HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works June 30 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
June 30, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Tom Brown
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.28, LITTER AND
ILLEGAL DUMPING ENFORCEMENT (AB98 -211)
Brenner moved to add language to section 8.28.130 to state, "...execute all warrants; and
citations relating to this chapter in their designated jurisdiction and other process issued by the
courts in enforcing the provisions of this chapter and rules and regulations adopted hereunder."
With this language, they won't have any police powers or powers to execute warrants for
anything other than the litter.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Brown expressed his support for funding a backwoods deputy from an excise tax. The
woods are being used for a dumping ground for items that can't be traced. He hoped that they
could receive matching monies from the larger commercial foresters.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKLYN WAY ROAD COMPLAINT (AB98 -239)
Regina Stump, 861 Parklyn Way, Ferndale, stated that on June 2, 1998, her son was hit
by a car in her development. The development is on a dead -end road. She requested that the
speed limit be changed to 5 miles per hour. The current speed limit is 25 miles per hour. A farm
is located at the end of her road and trucks drive on her road to the farm.
Brenner questioned whether a speed bump could be placed on a County road.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 6/30/98, Page 1
1
2 Dick Prieve, Public Works Maintenance and Operations Assistant Director of Operations,
3 stated that they have never recommended installing speed bumps. He would inquire about
4 whether they could, legally.
5
6 Dawson stated that she could not support a 5 -mile per hour speed limit, but she would
7 support a `children at play' sign.
8
9 Brenner stated that she would support installing a sign.
10
11 Nasser Monsour, Public Works Assistant Director of Administration, suggested that the
12 homeowners contact the farmer and the delivery trucks and tell them that children play on the
13 road and they need to be careful.
14
15 Dawson moved to have a `children at play' sign installed.
16
17 Brown stated that there is not enough of a substantial history of accidents in the
18 development to warrant a sign.
19
20 Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
21
22 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING RESOLUTION 87 -51 AND WHATCOM COUNTY
23 CODE 12.52, GRAVEL ROAD CONVERSIONS (AB98 -257)
24
25 Brown stated that he brought forward the issue that it might be cheaper in some places to
26 surface a road than to continue to grade it. They are prohibited now from doing it. The Council
27 asked that it be discussed in committee. This is where it is paid without property owner
28 participation.
29
30 Dick Prieve, Public Works Maintenance and Operations Assistant Director of Operations,
31 explained that this is the conversion of existing, County- maintained, gravel roads to chip - sealed
32 surface. The ordinance that was passed requires owner participation. They have been paying
33 $15,000 per mile to convert a gravel road to a chip - sealed road. That is if the road meets current
34 standards and does not include any widening or preparatory work.
35
36 Brown stated that in some cases, maintaining County gravel roads costs more to do than
37 if they do the one -time chip sealing. He didn't know which roads would cost less to maintain by
38 doing the conversion.
39
40 Nasser Monsour, Public Works Assistant Director of Administration, stated that they
41 have about 60 miles of gravel roads. To upgrade the roads, they have to bring them up to
42 standards. They are encouraging the people who live there to get the roads up to standard.
43
44 Brenner questioned what legally prevents the County from converting gravel to chip -seal.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 6/30/98, Page 2
1
2 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the law prevents the conversion
3 without property -owner participation.
4
5 Brenner questioned whether the County has already done that.
6
7 Prieve stated that the County has converted 4.28 miles with owner participation since he
8 has worked for the County.
9
10 Brenner questioned whether there is a maximum number of times a road is graded each
11 year. Prieve stated that they grade on an as- needed basis. They try to do it at least twice per
12 year. There are some roads that they will grade four or five times per year.
13
14 Brenner stated that those might be the kinds of roads that they need to consider
15 converting. They might need to change the regulations to do it. It might save the County
16 money. Grading five times a year is a lot. She questioned whether it would save the County
17 money if they chip -seal roads that they grade that often.
18
19 Prieve stated that it is $200 per mile less to maintaining a chip -seal road than to maintain
20 a gravel road.
21
22 Brenner questioned whether they could add a clause to allow for chip - sealing a road if it
23 would cost the County less money, and it doesn't have to be brought up to County standards.
24
25 Gibson stated that if it weren't brought up to County standards, they would have to
26 amend several different ordinances.
27
28 Brown stated that if the road is serving two -way traffic, it is a gravel road, and they put a
29 treated surface on it, then they are not changing the design.
30
31 Prieve stated that it is still a construction item when it is taken from gravel to hard
32 surface. If they are talking about standards, they are talking about $5 million to bring the road
33 up to standards, vs. $500,000 to chip -seal the roads.
34
35 Brenner clarified that it would be $500,000 just to chip -seal without bringing it up to
36 County standard. She questioned whether the $500,000 was cheaper in the long run than grading
37 the gravel. Prieve stated that it is.
38
39 Brown questioned what the County road standards are. Prieve stated that there are 350
40 miles of substandard roads. They are roads that are narrower than 18 feet wide. The
41 construction money is put towards bringing the arterial roads up to standard.
42
43 Brown stated that, according to State law, a strict resurfacing of the road does not require
44 that it be brought up to standards. It is considered maintenance.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 6/30/98, 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
Brown questioned the opinions of Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, and Monsour.
Monsour stated that they are asking the private residents to pay for the road.
Gibson stated that if they look at each road independently, then it makes sense.
However, taken collectively, they would get nickel and dimed to death.
Brenner stated that she would like to see a cost comparison of repeated chip- sealing and
repairing asphalt as needed. She would place this on the committee agenda for next meeting.
Brown questioned whether the there was any way to allow the County to chip -seal a road
if it was in the County's benefit, without requiring citizen input on funding.
Gibson stated that the resolution only specifies citizen participation.
Brenner stated that they could change it to allow the County the option to convert if it is
the County's best interest. They could offer incentives.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Brown stated that he would propose to withdraw this, but if there were some interest
within the government to put forth something that they could work with, then he would like to
look at it.
Brenner requested that Public Works bring forward an idea of different formulas to use
on different roads that could be chip - sealed.
Brown stated that not all residents want their roads chip - sealed. They prefer to leave it
gravel.
OTHER BUSINESS
Brenner stated that she would like to schedule the Ethics Ordinance (AB98 -194) for the
next meeting. She moved to have a letter drafted to the Ethics Commission members that they
the Public Works Committee members have not received any information to date and they are
planning on moving ahead with the item. They will assume that, if they don't receive any
information from them by the time of the next meeting, they don't have any information to offer.
They would appreciate any recommendations individually or as a Commission.
Dawson would like to do a follow up with a phone call, instead of sending a letter. There
is no need to bring it back to committee unless there are specific changes that a Council member
wants to discuss.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 6/30/98, 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
Brenner stated that she wanted to discuss the State regulations that cover many concerns.
She wanted all the State regulations in one place.
Motion to send a letter and make a phone call carried 2 -1 with Dawson opposed.
Brenner stated that she would schedule a discussion for the next committee meeting
regarding the issue of the inconsistency in voter registration (AB98- 202A), contact David
Niles regarding the Point Roberts voters and asking if he could give a presentation, and contact
Shirley Forslof, County Auditor, requesting she attend the meeting. She also included in the
motion to send a copy of the report from the Point Roberts Voters' Association to Forslof.
A n 1"T Tl? N
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Records Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Council Member
Public Works and Capital Projects, 6/30/98, Page 5