HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 27 19951 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2
3 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
4 WORK SESSION
5
6 June 27, 1995
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
9 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
10
11 Also Present: Absent:
12 Marlene Dawson Ward Nelson
13 Barbara Brenner
14 Alvin Starkenburg
15 Larry Harris
16 Ken Henderson (late)
17
18 Imhof recessed the Council meeting and convened a meeting of the Flood Control
19 Zone District Board of Supervisors.
20
21 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE
22 CURRENT WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
23 DISTRICT FUNDING MECHANISM AND RE- AUTHORIZING
24 COLLECTION OF CHARGES (AB95 -222)
25
26 Dawson gave an update on how this discussion originated from the regular County
27 Council meeting of . June 20, 1995 stating that permanent funding for the Flood Control
28 Zone District is needed.
29
30 Robert Mitchell, Chair, Permanent Funding Mechanisms, gave a brief
31 presentation. One major element missing was the capital project, which won't come to
32 development until the end of the plan. The processes his subcommittee has been
33 through have been on a contribution and benefit type of proposal where those living
34 outside the flood plain would pay a drastically reduced rate that would be based upon
35 the maintenance of the program. Additional projects would probably be split into
36 subzones, which would be formed at a later time to address a particular problem within
37 that flood subzone. On this basis, those involved in the flood would pay to solve the
38 problem. The projects for the particular subzones could be administered on a more
39 local level and, more importantly, the entire county would not be subject to a higher
40 assessment. Only those within the subzone would be affected. Various subzones could
41 respond to their individual problems to the extent that that subzone wanted to. Without
42 those capital projects, the amount of monies needed to be raised is unknown. An
43 extension is needed to obtain capital projects before the program can be fully developed.
44
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 1
1 .
2 Brenner pointed out her number one priority is a fair taxing system. She felt
3 people living inside the flood plain should pay a certain percentage; people outside the
4 flood plain should pay a much lesser percentage.
5
6 Mitchell stated his committee examined the percentage solution to this fair taxing
7 system problem, and they felt deciding what the basic administrative costs for the
8 program would be was even more fair. Their decision was to base the costs on the
9 actual figures generated by the budget, which was around 20 percent.
10
11 Dawson wanted to amend the language of the resolution by inserting that these
12 funds would be used for water management vs flood control. That way, storm water
13 runoff, ditches, etc., would be able to be addressed.
14
15 Mitchell replied these items are included in the activities. He noted the Council
16 could tailor the subdistricts to address any problem it deems fit.
17
18 Starkenburg had several budgetary questions. Shirley Van Zanten, County
19 Executive, commented regarding the District's ending fund balance. Bob Woods,
20 Council Budget /Program Analyst, also commented. John Matzinger, Public Works,
21 spoke to budgetary matters.
22
23 Starkenburg expressed his concern about having a plan before spending more
24 money. He suggested the District coming before the Council when they are ready for
25 more funding.
26
27 Harris asked about funding for the next big flood, to which John Matzinger
28 responded. Matzinger noted there is going to be less response money available from the
29 FEMA grant program. Communities must depend more and more instead on local
30 funding..
31
32 Imhof wanted to see this funding continue for two years. Reserve funds would be
33 available for repair work in case of major flooding.
34
35 Van Zanten urged the Council to continue funding. She also urged the
36 continuation of maintenance and management work of the river to prevent any future
37 problems and to receive federal funding more readily. She disagreed with Starkenburg's
38 idea to come to the Council when funding is needed, stating that when disaster strikes,
39 time will be of the essence. According to her, some assessment should come from the
40 entire community because the entire community benefits. This resolution can also be
41 broadened to extend beyond Nooksack drainage, particularly to Blaine. and Bellingham.
42
43 Harris concurred with Van Zanten. He also noted that the costs of the river are
44 broader than many imagine. The flood management involves Canada, mentioning
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 2
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
Abbottsford's pumping station.
Henderson thought money should also be available to subdistricts. Bellingham
and Blaine should not be the only communities receiving funding, as there are other
areas that get flooded.
Brenner stated she could not support the funding mechanism as it is now. She
thought it would be more fair by being flat charges in and out of the flood plain.
Imhof thought everyone does benefit and also that the Council is "nitpicking" at
the language of the resolution. He wanted to add language on page 2 under paragraph
B., line 24: "..the above criteria.. Other areas may request funds through the Board of
Supervisors on a project specific basis."
Starkenburg defended his earlier position regarding funding.
Imhof responded by calling attention to the original plan by minimizing damage
from flooding, to which Van Zanten also spoke.
Dawson requested a consensus to broaden the benefits and reducing assessment
rates.
Imhof wanted to broaden districts by allowing them to put together a plan,
present it before the Council and the Council then prioritize all projects.
Brenner commented about fairness. She favors a 70/30 split (70 percent taxed to
those living in the flood plain and 30 percent to those living out of the flood plain).
Harris moved to amend the resolution of June 20, 1995, page 2, Section A,
line 14, "Projects eligible for expenditure of the District funds include those funds that..."
by striking the last part of the sentence and replacing that with the wording found in
Exhibit A, 1 Section line 13:
c ..
Woods and Van Zanten commented on the motion.
Harris amended his motion to reference Section 1 of Exhibit A in paragraph A of
the resolution.
There was discussion on the amended motion. Henderson noted that subdistricts
broaden this issue.
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 3
1 Motion to amend resolution carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Starkenburg opposed.
2
3 Imhof moved to amend the resolution on page 2, Section B, line 22 by changing
4 to # percent of the total WCFCZD revenue collected and adding on page 2, line 24:
.....:;::.:
5 "< (: ... '""'b
.....d .......> . .............. .......:> .:.t..h....ytb €mthe above criteria.
...:: .<.B .... .........d....> ..o ... ... : ....u....:..: . ...r .. ....€ . ...a ... ..s.. .
7
8 Henderson questioned how the 40 percent was determined; John Matzinger
9 responded by stating that the funding consultant drew that conclusion after examining
10 the budget allocation. He thought the percentage should be based on a project specific.
11
12 Imhof . agreed there should ' be language to that effect.
13
14 Van Zanten noted Interlocal Agreement is mentioned in the resolution. She also
15 was unclear on the definition of "other areas" receiving funding.
16
17 Imhof stated projects must be weighed. He suggested removing the 40 percent to
18 the cities and leave it as non - specific at this time, stating that the subdistricts should
19 return to the County Council for project funding.
20
21 Brenner thought the cities should be doing taxing for their own projects.
22
23 Imhof moved to include in his amended motion as above removal of the 40
24 percent to the cities and have them return to the Council for project funding.
25
26 Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council, referred to a letter given to Council
27 members just prior to this meeting.
28
29 There was discussion on the motion. Imhof stated if there was consensus among
30 the Council, the language could be rewritten before the next Council meeting. More
31 discussion followed.
32
33 Starkenburg requested Imhof table his motion until Tuesday's Council meeting.
34 Imhof agreed.
35
36 Bob Mitchell commented on the process of the monies returned- -how is the area
37 to be defined, etc.
38
39 Starkenburg commented on the focus being changed from flooding to money
40 available for maintenance, etc. on the river as well as funds made available for other
41 water projects.
42
43 Henderson commented, along with Bob Anderson; Nelda Sigurdson, Ferndale;
44 and Jan Omey, Lake Samish District #1.
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 4
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
Henderson thought the bulk of monies being returned should go into the river
funding and also called attention to the need for subdistricts.
Harris moved to amend the resolution by changing Exhibit A so the Board of
Supervisors can make decisions on the role adjustments.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Harris moved to amend the resolution to include the costs from the Assessor and
Treasurer in order to administer and collect the funds from the Flood Control Zone
District.
Those speaking included:
Keith Willnauer, Assessor
Bob Woods
Alvin Starkenburg
Shirley Van Zanten, Executive
Nelda Sigurdson, Ferndale
Harris moved to amend adding an additional 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED"
to the resolution with no specific dollar amount.
Motion carried unanimously.
Imhof noted everyone should bring his amendments to the Council meeting
Wednesday, July 5, for discussion.
(Clerk's Note: A five- minute recess was taken.)
Imhof adjourned its meeting of the Flood Control Zone District Board of
Supervisors and reconvened the Council meeting.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) /MIX ZONING
(AB95 -294)
Carl Batchelor, Planning Department, gave an update on the planning process.
Dan Taylor, Planning Department, and Dave Ernst, Planning Commission
member, gave an overview on the Planning Commissions, County and City. Taylor also
talked about zoning. He stated it was designed for the urban fringe but was also set up
to work in the hamlets. The zoning does three things: (1) It is primarily a single family
and, in doing so, is designed for a minimum of seven units /acre. It allows for.
multifamily under certain circumstances, allows for two acre centers, and allows for
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 5
1 stand -alone industrial sites; (2) The zone was copied from many UR zones. Being a UR
2 means it is a holding zone - -at five acres, water and sewer can be obtained; and (3) It is a
3 receiving zone for transfer development rights. Up to about 7,000 units need to be
4 transferred (ideally); this is actually the goal.
5
6 Henderson would like to have the. cities look at transfer development rights on a
7 project specific basis. He would like to reconsider having the small cities develop an
8 area and build in around an already - existing area instead of waiting on a priority basis.
9 He was also concerned that the two acre center was too small. The center needs to be a
10 residential as well as commercial.
11
12 Dave Ernst noted that with the density of the residential zoning within the
13 commercial center, the goal is a pedestrian neighborhood, not strip malls.
14
15 Brenner stated that people are afraid that this won't work in reality, only on
16 paper.
17
18 Harris asked to what extent the success is the UR Mix linked to Bellingham's
19 sewer capacity.
20
21 Taylor stated the centers were set up in one of two ways: (1) predesigned
22 neighborhoods or (2) a radius of 1,500 sq ft. He didn't think there would be many
23 centers. Henderson stated that the person building a center is taking significant risks
24 and unless they get surrounding property owners to cooperate or have sufficient funds to
25 develop enough mass to get that volume, they will not survive. Taylor also spoke to the
26 idea of dropping the number of units /acre to perhaps five instead of seven. But then the
27 commercial centers would not work. There is a height limit of 35 feet (three or four
28 stories). The capacity of utilities is a tricky subject; predicting must be done here. This
29 issue can be revised at any time.
30
31 There was discussion on suggested changes, especially the one on page 1, Section
32 132 regarding uses for a 2,500 sq ft commercial space.
33
34 Henderson noted on page 4 of the packet, Parking Requirements, encourages 50
35 percent of what is in the code but not more than two- thirds.
36
37 Nate Brown, Planning & Development Services, stated there is a difference
38 between this zone and past types of zones. The community has stated they want more
39 flexibility in their zoning, more performance.
40
4.1 (Clerk's Note: The Council decided to meet again on this issue at a later date to be
42 determined.)
43
44 ADJOURN
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 6
1 The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
2
3
4
5
6 Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secr
7
8
9
10
12 Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
13
14 These minutes were approved by the Council on August 15 , 1995.
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18
2�
21 `
22 a . wn- ' , cil lerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
�QD �ej
'ob
Flood /U /R Mix Minutes, 6/27/95, Page 7