Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 10 1998WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Capital Projects Committee February 10, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Council member Barbara Brenner in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Absent: Tom Brown None Marlene Dawson SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB98 -023) Dawson nominated Brenner as committee chair. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO EXCHANGE PROPERTY AND GRANT AN EASEMENT OVER PUBLIC LAND ADJUST A BOUNDARY LINE WITH SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. (AB98 -082) Ed Henken, Public Works, Engineering, commented and answered questions. He stated this is an attempt to correct something present for a long time with the property owner unknowingly accessing this property which was not owned by them. Rick, the property owner at 2767 Kelly Road, commented briefly. Dawson moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING VAN WYCK ROAD COMPLAINT FILED BY GREG AND CINDY ANDERSON AND GEORGE LEONARD (AB97 -413) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, distributed a handout (on file) and gave an overview Public Works Minutes, 2/10/98, Page 1 of County roads. He stated the issue before committee is the kind of road that needs to be in place for use of the residents in a area for the general public at large and how the County can assure that those improvements are accomplished at the right time. More importantly, it must be accomplished at a time the County is expected to assume responsibility for the road. Monsen stated there are three kinds of County roads: County; trail permits; and private. He explained the differences, noting that the property in question is a trail permit road. It is on County right -of -way but is not a County road. Also discussed was the number of houses per private road. Monsen stated it was a matter of who was responsible for ongoing repair, maintenance, liability, etc. He also addressed road standards and stated that the trail permit system under the County Code envisions that a County right -of -way exists that is being held for the purposes of a future public road. If there were not the theory of a public road needing to be in place in the future, the County would then presumably vacate that right -of -way and thereby extinguish any public interest whatsoever. He then asked how to make the conversion from nothing to a public road. Speaking to road standards, Monsen stated they are in place to protect the public interest ultimately when the public is responsible for operating and maintaining that facility while serving that local interest as well. Funding was also discussed. A trail permit road can be financed by an individual or a group of individuals. Also, through the Council, an individual or a group of individuals may be allowed to complete substantial work and place some of that financial burden on future residents of the area (latecomers). Funding of activities distinguishes the difference between a public responsibility (cost) and a private responsibility (cost). From a policy standpoint, to try to facilitate improvements to a variety of access roads draws away from County priorities that construction funds go toward the arterial system until that has been completed. Monsen stated the most difficult part of the funding process is assessing fair share. Once a road has been accepted by the County has a County road, it assumes all responsibility for the maintenance of that road. Monsen stated that even though there is the underlying public interest for trail permit roads, they are classified as private regarding road maintenance and improvements. Finally, he addressed Comprehensive Plan/Growth Management considerations before specifically speaking to the Van Wyck Road. Topics discussed included fair share assessments. Suggested solutions were mentioned. Brown suggested reworking the trail permit ordinance. He wanted to examine solutions to the problem. Monsen stated when twelve people live on a road, a County road standard is required. Another factor of the road standard is the location of the users on a road. Dave Wareing, Executive =s Office, stated that from the Administration =s standpoint, the trail permit issue needs a legislative solution. He suggested there may be a legal resolution to Public Works Minutes, 2/10/98, Page 2 the Van Wyck Road, which is a unique, one -time situation. Flexibility on how the road would look was asked if the County claimed the road. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney -s Office, responded. Phil Serka, Attorney, 400 North Commercial Street, representing many Van Wyck Road residents, also responded by giving background information. (Clerk----s Note: Tape 1, Side B) Topics of discussion included the cost of a 20 ft pavement and if the right -of way continues. Wareing pointed out the County cannot enter into and continue an illegal contract or agreement. There is an obligation for resolution. Cindy Anderson, 347 Van Wyck Road, commented regarding a proposal to the County. She suggested a committee be formed consisting of staff, technicians and residents; she volunteered to serve. Monsen stated staff would return to committee with a proposal regarding how the road should look with the understanding of Council =s intent of the establishment of this as a County road. Anderson asked how the work would affect the maintenance clause regarding short plats. Mike Donahue, Public Works, traffic, commented. Those interested in this matter were requested to list their name and address (on file) to establish a committee. Brenner noted there will be an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding which will include the directive given above and Council =s understanding of how to direct this road issue. Wareing stated an ordinance needs to be approved for the future because the County does not want to be vulnerable for any exception to the ordinance. Brenner requested Monsen and Dick Prieve, Public Works, bring forward at the next committee meeting (February 24) a draft formula regarding various costs so easements and platting can be done up -front rather than waiting for development. OTHER BUSINESS 1. STATUS OF LUMMI LAW AND ORDER AND HOW IT RELATES TO ACTIVITIES OF NON - INDIANS (AB98 -087) Dawson spoke to double standards. She stated many citizens were concerned about the confusing policy on Indian land. Dawson asked if the interlocal agreement (which was cancelled) were legal regarding the deputization of Lummi officers. The problem arose when non - Indians on the fee lands are cited by Lummi Law and Order. The citizens feel the primary jurisdiction is the County. Lummi Law and Order has citizen status. She cited specific examples regarding problems and the lack of Sheriff =s Office knowledge. She requested a written policy be given to realtors, students, and the water association to inform everyone of the Public Works Minutes, 2/10/98, Page 3 policy and his rights when stopped by the Lummi Law and Order. Dale Brandland, Sheriff =s Office, responded regarding the relationship between the Law and Order and the County and possible solutions. He noted there are several problems, noting that 911 works for the city of Bellingham and not the Sheriff =s Office. The employees do not know if a person lives on fee land or the reservation. The solution is not easy, as there are many gray areas. Dawson noted the Lummi officers are ticketing for speeding and are not acting like state officers. Brandland stated the practice is if someone is stopped for speeding, for example, it is a safety issue, an action which is in the public =s best interest. The tribal officer has the legal authority to make a traffic stop on County roads. The officer also has the legal authority to determine who is in the vehicle but does not have the ability to write the traffic infraction of non - tribal members. He then spoke to the process of the system of information for his office. Brenner inquired if a non - tribal officer was able to cite a tribal person. Brandland replied in the negative except if the officer were cross - deputized, which is not being done. The officers do have training through the Washington State Training Commission. He did note that his department does take action on a citizen complaint and spoke to that process. Brenner requested clarification of the Lummi Law and Order jurisdiction. Brandland stated he would supply that information. Dawson noted specific citizen complaints and stated the Lummi are to be able to stop, detain and transfer upon a violation, which is not occurring, and cited the RCW regarding Athe officer= in the court process. Dave McEachran, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, addressed this issue. He also spoke to a restricted encumbrance on the deed to the Lummi land, which has been and continues to be a major problem. Dennis Beeman, board member at Sandy Point, spoke to his concerns of traffic and officer identification. McEachran responded. Ralph Jefferson, Lummi Law and Officer, commented regarding officer identification and safety. Dustin Hulbert, Sheriff =s Office, also commented. As there was continued discussion on this issue, Brenner suggested a committee meeting specifically on this topic. Brandland stated this was a complicated issue. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m. Public Works Minutes, 2/10/98, Page 4 Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Council Member Public Works Minutes, 2/10/98, Page 5