related industry.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
Imhof restated the motion to require that cottage industries be a conditional use,
excluding those that are forest related.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend packet page 231, section (7), to delete "at his discretion." They
want to protect scenic highways.
Sutter stated that it would direct the administrator in all cases to require additional
measures or restrictions, whether they need it or not.
Imhof stated that it would only be done if needed to protect scenic vistas.
Sutter stated that it is at the administrator's discretion to determine what is needed to
protect a scenic vista. If it doesn't need protection, then he or she shouldn't have to do anything.
Brown stated that this has been a source of controversy in many counties. Most of the
people living along the locations did not have any input on the classifications. Much of the time,
they are not impacting the scenic qualities. To remove a discretionary part, is an invasion to an
existing property owner.
Hoag stated that it is only required if they need protection. If there is nothing that needs
to be done, if there is not any problem, then there will be no measures.
Knapp clarified that if they leave language in which leaves the decision up to the
administrator's discretion, then there is a capability for the public to appeal to the Hearing
Examiner. There is an additional capability for review. That won't occur if they state that there
shall be measures.
Hoag stated that if it is left up for appeal, then there is an additional expense.
Knapp stated that if they allow the discretion, then it allows for more flexibility in the
process.
Imhof stated that if the property owner feels that he or she has been wronged, then he or
she could appeal to the Hearing Examiner, then the County Council.
Brenner questioned the recourse if a neighbor feels that the administrator didn't do a
good enough job and whether they could also appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Knapp responded
that they could.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1999 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLANT AND
FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAMS RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB98 -398)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the administration has worked with
departments to develop the program. That is on page 235 of the packet. Some of the items will
need review due to the Comprehensive Plan. They've tried to determine the County's legal
requirements for providing facilities and a certain level of services. Some of those have been
reduced and some have been increased. He then explained each of the 14 items. They are
exploring the concept of creating a regional medical examiner's facility that would enable the
County to get federal money to build a facility. There is federal money available to build
facilities in an area in close proximity to the airport.
Brown questioned whether the facility was going to be located in the basement of the
Olympic Building. Imhof responded that the County could save its own funds if they can get
federal funding. If they don't get federal funding, then it is still an option to put the morgue at in
the basement of the Olympic Building.
Brown questioned whether the other counties would have to transport their bodies to
Whatcom County. Wareing stated that they would provide federal money to build a facility for
Whatcom County in this area. There is already a facility in Snohomish County.
Wareing stated that the minimum - security corrections is based on the per bed need that
has been demonstrated and continues to be demonstrated in Whatcom County. They are going to
have an expansion of corrections facilities in the future. It is projected for a six -year process.
The criminal justice study has begun. There are two options. One option is that the County
would build and operate the facility. The other option would allow modifications to the Sheriff's
facility and public safety facility as may be required by growth. It is a placeholder. Item #4
funding sources should be corrected to strike the ER &R fund and replaced with the Road fund.
Funding is available in this year's budget to do pre - planning.
Brenner questioned why they would use general fund money for this project. Wareing
stated that it would only be to the extent that there would be general fund operations at the
location, such as the Sheriff's patrol division or a possible move of the Parks Department
operations to that location.
Brenner questioned why it wouldn't be taken out of the Parks fund or the Sheriff's
budget. Wareing stated that those funds are the general fund. It is only to the extent that there
are general fund operations located there. There are certain County operations that are better
suited to be located at Smith and Northwest. It is more central to the County's population. The
County would most likely have a combination of Road fund money and general fund money.
Since the general fund has the Nor -Bell building as an asset, they may move the Engineering
Division into that building, pay for the new building with Road funds, then move any Sheriff or
other operations into the other facility. That is already a general fund asset.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
45
Wareing stated that they are in the process of dealing with item #5, renovations to the
County Health Center, with general funds or bond proceeds. That will come before the Council
at the next Council meeting to set the bond funding for the Civic Center Building. The first thing
that they are proposing is reinforcement of the vertical columns and the floor joints where the
horizontal I -beams connect to the vertical columns. It makes it more earthquake- resistant. It is a
retrofit of the building. In the bonding package that is to be brought forward, they have set aside
a project fund in the amount of $750,000 to be used for renovations.
Imhof questioned when the County is to be in the building. Wareing responded that they
will be in by mid -2000.
Wareing stated that the next item will upgrade the parking facility for the new building.
Brenner questioned why they would do bond proceeds for a $100,000 item. Wareing
stated that it is likely that they won't. Imhof stated that it is part of a whole bond package for
$3.5 million. They would not specifically bond the one item.
Wareing stated that it is more likely that would be funded from the general fund. Items
#7 and #8 are based on future projections of parking need for the County. They are looking at a
partnership with the City and other private interests in the immediate area to develop parking.
Brown questioned whether they are reviewing a parking garage type of facility. Wareing
stated that it would be a multi -use structure. There would be parking below the ground, then
shops or office spaces on the ground level, then more parking and other facility use. If that
becomes a viable option, then they would come back to the Council with that.
Wareing stated that funding source for item #9 should be the general fund, not ER &R.
The roof has been redone recently, so the number is likely to come down. They've done some
pretty substantial upgrades to the building.
Brenner questioned whether anyone would be located in the building that would have
anything to do with roads. Wareing stated that they would not.
Wareing stated that there is a boiler room between the courthouse and the public safety
building that would make a good room for storage. They would contract to have the boilers
removed and use for records' storage. It would be either below ground or at ground level.
Hoag questioned whether the $50,000 includes removing the boilers and renovating it for
storage. Wareing stated that the amount would include removing the boilers and upgrading the
walls with steel studs and installing an appropriate surface.
Wareing stated that the courtrooms referenced in item #11 were done in the 1940's and
1950's. Some of the rooms are threadbare. An additional Superior Court judge would be located
in the suite of courtrooms constructed on the fifth floor, as referenced in item #12. It has good
security access. It could be a high- security courtroom. The wood for the stairs and entry ramps
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
at the Forest Street Annex has begun to rot. Item #13 addresses fixing that problem. Project #14
is a project brought forth by the Facilities Manager. They would go through all the office spaces
to make sure the appropriate latches are on all storage facilities.
Brenner questioned why they would spend $5.5 million on a minimum - security
corrections facility when the County is contracting out the minimum security facility at Security
Specialists Plus (SSP). She questioned whether anyone had talked to them about adding on to
their facility. Wareing stated that is a day - release center. It is not a minimum - security facility.
They could contract with a provider like SSP to build and operate a facility for the County.
Brenner questioned whether they are approving the funding for the items. Imhof
responded that they are not spending any money until it comes to the Council for appropriations.
None of the money has been budgeted.
Wareing stated that the Council could modify the plan at their discretion.
Hoag questioned the ramifications of adopting the plan. Imhof stated that only the items
scheduled for 1999 have been budgeted. The remaining items are similar to the road program and
are revised every year.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one he closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to remove $5,400,000 (item 42) for the minimum - security corrections
facility. She would much rather see a contract with a company who is willing to put the money
up front and build it.
Brown stated that the County needs the facility. Bonds and taxes may not be the way to
fund it.
Hoag questioned whether there is any way to use a vacant building for a minimum-
security facility. Wareing stated that there are a lot of options. This plan changes from year to
year. It has to be done as part of the Capital Facilities Plan, per the Home Rule Charter and the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Now, they are providing for future space needs and
future levels of service. As it was looked at in the last process, there are several buildings that
could be purchased. One is in an area that is a few blocks away. The systems to equip a
building would cost a lot of money. The Council would not be locking themselves into anything.
Planning and Development Services Director Michael Knapp, who is also an architect, stated
that there are a number of things that go into the development of a building for the $850,000.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to delete items #7 and #8. The County should not be building expensive
parking garages, especially when the revenues are going to the City.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Sutter, Imhof, and Dawson opposed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Hoag stated that parking needs to be dealt with, but building a garage may not be an
answer. They may need to work on public transportation incentives for employees. She also
expressed a concern that approving this resolution locks the County in to doing the projects.
Sutter stated that it is not a plan, it is a program.
Wareing stated that the City is looking into building a facility in which the County would
gain parking, through a public /public partnership. This program changes every year. The
Council has the opportunity to review the plan.
Nelson moved to reconsider removal of items #7 and #8.
Motion to reconsider carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed and Hoag abstaining.
Nelson questioned the amounts listed in items #7 and #8. Wareing responded that they
were the same amount of space and same cost per space. It is just a projection.
Nelson questioned whether the administration was looking at doing both items. Wareing
responded that they were looking at options and the possibility of future, long -term, planning.
Both would give additional 54 spaces.
Nelson questioned why they were in separate years. Wareing stated that they are looking
at the number of spaces that they would gain from the two facilities. They are looking at it from
a cost per parking space perspective. If someone else builds the space and the County does not
have to pay for all the spaces, then they are happy. This is long -term planning. It is unlikely that
the City of Bellingham will build two facilities in the same year, so the County is projecting two
opposite years. The County would move forward at the City of Bellingham's initiation.
Brenner stated that they should be removed. As the cities take more of the services
within the cities and the population, there needs to be downsizing of County government.
Brown questioned the cost per parking space. Wareing stated that if both facilities were
built, then the County would have 54 spaces in addition to the need. The total would be 350 —
400 spaces.
Hoag questioned the number of parking spaces in comparison with the need if only the
facility at the south end of the courthouse was built. Wareing responded that the County would
end up with 150 — 200 spaces. The projected need is 350 — 400 spaces.
Hoag asked about meeting the current need. Waring explained that there would not be
enough parking spaces available to meet the need by the time a facility could be built at the south
entrance.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Sutter questioned whether all of the spaces would be for the County. Wareing stated that
the County would provide the parking spaces that they have to provide for a building the size of
the courthouse. The City has an ordinance that requires the County to provide a certain number
of parking spaces per square foot of facilities. That is so the public and other people have access.
Parking spaces are not only for employees.
Hoag stated that the requirement is based on square footage of the building, but the
administration is basing the figures on projected need. She requested clarification on
determining need. Wareing responded that it is based on the projected need of the population.
The current parking is based on the square footage of the building. As the population grows and
the need for more facilities increases, because of the City and County, then more space needs to
be provided.
Imhof stated that there will be more people in the County that would come to the
Courthouse to do business.
Dawson called for the question.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that this is a vision. It is good policy to plan for
the future. Hopefully the County will be able to decrease the amount of employees per thousand
people in the County. However, Whatcom County is going to continue to grow. Whatcom
County has an obligation to serve all of the people in the County, whether they live in the City of
Bellingham or in the unincorporated areas. The County needs to plan for the future.
Brenner stated that this is a good time to lobby for more park- and -rides on the Whatcom
Transportation Authority (WTA) routes. This is not an efficient way to handle the problem. It
would encourage more people downtown in single person vehicles.
Brown stated that the Council received additional information on this topic. He
questioned whether the projections include parking for the Civic Center Building and how many
parking spaces will be needed for that facility. Wareing stated that the Civic Center facility has
adequate spaces on the existing property. If not, then the remainder would be incorporated into
one of the projects.
Brown stated that there is nothing that states that if an item is removed from the list that it
can't be added in the future.
Imhof stated that removing the items would not fulfill Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirements. The County has to have a facilities plan that pays for facilities for the next six
years. The current plan fulfills that need.
Brenner stated that another aspect of GMA is to encourage increased use of public
transportation.
Brenner moved to delete item #7.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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 failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Brown in favor.
Brenner moved to remove item #8.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Brown in favor.
Motion to approve the resolution as presented carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Brown
opposed.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 1999 ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB98 -399)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that Nasser Mansour, Public Works Assistant
Director of Administration, distributed a color -coded map with two elements of the road
program. In the red are projects slated for construction in 1999 and are carried forward. Items in
green are pre- engineering efforts only. A third category in the program is not indicated on the
map. They are placeholders for projects that are currently under construction. There will be
carryover work and some financing will need to be carried over into 1999.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham, stated that item #8 on packet page 238
regarding the Austin Street Improvements to put in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Those
improvements will be directly above the road that goes into Basin 2, which is Bellingham's
water intake. The improvements are not so far along that they can't be changed. They need to
be done with pervious services, grass, and swales, not curb, gutter, and sidewalk. It violates the
Lake Whatcom Watershed goals and policies and the direction from the Lake Whatcom
Committee. All plans say to lessen impervious surfaces. Runoff from a road will be heavy
metals and toxic carcinogenic items that should not be going into a public water supply. She
submitted a memo from the Department of Ecology regarding the current state of Lake
Whatcom. It has been significantly degraded over the past 15 years. The general goal of
preventing degradation is not being met. One of the most significant things that one can do is
reduce the share of imperviousness from the transport component. Regarding item #19 and the
Lake Whatcom Connector, it needs to be removed until there is a general watershed plan. She
read the last paragraph from RCW 36.70A.070(6). Bellingham has asked the County to remove
the Whatcom Connector.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, questioned where the Lake Whatcom Connector would go.
Imhof responded that there is nothing going on with it now.
Nelson stated that it is in design phase and studies are being done. If it is going to be
done, engineering has to be done first.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Brown stated that they were still finalizing the right -of -way.
Imhof stated that it would connect with San Juan Boulevard at Yew Street, then connect
on Lake Louise above the rock -cut.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved approval of the resolution. It is an urban area. Run -off from the roads
would go into a sewer for treatment.
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering Services Manager, stated that the Austin Street
project is completed. There is a little bit of landscaping left for next spring. They did open up an
area along a ditch on the west side of the road. They will be planting friendly vegetation for bio-
filtration.
Nelson stated that pervious surfaces are preferred for filtration systems in the rural areas.
He questioned whether it would be better to get it in a sewer system and away from the lake in
this heavier density. Mills responded that it would be better. It also eats up a lot of right -of -way
to have ditches.
Imhof questioned whether there is currently a system for stormwater and sewer currently
in the location. Mills responded that it is an enclosed system that goes down Cable Street, goes
into a collector and into the Lake.
Hoag stated that the County should be moving more towards using pervious surfaces
where possible. It a situation such as this, she questioned whether the County could install
gutters to keep it from going where it shouldn't go, then put in gravel instead of a sidewalk.
Mills stated that there are alternatives to look at. In this case, the money received in federal
funds was to construct sidewalks. It stated that the sidewalks had to be constructed out of
concrete. They bought additional right -of -way along the first property and opened up a ditch
behind the new sidewalk. They will plant vegetation to trap siltation and sediments.
Brenner stated that the County might be better off not taking grants in the Lake Whatcom
Watershed if detrimental strings are attached.
Brown stated that there are many times when design standards outweigh the other issues.
There was testimony during the Comprehensive Plan process that installation of gravel will shed
water faster than asphalt is some cases. There is modern technology that will allow for
protecting and filtering the water.
Sutter questioned the Northwest Drive between Axton and Pole Road. Mills responded
that the ones that are being carried over are almost completed. A lot of the remaining work is for
landscaping and vegetation that couldn't be done due to the time of the year.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Sutter questioned Marine Drive from the Nooksack River to Lummi Shore Drive and
whether work has already been done. Mill stated that they constructed a bridge there last year.
Sutter questioned how long the Lummi Shore project would go on. Mills responded that
the lead agency is the Lummi Tribe.
Monsen stated that the first effort for Lummi Shore was to stabilize the shoreline. The
Corps is in the process of finishing the shoreline stabilization. The County is expecting to begin
the actual road reconstruction in 1999.
Hoag questioned why the County would pay for right -of -way and engineering of the
Whatcom Connector if the city of Bellingham states that they don't want it to be done.
Monsen stated that in this case, there will be a contract for creating the final route
location. The County is not in the process of acquiring route right -of -way. The $200,000 is
route finalization and preparation of a good estimate to determine if it is a good project to pursue.
This is only enough for Engineering and Planning to make those decisions.
Hoag questioned why the County is spending $200,000 to do a project that the City of
Bellingham stated that they don't want done and the Comprehensive Plan stated would not be
done.
Nelson stated that there were hearings where people testified who want the project.
Petitions were submitted in favor of the project.
Imhof stated that it is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner stated that they were given Engineers reports that stated the road would be
obsolete before it is built. It wasn't worth what the County would spend on it. She moved to
remove # 19 from consideration.
Hoag stated that there were a lot of people that were concerned about the possible impacts
of increased traffic due to the project.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Motion to approve the resolution carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Nelson questioned whether the signalization at Bakerview and James Street was in the
area that was proposed for urbanization. Monsen responded that the design would take into
account the future structure of the road. It is utilizing the federal grant to do safety
improvements of the intersection. The County is in a joint effort with the city of Bellingham.
Imhof stated that there is an interlocal agreement that the City will reimburse the County
when the area is annexed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Mills stated that it is the County's intention to install a "bargain basement" signal. The
need is there. The City of Bellingham wants to donate used signal equipment and extend the
arms and it could be installed properly so it won't have to be moved if and when Bakerview gets
widened.
Nelson questioned the amount of the cost is from federal money. Mills stated that 80% is
federal money. It is up to a maximum of $200,000.
Monsen stated that the actual construction activity would go before the Council at the
time.
Hoag stated that the Whatcom Connector was not in the current Comprehensive Plan and
requested clarification.
Michael Knapp, Planning & Development Services Director, stated that the Council did
take the road out, but put it back in for the potential for a study. It was taken out as a firm,
committed project.
Hoag moved to reconsider the amendment to remove item #19.
Hoag withdrew the request to reconsider.
Motion to approve the resolution carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
(Clerks Note: The Council took a ten - minute break. Change to tape three)
OTHER ITEMS
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE
PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE YEAR OF 1999,
PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10 (AB98 -379)
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated the
committee recommended adopting the ordinance with the following amendment on page 2 of the
packet, section (B), add at the end:
"The amounts collected through the County general levy shall be limited to a zero (0)
percent rate increase."
Hoag questioned the difference between saying it was the same as 1998, except for the
additions of new constructions and improvements, and saying it is zero percent. Imhof stated
that they have to state it.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Wareing stated that the statement means that there is no increase in the general fund tax
levy. New construction is new on the roles, it is not new taxes that are being levied. This
sentence states that there is a zero percent increase. It is a requirement of Referendum 47.
Brenner questioned whether item (A) addresses it. Wareing stated that it is a statement
that is required. They are complying with state law.
Hoag questioned whether the statement could be interpreted to mean that they couldn't
include the new construction. Wareing stated that new construction is included. If they increase
the levy, then there would be an increase in tax across the board. New construction is added to
the roles and taxed at the appropriate increase.
Imhof stated that this is a rate increase, not an amount increase.
Brenner stated that the new construction will not get a rate increase, it would just be
assessed and taxed at that assessment.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter questioned whether language in the second to the last `BE IT ORDAINED..."
should be, "...lfainage Diking and Drainage Improvement Districts."
Wareing stated that it should be, "Drainage, Diking, and Drainage Improvement
Districts." There are three types. He recommended adding Diking to the list.
Sutter moved to amend to state, "...Diking Districts, Drainage Districts, and Drainage
Improvement Districts..." to eliminate confusion. Otherwise it looks like it is all one district.
Brown questioned whether Diking Districts set their own levies. Imhof stated that all the
ordinance states is that whatever money is collected for the special districts is credited to their
individual maintenance funds. It doesn't set a rate.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1999 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB98 -380)
adopt.
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 23
I Wareing stated that throughout the document there is an increase to postage that states it
2 will be raised to $ 0.33. The actual raise in postage will be to $0.34.
3
Imhof moved to amend the postage to $0.34 wherever it is stated.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
8 Brown stated that part of the problem with the fee schedule is that the rates are set and
9 there is no substantiating documentation to justify the rates and demonstrate the actual costs.
10 They need some justification to show how the costs are arrived at.
11
12 Dawson stated that this was discussed thoroughly. The Building Industry Association
13 (BIA) representatives were concerned. She questioned Michael Knapp, Planning &
14 Development Services Director, whether the BIA representatives were satisfied with the
15 answers.
16
17 Knapp stated that they are satisfied, but they want the County to have a more rigorous
18 process next year to work through linking the fee to the actual expense. They will be doing that
19 with their new software. The challenge that the Executive gave them 2 '/z years ago was to
20 shorten timeframes. They have done that because they brought in a permit coordinator. They
21 have reorganized the department's personnel. There is still room for improvements.
22
23 Brown questioned the fee for private well -site approvals, listed on packet page 9. It used
24 to be that private wells were charged $147. Public wells were charged $260. Now, private wells
25 have been deleted and all wells are charged $260.
26
27 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
28 that fee for the private wells was a service that they could have provided if people asked for that
29 service. They don't do site inspections on private wells. They never really used the fee. That is
30 why it was deleted.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Imhof questioned whether those were the private exempt wells. Delahunt stated that they
were.
Brown questioned whether anyone from the County shows up at a private exempt well
and checks it out. Imhof stated that they do not. That is why it is exempt.
38 Brown stated that someone showed up at his door the other day as the well - driller left.
39 Delahunt responded that was for looking at the seal that is put on the wells. They do that under a
40 contract with the State. As far as looking at the well site prior to installing the well, they don't
41 do that.
42
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 24
Brown stated that they shouldn't be charging schools a $30 fee to visit a park.
3 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that in the budget development guidelines
4 for 1999 that came from the County Council, departments were directed to review all fees
5 charged and revenue generated by departmental operations to ensure all appropriate fees have
6 been implemented and are at the correct level. They have made sure that each fee is at the
7 appropriate level. The City of Bellingham is able to supplement some of their operational cost
8 with other revenues that they have. The County is moving more towards having people who
9 actually access services by fees paying for those services. The County does not have the revenue
10 to supplement those services.
11
12 Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated that they charge the
13 $30 when the school wants a tour. Staff must be on board to give a tour. This applies to
14 Hovander Homestead Park and Tennant Lake. When a school schedules a tour, then Parks
15 makes sure someone is available to give the tour.
16
17 Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
18
19 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR
20 THE YEAR 1999 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS
21 THEREIN (AB98 -381)
22
23 Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated that the
24 committee has several recommendations. In the last five years, there was only one year that the
25 Council raised the tax rate. It was raised to 3 %, services were reduced, and the money raised
26 went straight into the reserve. This Council has been very conservative fiscally. There is a
27 belief that when one keeps a tight rein on funds, one is more resourceful and creative. There are
28 a number of modifications. If there are any other changes, she requested that two other votes be
29 secured so that not a lot of time is spent addressing items of little interest.
30
31 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, gave a staff report. He specified two documents.
32 One is a memo that was distributed regarding the recommendations and also a list of technical
33 corrections. They are as follows: Non - Departmental, Civil Service Commission ($5,800) for
34 legal council to the Sheriff's office; Non - Departmental, Water Resource Management
35 (- $11,864); Prosecuting Attorney ($8,375 in each revenue and expenditure for $0 net.) for a
36 Deputy 11 instead of a Deputy I position; Parks ($15,000 in each revenue and expenditure for $0
37 net) for Wilderness and Sailing Class; Superior Court ($5,959) for clerk; Planning &
38 Development ($7,726) for permit plan upgrade; Planning & Development Services ($961) for
39 permit plan maintenance. This net total was for $8,582. The item from Non - Departmental,
40 Domestic Violence ($1,000) was removed. There is a position change resulting from the Solid
41 Waste Executive Committee recommending an increase from half time to full time.
42
43 Hoag requested clarification regarding the grant money for the Prosecuting Attorney
44 Deputy. She questioned whether it is paid for every year. Wareing stated that it is paid for by
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
45
the (High Intensity Drug Traffic Act) HIDTA money. The deputy handles felony cases instead
of misdemeanor cases.
Dawson moved approval of the Technical Corrections in the amount of $31,957 added
expenditure.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson directed the Council to the Budget Modifications as submitted by the Finance
Committee, and began with the items to be removed from the budget.
Dawson moved to approve the deletion of $25,000 for a compensation survey.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
Dawson moved to approve the deletion of $150,000 for Courthouse weapons screening.
Hoag proposed limiting it to access to the elevators, so the courts could still be protected,
for a reduced amount of $85,000. She so moved. It would include 1 '/z time officer, an extra x-
ray machine, and $3,500 in remodel accommodations.
Imhof questioned the amount of on -going costs. Hoag responded that the on -going was
the funding for the officer.
Motion to reduce the amount to $85,000 failed 2 -5 with Sutter and Hoag in favor.
Motion to delete $150,000 for the Courthouse weapons screening carried 6 -1 with Hoag
opposed.
Dawson moved to delete $21,946 for the Noxious Weed Board coordinator increase.
Nelson expressed his support for the $21,946 for the Noxious Weed Board coordinator
increase.
Brown supported the Weed Board activities, however it is time to hold the line.
Brenner supported the efforts of the Weed Board. It is funded and they have increased
the funding. She appreciates those that don't ask for more funding. The County can't afford the
increases.
Hoag stated that they already have a full -time inspector, a half -time coordinator, and
assistance from the Public Works Department. This is not a cut.
Motion to delete carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Dawson moved to remove $21,000 for the Council of Governments (COG). This was not
included on the list. COG was believed to be able to get financing and support from the cities.
There seems to be a lack of confidence in the COG process. The County has been able to
identify a way to get funding from everyone to review the flood tax. It allows the County to get
stormwater funding.
Imhof questioned whether it would remove their $37,000 in there. Dawson stated that it
was reduced to $21,000 at their request during the Finance Committee.
Sutter stated that the flood monies are not going to go for the same thing that the Water
Advisory Committee (WAC) is doing. Also, the $32,000 that the County allocated to them last
year, they have only spent $10,386 dollars of the County money. They have organized citizens
who have been working on quite a few different areas, despite obstructionist tactics from certain
individuals. To date, there have been five items forwarded to the Water Resources Management
Council with recommendations. Four regarded changes to the WAC charter. The latest has to
do with the request that the County Council sent to them for review of the Executive's proposed
water plan, which they have done. Those recommendations will be coming forward.
Brenner stated that the WAC membership should be the advisory committee to the
County Council. COG needs to understand that it isn't working and the County should step in.
Brown stated that he attended meetings for a while and felt that they were no longer
productive. He believed the Public Utility District has not decided to fund COG either. COG
has done a good job on roads and transportation. That is where they should stay.
Hoag questioned whether they would be taking away funding for road issues if the
$21,000 is removed. Sutter stated that it was just for the WAC.
Hoag stated that she did not approve of the water issues going to COG in the first place,
however there is no other system setup. She proposed they be funded with $10,000 and require
they restructure the WAC. It is operating strictly on consensus, which is a difficult process to
deal with. It should instead be a process in which they strive for consensus, but if that is not
achieved on an important issue, then the majority and minority reports. Also, membership
should be balanced for broad representation. They can then be used as the advisory committee.
Dawson stated that the County needs to be at the head of the helm.
Sutter stated that the County couldn't require anything. This is under the auspices of all
of the County government jurisdictions, not just the County Council. The WAC does not serve
at the will of the County Council. They are in the process of changing their own structure and
how they function. They have proposed some amendments to the charter to deal with some of
the issues. One of the reasons that they have been stalled for so long is because there have been
a couple of individuals who have been wrapped up in proceedural items, rather than trying to
produce a product.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Imhof suggested funding contingent upon funding from all other entities who have
funded in the past.
Sutter stated that the effect of the County Council and City of Bellingham not funding
will be that it takes away the process from the smaller jurisdictions that currently fund.
Hoag questioned the difference between funding certain activities for COG and funding
certain activities for the Economic Development Council (EDC). Sutter responded that the
WAC is a government coalition under COG. The EDC is private.
Hoag stated that her concern is that there is agreement that there are many problems. If
the problems can't be fixed or changed, then she would not support funding.
Sutter stated that they are on the verge of fixing the problems. The proposed amendments
include changing the mission statement to assist and facilitate in the development and
implementation.
Hoag questioned whether it changed the voting method or the membership. Sutter
responded that has not been changed.
Dawson questioned whether there is time to transfer the group to the County. Sutter
responded that it is not the County's group.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that it is not a Whatcom County decision. It
would be a decision by the Council of Governments.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
Imhof moved to approve funding $21,000 contingent upon funding from all other
government entities who have funded in the past.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Imhof continued to list the agencies that have contributed funds: the cities of Bellingham,
Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, Sumas, Whatcom County, Birch Bay Water and
Sewer District, Water District #12, and the Public Utility District (PUD).
Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Sutter opposed.
Sutter moved to delete $50,000 for Mt. Baker Theater, Festival of Music & Whatcom
Symphony. Funding for the theater cannot come out of the hotel /motel tax.
Hoag clarified that legal counsel stated that the hotel/motel tax could be used for the
theater because it does promote tourism.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Sutter read from a memo from the Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB) which stated
that the Mt. Baker Theater Whatcom County school group subsidy does not meet the criteria for
expenditures from hotel /motel funds.
Brown stated that the County is requested to supplement a program to bring local school
children to theater activities.
Kremen stated that both Council members are correct. The proposal as presented by the
theater would not be eligible for hotel /motel tax funding. The County could donate funding for
activities directly related promotion.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, clarified that the request is for one -time funding
from the general fund, not from the CVB budget.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Nelson, and Hoag opposed.
John Cooper, Convention and Visitor's Bureau, stated that a recommendation from the
Finance Committee to fund $5,000 to each project from the CVB budget would come directly
out of his budget. The funding that the CVB receives from the County covers all operations at
the CVB.
Hoag moved to remove funding for a' /2 time clerical position increase in the Public
Works Equipment Rental & Revolving (ER &R) Division.
Wareing stated that the manager of that division oversees a number of responsibilities.
She does not have clerical assistance.
Mary Ewing, Public Works ER &R Manager, stated that she manages a staff of 20 — 25,
including the ferry crew, mechanics, and shop stores. She further clarified that she does not have
any clerical help. The request is to increase a halftime employee to full time. That employee
would work 1/2 time at the Public Works Administration division.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Hoag moved to delete $20,000 for the additional overtime for the jail. The jail is already
spending over $200,000 in overtime, which is excessive. She preferred to have an added
corrections officer.
Wareing stated that the jail has had an average daily population increase. One of their
problems is increased scheduling of court cases, which require officers to take prisoners to court.
75% of the population is pre -trial felons. The jail is not able to handle the workload with current
staffing levels. Additional corrections officers would be welcome, but they wouldn't offset the
need for more overtime.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Brenner moved to delete $41,984 for a PC/LAN Tech I. This is an added request.
Wareing stated that this position would assist in completing the wide area network and
getting computers online. The help is needed for only one more year. This is a one -year request
for a limited FTE.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brown, and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $22,500 for an upgrade to the Voice Mail system.
Wareing stated that this is necessary to become Year 2000 (Y2K) compliant. The County
does not have a choice.
Motion failed 5 -2 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $15,000 for the purchase of vehicle for Planning &
Development Services.
Wareing stated that the vehicle would be for the Land Use Division. They currently do
not have any vehicles, employees have been using their private vehicles.
Brown questioned whether the vehicle was brand new, or transferred from another
department. Wareing stated that it would be a new vehicle.
Hoag stated that she had suggested transferring vehicles from the Health Department to
Planning and Development Services, instead of buying a new one.
Wareing responded that administration would look into this option. The County deleted
three vehicles from the Health Department a couple of years ago.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner in Hoag in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $75,430 for a new traffic engineer.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $4,500 for a new vehicle for the new traffic engineer.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $13,578 for a'h FTE Clerk II in Administration.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Brenner moved to remove $41,750 in capital equipment for the Sheriff Boat program.
Wareing responded that it is money allocated from a dedicated fund for a new storage
building to house the Sheriff's boats. The money is dedicated from the State boating funds,
which is money received from the State Parks Department.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to remove $45,000 for patrol overtime.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Brenner moved to delete 3 prosecuting attorneys.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to reduce one prosecuting attorney.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Brown, and Hoag in favor.
Dawson stated that the next section was reductions in the budget. The first item would
reduce by $13,000 funding for the Domestic Violence Commission, which would leave $26,000.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Sutter opposed.
Dawson moved to reduce $50,000 for microfilming for a camera and a staff member.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Sutter and Brenner opposed.
Hoag moved to take $15,000 from the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and give $5,000
each to the Mt. Baker Theater, Festival of Music, and the Whatcom Symphony.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Nelson moved to take $15,000 from the general fund and give $5,000 each to the Mt.
Baker Theater, Festival of Music, and the Whatcom Symphony.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Sutter, Dawson, and Brown opposed.
Brenner moved to reduce $30,000 for a hazardous waste storage facility. There are
moveable storage containers available.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B)
Brenner continued to state that there are other types of containers available.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 31
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
Wareing clarified that the request was not approved by administration.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Brenner moved to reduce $36,500 for only one Deputy Clerk in Superior Court instead of
the requested two positions.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to delete the Deputy Administrator position.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
(Clerk's Note: Council went to Other Items #10 and Other Items #9, Boards and
Commissions appointments, and completed the budget after the appointments)
Dawson announced that they would address additions to the budget. The first
recommendation from the Finance Committee was to add emergency gas shut off valve in the
amount of $5,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved the second item recommended in committee for the Horticulture Pest and
Disease Board for $5,000.
Hoag clarified that would be set up as a revolving fund.
Wareing stated that would require an ordinance, which would be brought forward at a
later date.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended from committee was for extra help in the Auditor's office
for election activities in the amount of $10,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item that was recommended from committee was for data entry funding for
domestic violence protective orders for Superior Court in the amount of $47,359.
Hoag stated that the proposed funding level is for 1.5 FTE. She recommended one FTE
at $32,359. That was the recommendation that Finance Committee approved.
Motion to approve $32,359 carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Brown stated that administration should check into the unfunded mandate for possible
reimbursement by the State. Hoag stated that the administration has been asked to look into it.
Brenner moved to table until the County receives an answer from the State as to whether
they would reimburse the County.
Imhof stated that it would be years before the State would settle that question.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Dawson stated that the next item recommended from committee was for Juvenile Court
Probation for a work program in the amount of $60,000. It would be an ongoing program, not a
one -time expenditure. The County saves $90 per day by keeping inmates out of the jail.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended by Finance Committee was for a records specialist in the jail
and a case manager for a total of $53,484. It is a one -year project.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended by Finance Committee was for the starling program in the
amount of $10,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended from Finance Committee was for sensor door locks in the
amount of $40,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended from Finance Committee was for a camera for the jail in the
amount of $10,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item recommended from Finance Committee was for an additional County
telephone line in the amount of $360.
Brown stated that the publications by the County don't include the County phone
numbers.
Motion carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The next item recommended from Finance Committee was for Parks Department
seasonal help in the amount of $11,749.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag opposed.
Hoag moved to add an Endangered Species Act (ESA) planner in the amount of $65,000
as a one -time expenditure. The money is in the budget and there is over $1 million in one -time
funds that are available. Also, $1.7 million is in additional cash flow reserves.
Sutter requested the item then be removed from the water plan.
Kremen stated that this item would be before the Council later in the meeting. Within the
Whatcom County water resources plan, the same staff position is included in the plan that may
be approved by the Council.
Hoag stated that the position should come out of the general fund, not the flood tax.
Motion failed 2 -4 with Hoag and Brenner in favor and Brown abstaining.
Hoag moved to add a .5 FTE to Council in the amount of $14,800 for a Clerk II. The
Council office is behind on minutes and needs to have the proper documentation so the public
can access Council records.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add $8,000 to the Council office for extra help.
Imhof questioned the current budgeted amount for extra help in the Council office.
Wareing stated that the extra help budget is at $14,650.
(Clerk's note: Council held decision on the Extra Help pending more information)
Hoag moved to add a corrections officer in the jail in the amount of $42,000. It should be
a flextime person that is on -call as needed.
Brenner proposed a friendly amount to approve the amount $41,000.
Hoag accepted Brenner's friendly amendment.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Hoag, and Sutter in favor.
(Clerk's Note: Council continued discussion on the extra help for the Council Office)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Wareing stated that the extra help amount quoted in the amount of $14,650 includes
funding for the Board of Equalization per diem pay. Administration recommended the Council
approve the request for $8,000.
Motion to approve $8,000 in extra help for the Council office carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to add two Sheriff satellite stations in the amount of $12,000. The deputies
could report to the area that they are to patrol instead of reporting to Bellingham. They could
respond to calls more quickly.
Wareing stated that Sheriff Brandland was interested in this concept. There is concern
regarding how viable it would be, however they are willing to try it as a pilot project in two
locations. That would involve installing office space in an existing fire station.
Imhof questioned whether any other counties have tried such a program. Wareing
responded that they've looked at other satellite stations. It doesn't work, but having a computer
link to the main station would work better.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.)
Nelson questioned what would be included in the $12,000. Wareing responded that it
would include a computer station that could down link to the Sheriff's office. A two -way
camera system would allow an officer to attend a squad meeting via the computer link.
Kremen suggested, if it is going to be a pilot program, to only develop one computer
station instead of two stations.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Dawson, Nelson, and Imhof opposed.
Brenner moved to add two Sheriff deputies in the amount of $200,000.
Motion failed 3 -3 with Nelson, Imhof, and Dawson opposed and Brown abstained.
Hoag moved to increase Council Member travel and tuition by $500 each, for a total
increase of $3,500.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Dawson opposed.
Brown questioned the status of budgeting for the Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
Imhof clarified that they are budgeted at their request.
Wareing suggested funding a 12th public defender in the amount of $50,692 as a one -time
expense. This is a necessity to effectively prosecute cases and move them through the system on
a timely basis. At the end of the year, administration hopes to see a decrease due to
Bellingham's increased caseload. Crime has gone up in Whatcom County.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
Imhof so moved.
Brenner questioned the amount currently being contracted out. Wareing responded that
the amount is approximately $400,000.
Jon Ostlund, Public Defender, stated that they are currently not contracting out any work.
Stress goes up and the number of conflicts goes up. If Council decreased staff from 12 to 11,
they will immediately send out 110 — 140 cases. The 12th public defender was added in June.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Wareing brought forward the Executive's water resource plan.
Sutter questioned what the Council is being asked to do.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that the packet proposed would increase the
flood district budget to set aside dedicated funds to implement the water resource plan for 1999.
It does not increase revenue, which would be dealt with in a few weeks.
Nelson questioned the amount remaining in the unreserved and undedicated fund balance.
Wareing stated that the Council would be safe to take out $600,000. The projected undesignated
fund balance for 1999 would be $1.4 million, some of which was used on the budget
amendments.
Brenner questioned the status of the watershed analyst position, which was originally
proposed to be funded at the amount of $35,000.
Kremen stated that they are including benefits. The range for the position is $35,000 -
$45,000, plus benefits, which totals approximately $60,000.
Hoag questioned the amount the Council approved when this was before them at a prior
meeting. Kremen responded that they approved a range of 270, which is $35,000 - $45,000.
Hoag moved to approve the ESA salmon recovery coordinator in the amount of $60,000.
Imhof moved to postpone action for two weeks.
Motion to postpone carried unanimously.
COMMENTS
Brown stated that the Finance Committee and others have put a lot of hard work into the
budget process. The FTE level in 1998 was 716 and the proposed in 1999 is 745. Rapid
increase causes concern.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
45
Brenner concurred with Brown and they were told that if the budget went through then
they would have to raise taxes in 2000. She wanted a status quo budget with the water plan
included in the budget, which is not.
Hoag stated that the Executive's office did an excellent job of paring the budget down to
mostly the basics.
Dawson thanked the Administration for the work they did on the budget. It was well
organized and easy to read through.
Nelson stated that the role of the government is to provide services. He complimented
the administration and the Council for the hard work.
Imhof thanked all involved.
Kremen thanked Council. Administration has approximately a $98 million budget, with
the general fund budget at $48 million. The Council and Administration work closely. There is
not much difference in vision for the future.
The ordinance to adopt the budget carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
EXPENSES AND /OR TRAVEL (AB98 -143K)
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated that this
was not recommended for approval.
Motion to deny carried 4 -2 with Brown and Brenner in favor and Hoag abstaining.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAPS (AB98 -171C)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated that it comes
forward with a recommendation for approval. They went through the letter received from the
State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) and feel confident
that they adequately addressed their concerns. The information provided by the Planning
Commission supports their recommendations. There is a scrivener's error regarding the amount
of land in mineral resource designations. The amount is in the context of 1992 levels on mineral
resource lands. The amount will be kept at 1,250 and updated during the next process.
Hoag stated that is not a scrivener's error.
Sutter stated that it is because of the last sentence. The State Department of Natural
Resources does not have permits for that much acreage.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Hoag stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997, the total acreage
that was devoted to mineral resource lands was 4,110. The number should reflect that because
"Whatcom County responded to the above mandate as follows:" Instead, they should drop the
last sentence.
Sutter stated that when they responded to the mandate, at that time there was 1,250 acres
that were permitted. It is correct without the proposed change. In context it is correct.
Hoag stated that it is not correct because it is in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan that the
County has adopted that many acres of mineral resource lands (MRL). It should reflect what
they adopted as MRL.
Imhof stated that they should adopt what is permitted.
Sutter stated that, beginning at the top of the page, it discusses 1992 and the response to
the Growth Management Act. At the time the initial response was made, there was 1,250 acres
that were permitted under the DNR permit.
Goodwin stated that those were the interim MRLs.
Hoag stated that the last sentence should be dropped. The interim work is at the top.
Sutter stated that during the next round of Comprehensive Plan amendments, they would
be adding an update that will include the 4,110 acres.
Brown questioned whether there was such a thing as an MRL designation at the
beginning of the process. Goodwin responded that they were called interim MRLs. That is what
the wording should have said.
Brown suggested adding the term "interim."
Hoag stated that if they are going to put the amount of MRL back to 1,250, then they
should add the term "interim" so they understand that the MRL that were adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan does not equal 1,250 acres.
Hoag moved to add the word, `By adopting an interim Mineral Resource Lands (MRL)
designations covering 1,250 acres..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL — HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION (ON
REMAND) ON FILE NUMBERS APL98 -0005 AND APL96 -0002, FILED BY
JONATHAN SITKIN FOR F.L. AND BETTY SMALLWOOD (AB98 -233)
See "Announcements."
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL — HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION (ON
REMAND) ON FILE NUMBERS APL98 -0005 AND APL96 -0002, FILED BY
JONATHAN SITKIN FOR ENVIRO -CHEM / KEITH SCHEFFER (AB98 -240)
See "Announcements."
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DATES FOR 1999 WHATCOM COUNTY
COUNCIL MEETINGS (AB98 -388)
Nelson moved to change the September 14, 1999 meeting date to September 21, 1999.
Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Sutter and Dawson opposed.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON VARIOUS BOARDS AND
COMMISSION (PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE) (AB98 -157B)
Dawson moved approval of the seven applicants by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner added the following:
RESOLUTION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL DECLARING THAT AN
IMMINENT DANGER AND EMERGENCY SITUATION EXISTS FOR THE LEFT BANK
OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER NEAR THE END OF THE RITTER ROAD (AB98 -342A)
Brenner stated that there was a unanimous recommendation from the Public Works
Committee for a resolution, with the amendment to add, "WHEREAS breaching will directly
impact one residence and potentially threaten three others." As the last WHEREAS.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the County has been working with
people in the area since March. This is an attempt to get assistance from the state, who has been
unreasonable in allowing a permit. The County is getting into a situation in which the bank
involved is being undermined to such an extent that it can be expected to fail fairly soon in the
rainy season. Once the bank is breached, there is another dike. That dike will collapse. It will
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
immediately threaten one residence, and provide potential threats to three other houses. This
needs to be done so the County can get more assistance from the State in moving more quickly.
Brenner moved approval of the resolution as amended.
Motion to approve the amended resolution carried unanimously.
10. ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON VARIOUS BOARDS AND
COMMISSION (AB98 -157C)
ADDRESS & ROAD NAME CITIZEN APPEALS COMMITTEE
Imhof moved Pattenaude, Crawford, and Lindquist by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Dawson nominated Leahy.
Nelson nominated Border.
Imhof closed nominations
Imhof announced that Leahy was appointed.
CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Nelson nominated Leahy.
Dawson nominated Betker.
Kathy
Marlene
Robert
Ward
'Ibm
Barbara
Connie
Sutter
Dawson
Imhof
Nelson
Brown
Brenner
Hoag
PETER BORDER
X
X
X
X
CATHY LEAHY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Imhof announced that Leahy was appointed.
CABLE TELEVISION ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Nelson nominated Leahy.
Dawson nominated Betker.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 40
Kathy
Marlene
Robert
Ward
Tom
Barbara
Connie
Sutter
Dawson
Imhof
Nelson
Brown
Brenner
Hoag
CHUCK BETKER
X
CATHY LEAHY
X
X
X
X
X
X
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
28
29
30
31
32
33
Imhof announced that Leahy was appointed.
NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD
Imhof moved approval of Al Yoder, Ray Farm, and Gary Knauss by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Nelson moved Dave Pros and Richard Gilda.
Dawson nominated Donn Seeley.
Imhof announced that Gilda was appointed and there was a tie between Pros and Seeley.
Imhof called for a run -off between Seeley and Pros.
Sutter, Imhof, Nelson, Hoag voted for David Pros.
Dawson, Brown, Brenner voted for Seeley.
Imhof announced that Pros was appointed to the second position.
SEWAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD, UNINCORPORATED AREA
Kathy
Marlene
Robert
Ward
Tom
Barbara
Connie
Sutter
Dawson
Imhof
Nelson
Brown
Brenner
Hoag
RICHARD GILDA
X
X
X
X
X
X
DAVID PROS
X
X
X
X
DONN SEELEY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Imhof announced that Gilda was appointed and there was a tie between Pros and Seeley.
Imhof called for a run -off between Seeley and Pros.
Sutter, Imhof, Nelson, Hoag voted for David Pros.
Dawson, Brown, Brenner voted for Seeley.
Imhof announced that Pros was appointed to the second position.
SEWAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD, UNINCORPORATED AREA
Imhof announced that Robert Kloc was appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Geographic Areas.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 41
Kathy
Marlene
Robert
Ward
Tom
Barbara
Connie
Sutter
Dawson
Imhof
Nelson
Brown
Brenner
Hoag
VINCENT YOUNG
X
X
ROBERT KLOC
X
X
X
X
X
Imhof announced that Robert Kloc was appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Geographic Areas.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 41
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Imhof announced that McShane, Mickel, and Thomas were appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Special District
Kathy
Sutter
Marlene
Dawson
Robert
Imhof
Ward
Nelson
Tom
Brown
Barbara
Brenner
Connie
Hoag
KENNETH HALOWI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STEPHEN KOEHLER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DANIEL MCSHANE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NICK MICKEL
X
X
X
X
X
X
BEVERLY SMITH
X
X
KENNETH THOMAS
X
X
X
X
X
ART ANDERSON
Imhof announced that McShane, Mickel, and Thomas were appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Special District
Imhof announced that Bronsema and Anderson were appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Impacted Cities
Sutter stated that the Council needs to take into consideration the recommendation from
the Whatcom County Council of Governments. Their recommendation was for John Eley and
Don Peterson.
Hoag questioned where Eley was from. Imhof responded that he was a city of Ferndale
engineer.
Hoag questioned the current members' areas that are represented and if there were
currently many representatives from the city of Ferndale. Imhof stated that there is not, only one
Kathy
Sutter
Marlene
Dawson
L. Ward
Nelson
Robert
Imhof
Connie
Hoag
Barbara
Brenner
Tom
Brown
ART ANDERSON
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RON BRONSEMA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FRED NOWICKE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Imhof announced that Bronsema and Anderson were appointed.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Impacted Cities
Sutter stated that the Council needs to take into consideration the recommendation from
the Whatcom County Council of Governments. Their recommendation was for John Eley and
Don Peterson.
Hoag questioned where Eley was from. Imhof responded that he was a city of Ferndale
engineer.
Hoag questioned the current members' areas that are represented and if there were
currently many representatives from the city of Ferndale. Imhof stated that there is not, only one
Imhof announced that Lagerway and Peterson were appointed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 42
Kathy
Sutter
Marlene
Dawson
L. Ward
Nelson
Robert
Imhof
Connie
Hoag
Barbara
Brenner
Tom
Brown
JOHN ELEY
X
X
X
MATT LAGERWAY
X
X
X
X
DON PETERSON
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Imhof announced that Lagerway and Peterson were appointed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
(Council members moved to Other Items #9)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved acceptance of the Introduction Items.
Imhof announced an addendum of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of limited tax
general obligation bonds (AB98 -417) that should be included with the Introduction Items.
Imhof moved to postpone Introduction Items #1 through #3 until the Medical Waste Task
Force makes their recommendations.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the last supplemental of the year will be
coming forward to the December 8 meeting. If the water issue is added to the meeting, then they
could consider those items at that time. Administration would introduce those items at this
meeting.
Imhof stated that should also be an Introduction Item. The supplemental is considered
amended.
Imhof restated the motion to remove Introduction Items #1 - #3.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag opposed.
Dawson moved to introduce items #4 through #7 and the Addendum item.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06.030, SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, IMPOSING LIMITS ON ACCEPTANCE OF
INFECTIOUS WASTE (AB98 -412)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06.030, SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, IMPOSING A FEE FOR PROCESSING
INFECTIOUS MEDICAL WASTE (AB98 -413)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.06.030, SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR LAWFUL
BUSINESS PRACTICES (AB98 -414)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91 -076 TO CLARIFY GOVERNING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE FOR COUNTY -WIDE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT (AB98 -408)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CURRENT W 4ATCOM COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND CLARIFYING THE
GOVERNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE DISTRICT (AB98 -
409)
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1998 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10 (AB98 -410)
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)
ADDENDUM
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,335,000 FOR REPAYMENT OF
THE INTERFUND LOAN AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER
BUILDING (AB98 -417):
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dawson announced that three letters need approval by the Council. The letters were
regarding the Domestic Violence Commission, Sandy Point, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Brenner stated that she just received the letters.
Council concurred to address the letters at a later date.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on Aril 7 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/24/98, Page 44