HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works 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
45
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
November 24, 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: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Tom Brown
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING KENNEL CONDITIONS AT SSP PREFERRED
ANIMAL CARE (AB98 -401)
Rebecca Gamey, 377 W. Pole Road, Lynden, stated that her feelings were explained in
the letter and doesn't have any more to add. She wanted to see things cleaned up and was
appalled at the conditions.
Dawson questioned whether she'd been at the humane society. Gamey stated that she
didn't want to get into comparisons, but they are different.
Dawson questioned what pet shops do to get rid of excrement. It seems like it would be a
difficult problem to keep a confined animal from sitting in its excrement.
Brenner stated that they need to focus on the issue.
Gamey stated that the Humane Society doesn't seem to have a problem.
Brown questioned whether the County has periodic checks for oversight.
Brenner stated that she stopped by the SSP location and did not find anything out of the
ordinary. It smelled and looked like any place where animals are kept. It did not have the
conditions that Gamey described. There were other issues that were brought to her attention as
she looked through the paperwork.
Susan Donato, SSP Preferred Animal Care Administrator, stated that her veterinary
assistant dealt with Gamey when she came in.
Brown questioned whether anyone from the County ever drops in to look at conditions
officially. Donato stated not officially. Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, has been in a
number of times. There is no inspector on a regular basis. She would be happy to have anyone
drop in at any time.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/24/98, Page 1
2 Jody Griswold, Preferred Animal Care veterinary assistant, stated that they do everything
3 to keep dogs and kennels as clean as possible. Dogs go outside everyday. Kennels are smaller
4 than the Humane Society kennels. All the dogs have blankets, receive individual attention, and
5 get outside everyday. This particular dog was injured in the kennel by its roommate. She spent a
6 considerable amount of time in the kennel sitting with the dog. There is opportunity for a dog to
7 get urine on them, but they don't sit in excrement. They spend a lot of time cleaning the kennels.
8
9 Brenner clarified that Ms. Gamey adopted a dog at the location. Complaints need to be
10 dealt with as legitimate complaints. People should not be intimidated from complaints. While
11 she was out there, someone showed her the records. She was disturbed to see the high rate of
12 euthanasia. The owner, Greg Rustand, told her that they also put animals down commercially.
13 Nothing in the paperwork that showed there was a difference between animals put down on the
14 County contract.
15
16 Dawson stated that the monthly reports have that separation of information.
17
18 Donato stated that the monthly reports document if an animal was injured and euthanized.
19 Also, they do not to euthanasia for the public. What happens is that low- income people will
20 owner- release the animal to them, knowing that the animal is not adoptable.
21
22 Brown asked for clarification that cost of a veterinarian to put an animal down is more
23 expensive than the costs charged by Preferred Animal Care. Donato responded that it is
24 considerably higher.
25
26 Brenner stated that the recent numbers have been very high. She wanted to be sure that
27 there is a separation of services provided by the contract and direct services to the public. There
28 is an important distinction between an adoptable animal and animals that aren't adoptable.
29 While she was at the SSP facility, there was a reservation dog with lumpy mange on the face, but
30 the animal wasn't thin and didn't look malnourished. She understood that the dog was to be put
31 down right away.
32
33 Griswold stated that Lummi Law and Order had to authorize the dog be destroyed.
34
35 Donato stated that it should be a public service to allow a low- income person to bring in
36 their sick animals. Unless an animal is critically ill and suffering, bringing it through the door is
37 not an automatic death sentence. They have rescue groups and a veterinarian that frequently
38 does work for free.
WE
40 Brenner stated she saw a dog brought in that seemed healthy and was not vicious. It only
41 had lumpy mange on its head, but it was brought in to be put down.
42
43 Donato stated that if Lummi Law and order gives a court order to put a dog down, they
44 have to.
45
46 Griswold stated that Lummi Law and Order has several times ordered them to put
47 animals down, despite what they think is best.
48
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/24/98, Page 2
1 Brenner questioned how the paperwork is kept separate. The euthanasia rate has ranged
2 from 20% to 50 %. Donato stated that each entry on each animal shows how the animal was
3 disposed and for what reason. The reports are very detailed. The summary sheet won't have that
4 information.
6 Brenner questioned whether the paperwork lists information on an owner that brings the
7 animal in.
9 Donato stated if it is a stray, it lists the location that it was found. If it was a release, they
10 list the name of the person.
11
12
13
14 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING EROSION OF THE RITTER ROAD (AB98 -342)
15
16 Brenner stated that an emergency resolution had been presented. Council visited the site
17 several months ago and she questioned whether conditions have changed to constitute an
18 emergency.
19
20 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it is a resolution that was drawn
21 up to move things along as quickly as possible. There are different aspects to the permitting
22 process that will be facilitated by a determination that the situation is an emergency. The County
23 has a desire to see this moved quickly. At this point with the weather being what it is he was
24 requested to prepare the document so that whatever the County could do to move this along,
25 would be done.
26
27 Brenner stated that criteria would also serve an emergency ordinance. Gibson stated that
28 the County does not have an emergency ordinance in this case.
29
30 Dawson asked what constitutes an emergency ordinance. Gibson responded that it
31 depends on the permitting track. In some instances, under shorelines, it is described as imminent
32 danger. In the fisheries statutes, RCW 75.20, they differentiate between imminent danger and
33 emergency. Emergency is in the fisheries setting is when the house is about to fall into the river.
34 As the resolution notes, when the river bottom is dealt with, it is too late to do anything.
35
36 Brown asked about expedited and imminent permits. Gibson stated that expedited
37 permits occur under the situation when there is a declaration of imminent danger. In RCW
38 75.20.100(8), the imminent danger declaration is limited.
39
40 Wareing stated that this is a process that began with the Executive's office. They were
41 provided with documentation that showed a law had been passed that provided for an emergency
42 resolution to be done to expedite the process. Part of the problem is that the action that would
43 normally be done to riprap the bank is no longer done. No matter what the engineers came up
44 with, it wasn't acceptable to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are four levels of
45 hurdles, which are Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology (DOE), DOE again, and the
46 Corps if Engineers. While the County is trying to get over the hurdles from March of 1998 to
47 November 1998, nothing has been done. The County can do an emergency resolution. There is
48 no reason to hold the project up. Plans have been engineered that meet the requirements.
49
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 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
46
47
48
Brenner stated that a resolution has no force of law. Wareing stated that in most cases it
does not, but in this case it does. Gibson concurred.
Hoag stated that a couple of months ago, they did not authorize an emergency. They
drafted a letter that stated their concern and asked that the problem be addressed. Writing a letter
is not a formal action.
Brenner asked why they didn't declare an emergency two months ago. Wareing stated
that it wasn't an emergency two months ago. Now it is.
Gibson stated that there are a number of different agencies involved in the process.
Fisheries is closer to being on board than the Department of Ecology. With the declaration of
imminent danger, the situation is a 60 -day situation. There is a subsection, RCW 75.20.100(8),
which limits stream bank stabilization for the protection of agricultural land from the application.
Hoag stated that the resolution only addresses the farmland. There is no reference to
houses and roads that are in danger. She questioned whether it would be appropriate to include
those other things.
Gibson stated that he is not aware of more than one house that would be in danger.
Hoag stated that there seems to be at least four residences that would be in jeopardy.
Also, houses that are not farmhouses would not be covered under the agricultural exclusion.
Gibson stated that he made an inquiry about the number of houses. He found only one
house. He was told that was on a sizeable piece of property that is 27.5 acres.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated that there are four houses in the area.
One house could be threatened with a storm event, the others are further away and it would take
a long time to reach the houses. She is new to the area and is not familiar with how the river
floods.
Hoag stated that Cooper was talking about breaching. The concern is with flooding. If
the dike is breached the homes and lives would be threatened.
Gibson stated that this area is an overflow corridor on the left bank. That is flooded in
any event when there is high water.
Cooper stated that the water is not as much of a problem as the erosion.
Brown asked if the sand dike is allowed to washout, then would they will allow some
water to flow through. The issue is to prevent the flooding.
Cooper stated that the dike is an agricultural dike and not designed to protect the homes.
Hoag stated that historically, these places were not flooded. The dike is not just an
agricultural dike.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/24/98, Page 4
1 Gibson asked Hoag to look at the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan,
2 specifically the reach between Ferndale and Lynden. It identifies the overflow areas. The
3 overflow area, which caused massive flooding in 1990, was not from this particular dike. It was
4 from upstream.
5
6 Hoag stated that historically these houses were dry. This has been protected. There have
7 been problems with an area upriver in the last 10 years. The residents were hoping the problem
8 would be fixed, but were told it may become an overflow area. It hadn't been decided.
9
10 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that rarely have the
11 houses had water in them. The mobile home has on a couple of occasions. The low area
12 between where the houses are located on the high natural bank of the river floods, back towards
13 the Wiser Lake Road, floods. The flood would isolate them.
14
15 Hoag asked if they could include in the resolution language that the houses are in danger.
16
17 Gibson stated that they could add anything they want.
18
19 Hoag questioned whether it would pose a flooding problem for homes in the area if this
20 breaches. If so, are any of the homes not agricultural homes, so that it wouldn't be subject to that
21 exclusion.
22
23 Gibson stated that if the Council comes to that decision they can include it. As he
24 prepared the resolution, it was not his impression. It is still not. The flooding that occurs in that
25 area is not as a result of what is happening at this location.
26
27 Hoag stated that it hasn't historically, and questioned whether the erosion was the only
28 concern. Gibson stated that is his impression. The flood engineer has stated that only one house
29 is in jeopardy if there is a breach, or an evulsion.
30
31 Brown asked whether a wash out of the agricultural dike would lower the point in which
32 the river may breach and go in. He questioned whether it would increase the frequency of the
33 flooding. Cooper stated that it could. Buzz Strickland was more worried about erosion than
34 flooding. She was looking at the erosion hazard. The immediate evulsion would affect the
35 Strickland home. By the time it has eaten that big of a hole, it has dissipated its energy and has
36 an overland flow path.
37
38 Brown questioned whether the flooding incidents could occur in the area if it is allowed
39 to erode. Cooper stated that is correct.
40
41 Brenner stated that "Breaching will directly impact at least one residence and potentially
42 three other residences."
43
44 Wareing stated that they are talking about two different banks, the riverbank and the dike.
45 If the bank fails, then the dike will fail. It is important to protect the riverbank.
46
47 Brown stated that by this time, the bank might have been undermined.
48
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/24/98, Page 5
1 Hoag stated that if it is farmland only that is in jeopardy, then the law does not allow the
2 15 -day expedited treatment. Everyone has agreed that if it breaches, it would flood the other
3 homes. If this breaches and becomes the low point on the bank, then an upstream flood is less of
4 a concern because the bank is lower. She questioned whether any of the houses were not
5 farmhouses.
6
7 Henken stated that gets into how to define farmhouses are defined. The mobile has been
8 a rental. It used to be for the people that worked the dairy.
9
10 Hoag asked about the legal description of a farmhouse that is located in the RCW. If a
11 house was on a parcel that was declared open space /agriculture, then it is part of that. She
12 questioned whether any houses are not part of an open space /agriculture designation.
13
14 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
15
16 Gibson responded that the one house is on an agricultural parcel.
17
18 Brenner stated that they need to find out before the night meeting whether the houses are
19 agricultural houses.
20
21 Cooper stated that she has a parcel map that shows 40 -acre lots in the area.
22
23 Gibson stated that the zoning is agriculture. There is no segregation.
24
25 Brown stated that the law specifically addresses Fish and Wildlife in issuing permits. He
26 questioned the effect of the resolution with the other agencies, such as the Department of
27 Ecology or the Corps of Engineers. Gibson responded that the emergency exemption for
28 shoreline purposes is made at the local level and is subject to appeal by other agencies. A
29 determination like this is a factor that would be considered in determining whether or not it
30 qualifies for an emergency exemption.
31
32 Brown questioned actions by other counties and the State agencies in anticipation of the
33 effects of La Nina and whether the County is preparing for its effects on the river. Henken
34 responded that there are varying opinions about what will happen. The County is trying to
35 prepare for the worst.
36
37 Dawson moved to support the resolution with the amendment, "WHEREAS breaching
38 will directly impact one residence and most likely result in more frequent flooding for three other
39 residences"
40
41 Wareing suggested "WHEREAS breaching will directly impact one residence and
42 potentially threaten three others."
43
44 Dawson accepted the suggestion.
45
46 Wareing stated that they can hope to repair the breaches after they occur, while the water
47 is high, but it is much more difficult and dangerous to the crews that try to restore the breach.
48
49 Brenner stated that it is already undercut.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 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
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the amendment. Committee concurred.)
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Council Member
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 11/24/98, Page 7