HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 10 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 10, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CAPITAL
FACILITIES/ENVIRONMENT) (AB96 -051D)
Staff Also Present:
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Ward Nelson, Council member
Tom Brown, Council member
Carl Batchelor, Planning Services
Sue Blake, County Water Resource Manager
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Terry Galvin, Planning Services
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, addressed committee regarding a
visible work flow chart on goals and policies (handouts on file).
Starkenburg noted much information has been received and much time has been put into
this process. He instructed staff continue with their current format.
He also noted that there were many questions on Capital Facilities and staff gathered
answers. Regarding actions, there are only two pages dedicated to this topic; Starkenburg was
concerned perhaps there were insufficient actions. He inquired as to the role the County plays
regarding this area. If it is not involved in sewer, water and fire protection, is it still important to
have these items in the Capital Facilities chapter?
Knapp responded by stating that while the County may not be responsible for these items,
the Capital Facilities Plan does require it to examine levels of service, who is the provider and the
County's relationship to that provider.
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 1
I In answer to Starkenburg's question as to the adequacy of this chapter, Dan Gibson,
2 Council's counsel, responded by stating that Parks and Recreation, Roads, and governmental
3 buildings have been covered and are the primary focus. This leaves open water, sewer, fire
4 protection, schools, various utilities, and power. It is not Council's responsibility to plan for these
5 agencies. However, it is Council's responsibility to establish policies whereby these other
6 agencies will be engaged in a cooperative effort to address growth. Sue Blake, County Water
7 Resources Manager, briefly commented. Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development
8 Services, stated that the purpose of this chapter is to discuss what Council is looking at funding
9 and what utilities are able to be funded through the County.
10
11 Starkenburg then asked about the necessity of having written information on the County's
12 function given it is not involved in this. Knapp responded by stating it is not an easy topic to deal
13 with in terms of discussion of water and sewer. Gibson noted he understood the difficult position
14 County staff is in because they are being asked to develop something not under County control.
15 Legally, the difficulty is that, should this be challenged, he would be asked where the plans are
16 that show that adequate fire suppression, water, sewer, etc., are in place. Although that does not
17 mean Council does the planning, a process is in place to ensure the planning that is being done by
18 someone else is well integrated with the land use planning the County is doing. In many
19 instances, the water associations have minimal staff and little or no planning functions. The
20 municipal purveyors have additional powers enabling them to achieve some greater ability
21 regarding planning. The County will be faced with these types of questions if it is planning
22 growth in areas served by these special purpose districts.
23
24 Carl Batchelor, Planning Services, agreed that this area must be "tightened up ". He stated
25 he and Blake worked last year with a consulting firm that inventoried the status of water and
26 sewer planning for the urban growth areas. Various responses were received. Most of the school
27 districts are working on their own capital facilities plan. There has been nothing from the fire
28 districts. Some of the water districts have no plans; others have detailed plans. Blake asked how
29 far it is necessary to go in order to justify a plan. How many pieces are needed to be in place?
30
31 Ward Nelson, Council member, stated his impression was that the incorporating cities
32 have proposed most of their own urban growth boundaries. Problems arise when the County
33 takes certain areas (Cherry Point, e.g.) where there might not be an identifying resource for that
34 area but yet a concern. There are resources available, but before the County can move forward,
35 those concerns must be identified. It would be prudent on Council's part, when Mr. Gibson must
36 go before a board to explain the need for these growth areas, that the County does have a capital
37 facilities plan for water resources, etc. Knapp agreed with Nelson. Levels of service need to be
38 established and referenced in the land use chapter.
39
40 Nelson asked if it were in the County's role to identify who has jurisdiction. Gibson
41 replied in the negative, stating the County could do that, but that the County's role is to involve
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 2
I the parties to the point where they solve the situation and, if they are unable to do so, describe a
2 mechanism whereby it will be solved. It is best competing jurisdictions work out problems
3 between themselves in a manner consistent with the County interest.
4
5 Nelson asked how the County -wide coordinated water system plan would be incorporated
6 into this process, which must be updated. Blake responded not in the capital facilities section; it is
7 referenced in the utility section. Starkenburg requested that, based on the discussion that took
8 place, staff work on this discussion to come up with some solution.
9
10 Keeping in mind there are companies looking for certainty regarding land, Starkenburg
11 inquired whether the County should be involved in any degree regarding capital improvements, or
12 if this should be left to other entities. If this is so, a mechanism for funding must be found. Blake
13 asked if he were including the County as a potential purveyor of water, sewer, etc. Starkenburg
14 was unsure. Blake noted there was a policy regarding this matter. Batchelor noted there were
15 options in terms of partnership, etc. Knapp stated a utilities section might be explored, in which it
16 would be necessary to reference that the County is currently a non - provider and that certain parts
17 of the County will have other purveyors. Nelson asked if the County were to assume a larger role
18 as a purveyor of water, etc., and, in the case of failure, does the County assume the responsibility
19 for those systems? Gibson replied that the County has a constitutional limitation against the
20 extension of credit for private benefit. He also stated the County has significant limitations on its
21 ability to be involved. The question is: Does the County establish policy which encourages
22 involvement to the extent legally possible or does it back off and inform other entities of their
23 responsibility to bear all costs associated with this situation?
24
25 Batchelor wanted to take care of two housekeeping matters, the first of which was found
26 on page 4 -6 at the last bullet, Policy 4G -1: it should read "513" instead of "450 ferry passenger
27 trips ". Also, in Policy 4G -3, juvenile detention should read "0.21 beds" instead of "0.19 beds ".
28 These corrections bring this in line with the Capital Improvement Program.
29
30 Batchelor responded to a previous question (from October 15) regarding protection future
31 needs for office space by responding that no additional needs are being projected beyond what has
32 already been built. Sutter and Batchelor discussed parks and trails regarding her request for a
33 cost per capita. Batchelor clarified that the projected acreage is based on the six -year population
34 projection and is not the current level. Gibson addressed this issue, stating this has been
35 addressed in some of the background documents or perhaps Parks & Recreation's Comp Plan.
36 Some information is in the record pertaining to current levels of utilization. The plans for the
37 future were premised upon these levels of utilization reflected in those studies that have been
38 done. Sutter stated the method used to arrive at the various figures should be in the Plan.
39
40 Batchelor distributed a handout (on file) regarding a level of service summary, which is a
41 result of a 1994 workshop.
42
43
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 3
I Batchelor reminded committee that if a higher level of service is opted for on any facility,
2 he needs to work with that department to determine what projects will be put into the capital
3 facilities program and how they will be funded to meet that level of service.
4
5 Regarding the capital facilities plan, Starkenburg wondered as to the extent Administration
6 has been involved. Gibson gave an example from the level of service summary handout and asked
7 how it related to the Comp Plan. Discussion followed regarding whether Council needs to adjust
8 its level of service expectations to match the provisions of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
9 Starkenburg then asked Batchelor how this ties into contracts the County may have with another
10 entity. Batchelor replied that the contracts are non- capital alternatives for the provision of
11 services.
12
13 Batchelor reported the next item for discussion was Parks acreage for non - provided
14 facilities (handout provided). The city parks do not serve a particular need for County residents;
15 neither do the national parks. This acreage figure is to be adjusted annually. Brown discussed the
16 accessibility /conflict of identical facilities by city, state and national. On another point, Batchelor
17 noted the state Interagency Committee for outdoor recreation (IAC) which provides funding for
18 park acquisition, requires the County to match IAC funds. Gibson asked if that can be an in -kind
19 contribution rather than a cash contribution, to which Batchelor replied in the affirmative.
20
21 Another previous question was whether the County maintains 19 miles of trail; this figure
22 has been confirmed.
23
24 The final question regarded the County's bonded indebtedness capacity. According to his
25 resource, Brad Bennett, ADA Finance, it is approximately $112 million without a vote, which
26 could reach a maximum of $223 million with a 3/5 vote; the current amount is $21 million
27 (handout provided).
28
29 The methodology of determining funding for the levels of service was discussed briefly.
30 Brown was concerned about the actual cost of various items. Knapp spoke to whether a specific
31 level of service would be affordable.
32
33 Starkenburg requested an answer to the meaning of item #7 of the action plan, page 4 -8.
34 Batchelor responded that easements are referred to in this plan, which references the Natural
35 Heritage Plan and a variety of mechanisms other than monetary to obtain the levels of service.
36
37 Nelson inquired if an inventory had been done on open spaces (taxation). Batchelor
38 replied several have been done in the recent past to some extent. To Nelson's question if these
39 areas were included in the level of service, Batchelor replied the access is managed by the
40 property owner at his discretion.
41
42 Starkenburg stated the issue of County involvement in any infrastructure or any financial
43 obligations to having properties ready to be marketed needs be settled for direction to staff.
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 4
I Sutter stated she would like to review Economic Development Committee's (EDC) report, as she
2 hoped it would indicate what business and industry is requesting when they locate in this County
3 so Council has some idea what is needed to provide them.
4
5 Dawson suggested it would be appropriate to incorporate open space information in the
6 design chapter.
7
8 Starkenburg stated he would like to see the County in a position of coordinating those
9 providing services with those marketing the County rather than any indebtedness involvement.
10 Nelson concurred. He stated the Growth Management Act (GNU) requires a mechanism in
11 which those resources are available. The County can play in this role. Sutter thought the County
12 has more of a financial vs a facilitating role in this issue, at least as a partnership responsibility.
13 Dawson also concurred. Brown thought the County should not be a developer; however, he is
14 not opposed to the facilitator role. Gibson noted he will attempt to secure information from Clark
15 and Snohomish Counties in particular regarding how they addressed this issue. It is helpful to
16 understand the ramifications of this choice. Knapp stated his staff needs clarification regarding
17 this issue.
18
19 Sjostrom requested those commenting on the Capital Facilities Plan make reference to the
20 capital improvement portion of the plan, as that refers to where the numbers originate. This
21 document must be updated annually to reflect new ideas Council wishes to implement. This is to
22 be looked at as a complete document.
23
24 Sutter was concerned about Policy 4G -1, pages 4 -5 and 4 -6, the second and fifth bullets
25 regarding level of service. She noted both bullets deal with the same issue, even though they are
26 not exactly the same. Batchelor stated the first bullet refers to a transition to the Urban Growth
27 Area (UGA) and the other refers to within the UGA. Sutter noted the fourth bullet should refer
28 to the RTTO in the transportation section and the ferry transportation bullet should be included
29 also in the transportation section.
30
31 Starkenburg noted committee has found questions regarding goals and policies and
32 reviewed each chapter with staff prior to today's meeting.
33
34 (Clerk's Note: A brief break was taken)
35
36 Starkenburg announced the next item to be discussed was chapter 11, Environment. As
37 there are questions regarding the map, that is where the discussion will begin, starting with map
38 #28.
39
40 Terry Galvin, Planning Services, reviewed various maps for committee and answered
41 questions. Discussion followed regarding some of the maps and the process used to gather map
42 information. Starkenburg suggested some of the maps ( #29 and #30) be put into the background
43 documents with a disclaimer noting they are for information only and that accuracy can be
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 5
I determined. Knapp noted many of the maps have been updated. Gibson referred to the maps as a
2 "picture" of the gross idea of the given topic. Knapp noted the maps will continue their need to
3 be updated because the streams will change. Blake was concerned with the word "accuracy ",
4 thinking a "qualifier" might be more appropriate. A discussion of "wildlife" followed for map
5 930. Discussion followed on map #31 regarding "seismic" and the definition of "major landslide
6 deposits ". Regarding map #31, committee recognizes the danger regarding natural hazards and
7 how that relates to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and the goals and policies of Chapter 11.
8 He requested staff to ensure the above discussions are reflective of the concerns expressed.
9
10 Starkenburg noted the action plan for Chapter 11 consists of 12 pages, which comprises
11 much work, and suggested staff only deal with the ones that need to be done. Starkenburg
12 explained the process to Nelson. Knapp requested direction regarding a conflict in changes
13 provided by Council members. Starkenburg made a suggestion, and committee discussed format.
14
15 Sjostrom asked for clarification regarding pending programs from Blake on page 11 -30,
16 #22 and #23, as to their status. Gibson stated some of these programs have been developed in
17 conjunction with the County. He. asked to what extent is there County buy -in of programs set
18 forth. The question of whether one is committed unconditionally to a full buy -in of all these
19 programs regardless of the level of County involvement or commitment needs to be answered.
20 Nelson asked for the role the County will take in attempting to facilitate answers needed to
21 provide various services. Sutter suggested breaking down the above #22 and #23 into smaller
22 segments and prioritize them according to those segments. Discussion followed.
23
M ADJOURN
25
26 The meeting was a ourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.
27
28
29 v
30 El' abeth Bennett, Transcriptio t
31
32 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
33 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
34
35
36
37 4w -
38 - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council ember
Planning Minutes, 12/10/96, Page 6