Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket May 8 2012WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-101 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 2128112 Natural Resources Division Head: /28/ 12 Council f Dept. Head: 2116112 3/27/2012 Council Prosecutor:-'`' 1 1 5/08/2012 Council PurchasingfBudget: Executive: Z TITLE OF DOC ENT: Resolution approving the South Fork Regional Park Conceptual Plan ATTACHMENTS. Resolution, Project Summary, Conceptual Plan, Proposed Budget SEPA review required? (X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (X) NO SEPA review completed? (X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Approval of South Fork Regional Park Conceptual Plan COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 2/28/2012: Discussed. Approved 2-1, Knutzen 2/28/2012: Postponed to March 27, 2012, opposed. Mann and Weimer opposed 3/27/2012: Consideration postponed to May 8. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wauslcouncil. SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Parks & Recreation 1714TRODUCTION DATE: RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING THE SOUTH FORK REGIONAL PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN WHEREAS, Whatcom County has been planning for a regional park along the South Fork of the Nooksack River in the Acme area since 1968; and WHEREAS, lands and property for a park has been acquired through grants, purchase and donations over the past sixteen years; and WHEREAS, the County is committed to providing a regional park in accordance with various conservation easements and conditions that preserve the site's natural and cultural resources; and WHEREAS, through a public planning process a design was developed that addressed public use, access and resource issues consistent with the conditions and limitations of the properties; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Parks Commission met on November 19th, 2009 and recommends approval of the South Fork Conceptual Master Plan Recommended Alternative NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that the South Fork alternative conceptual design for the South Fork Regional is approved and that the Parks & Recreation Department is hereby authorized to pursue funding and development of the park in accordance with the conceptual design which is attached hereto. APPROVED this day of , 2012 Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: R dy Watts,"Oh,f Civil eputy Prosecutor J WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Council Chair 2 WHATCOM COUNTY P` C, M �o Michael McFarlaane PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. soy irector 3373 Mt.. Baker Highway 3 ` RECEIVEY z 9SHING�O FEB 212012 MEMORANDUM JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Michael McFarlane, Director RE: Resolution Approving the South Fork Regional Park Concept Plan DATE: February 16, 2012 Enclosed is a copy of a resolution for approval of the South Fork Regional Park Plan Background and Purpose Whatcom County has acquired properties for development of a regional park along the South Fork of the Nooksack River in the Acme area over the past 16 years. In 2007, the Parks & Recreation Department began a public planning process to address park development and public access to these lands. The proposed plan is the result of that process. In November of 2009, the Whatcom Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed -the attached plan and recommends approval. The.plan has also been reviewed by the Whatcom Land Trust for compliance with the existing conservation easements held by that organization. Additional background information can be found in the enclosed project summary. ■ Funding Amount and Source This project is proposed to be funded through a number of sources including park improvement funds dedicated to the project, donations, in -kind contributions, REET II funds, State recreational Grants and private funding From the Nesset Foundation and other community organizations. This is a conceptual plan in which development will be contingent upon funding availability from a variety of sources over an unknown period of time. Park development is generally programmed as part of the Department's operating budget and capital improvement plan. The estimated cost of improvements identified in this plan are anticipated to range From $1,200,000 to $1,600,000 exclusive of the historic building restoration which are funded through the Nesset Foundation. Please contact Michael McFarlane at extension 32072, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposal. Encl. 3 ° South Fork Regional Park Project Summary PROPERTY ACQUISITION 1968 Public trails and park proposed in various planning documents- Public process in plans. 1989 County Council approves concept of Nesset Trust and conservation easement. 1993 County acquires by donation 262 acres of the northern portion of the site (Galbraith Farm). 1996 County applies for and receives $63,0001AC WWRP funding to acquire Nesset Farm. 1997 Whatcom County requests DNR intergrant to prepare for reconveyance of 214 acres. 1998 DNR reconveys 214 acres to Whatcom County for park purposes. 1998 County purchases Nesset Farm from the Nesset Trust. 2000 County purchases timber rights for $1,255,000 using donations and Conservation Futures Fund. 2008 County Council requests reconveyace of 287 acres of forest lands from DNR to facilitate public access and park development. (Currently pending action by DNR) ACCESS RELATED ISSUES Department of Natural Resources 8/21/89 Ken Solt DNR Lands and Minerals Mgr. to WC Public Works Director acknowledges receipt of request for right-of-way access for park purposes off Mosquito Lake Road. 11 /3/89 Dick Olsen DNR Baker District Mgr. to DeSpain indicating DNR will deny any request for road access from Mosquito Lake Road -Hutchinson Creek. 8/28/06 Parks Department requests trail easement application from DNR. 2/8/07 Application for Easement submitted by Givler to Kurowski (DNR Upland Business Operations Mgr.) Included in packet: Application for Authorization to Use State Owned Lands, Master Application for Discretionary Land Use Permit, Land Disturbance Application, Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application; requiring DNR approval as the landowner along with other supporting documentation such as mapping, SEPA checklist and project synopsis. 3/07 Kurowski notifies McFarlane that trail easement won't be processed but recommends County submit request for reconveyance for park purposes. 4/2/07 Parks staff begins field and survey work for reconveyance request. 6/ 18/07 Meeting with DNR regarding reconveyance issues. 9/9/08 County Council approves reconveyance request. Currently pending action by DNR. 11/2/09 County Executive requests a primitive trail easement for southern access. Pending action by DNR. 3/11/10 Phone discussion with DNR staff Paul McFarlane regarding easement alternative. 5/21/10 WCP&D Staff provides DNR staff Doug Hooks GPS field data and flagged route for trail easements. 7/26/10 WCP&R Staff provides additional field data to DNR staff Doug Hooks. M TRAIL LEGEND Multi -Use Trail MEN Hiking/ Bicycle Trail M M Hiking Trail M S. A DNR Trail Easement A FQJF _44t MW Cam WI, 11 - - .. - -If;X.,�� lk V % 4, w . . . . . . .... -­W Kt01: KV w. rallneau- 7-f "K- it lea 'Sr 4: V 7�- A 4 Z, ? 46"t, 51, i'q NQw N ­ � V irby ar, F -'M j. `6 Fatepsseta ig RIT, A 4k­ -1 1P — , � - . ' �,.V ---. , ':­��-' 4 , 111:11 ­- , - -­_ � �. ";-. . - SOUTH FORK PARK v, CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN -RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE TRAIL LEGEND Multi -Use Trail Elm — • Hiking / Bicycle Trail ------• Hiking Trail ® Mosquito Lake Road i r 4. .a �e d. I *P n iM • '�}+ •' ark s y a _� t• a='�. o 1,I�F.,; ' a zr .y, 6y�� TiR� - .' � � Y.' ` a ¢ a. i �. Z�✓ R �� f - `', [crn Trallhead' s c ��"``� • '-'�+'���� „,� ,. � Rastrooms " .,iF - [,t, _ ) � `D � •3i ' -F , . , - " . •'- - _ , .. �' Y - ?�" • J[�formatron7Gosk _ t.- , ' - 2ASingl�FliiltVeti+rctgYarking:Spaces _ �` � E ue3trlan Tral►h'ead .w,,,•y - .. '.. ,Restrddms ,a:- '� , �' �:F?F'�:�. W: P,1cnf45"Iter AcF,esnblet"4nbngRain h- ,,� 1.OAuo6rSia�[Parking;Spces Y�: .','.�- T t r'r • p„ k, aC.. � 1 'fir, s .& �v 4:� ..F wp, - r y - '^r: JL" _ �;: Ty: - +''�''.": it-%-: ,+y„y - ..�'ty-� s. �•.}1' '';hi a`' .. - - �:_��^ •a� :.eTi w. a-... �h: _ — r SOUTH FORK PARK n GALBRAITH FARM TRAILHEAD - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE !� '.� `"' ..:3. Mgt;:• • s 6 TRAIL LEGEND Multi -Use Trail ---- Hiking/Bicycle Trail®® �5 I Hiking Trail Mosquito I fi }�i �� -_ - - ``•fir - Ike Road: = - ��+..�:�+:� ..y N.L z� z 16 �i. �3 r ` H s NIS, r Gaibra" Farm : 7, 4 -' 4 1 uesaraithead �•� `< N �- � �� PumcS�ielter � - �� .�• n - - AccesOJ3116 MounGngRam- .t':'4 ' I.M.r rion IGosk \• i vim: r `•10 Autg & TraderParWng spaces r''�-�'• hit N AAFltCrinzallti-ead� ` ` ° • f-a�.. 'y `F"M •g- ' R,eStrooms n. -fA, `yr 'u,:_ . • :" InfonnatiQn Kiosk- -Vehicle Parkingpaces- i" _ :« N i'2S7X,'.'iA :t. .aV.- �_�'c'.;�:,t^ fj 17 ,: ern. d.! � ,{f _ •"`S:� 4%S''i�•-'�S- `- - -_ __ _ ,.%t^ • - :�•.. -.',".,,:.a;.,. . a +•ate - '.:�'_.. r: r. _ - :.>;` _ - •,.n:"mot. -?:2" - Y. : v SOUTH FORK PARK A _ GALBRAITH FARM TRAILHEAD - ALTERNATIVE 'A' t ;TRAIL LEGEND 11 ;�: Hiking Trailhead - Multi -Use Trail ®® j }nformaG6rf}Gosk 20,SindleUnitVehicle:ParkingSkcet"-I ' Hiking/ Bicycle Trail ®® ------• Hiking Trail ® e Resi room E :ristrian Trailhead_ za t-"'s `3 lnfprmati6irK105k Mosquito Lake Road x '" }OAuto'S Triiirer Parking Spaces . _ . � � new � .• - • �T '� r .. tits ...x -� :�^b 'fix � ��`"�, c,�i * �AT,,I, �'� � ,{}• ' 91' j 1 v I y tr_k, r S�yrr f� rA T �R,::� vr'� d '�'„'{• i fit". k`>'"� �. _ �, z � .. �fi` Y' } C < ✓ r t r? $ sw Ow Zilv 7Wj `t' Fm f`` a '� vYL^ ^gar• .' 3 J r - s�,• i ^ram _.UW 0:n �L"L--•'t� � Mri; ' � � � :�� r'�-t-..d-••4-,fX�;�...!-_. k° ics iz# y '2:s ""' • �Y.l: _ .. —._^ -~\ , =�• ���,4'a�, s yr,"Q ... �... 1�Yj4;' f��`i'�'a. Y�� �i:• �`�� _ -x ��.. .1� .4�LL by-� `••� — '��� _ ' 14. 3 t - - - ,'F SOUTH FORK PARK * " ' � , i ALTERNATIVE 'B' GALBRAITH FARM TRAILHEAD --lS"'�-;-�.,. ,�-�1`—'^•µZ_1�:. „.cam., T� ����#..... _f-'. K_ �"4iL:.Y• u'J�:�: .:1'.�{ :.=i • .. _ ���:_a_ -:- `^"ry_.•�4^,^�.]i�S}'`.: :-?ia' ' ., S. "- • e .. X-. - . 8 N � ^C 000000r— 'd m M V; 00 bA O cad OO� N O Z N 6�4�b96469 � � C7 U Cd bA 00 0 .. c0i cd ai o GO � pq � � � a0i b •� o � •�n a�i 3�cnCn"�01p �drx _ 0 Q,as a C/1 V 00 04 W N ai 0 x a� U Cd U 'C O 3 0 U 0 0 b O 0 b 0 9b Cd to "d U U bq � O N_ 69 U 0 to 00 U O 0 ~ U Q 4-1 b Cd 1-. 1-. O 0 Q• 0 0 0 Cd cq zd3M vl 0 0 0 �n 000 r+00� 00 to r+ O\ 64 64 69 Id69 O U v-� O tn 9 March 19, 2012 Mr. Jack Louws Whatcom County Executive 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA, 98225-4082 Dear Executive Louws: The purpose of this letter is to express the Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Commission's strong support for completion of proposed South Fork Park improvements. The Commission has followed this issue closely over the past five years. We have engaged in briefings and discussions with a variety of interested parties, and the Parks and Recreation Department has periodically briefed us on its plans for the Park, including changes to minimize the footprint. We believe that the current proposal for this approximately 600 acre property on the beautiful South Fork of the Nooksack River will benefit the County for generations to come. It preserves precious natural and cultural resources, while providing for recreational access to the public. We would appreciate your conveying this letter to the County Council, with our recommendation that it adopt the latest plan as proposed by the Parks Department. Sincerely, Gordon Rogers Chairman Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Commission 10 WHATCOM COUNTY Parks & Recreation 3373 Mount Baker Highway Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 qu FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Michael G. McFarlane, Director Erik Axelson, Parks Operations Manager Southfork Park Listening Session Scheduled For March 141h, 2012 The public is invited to a listening session with the County Executive and Parks & Recreation Department staff scheduled for Wednesday evening, March 14th at 6:30 PM in the Whatcom County Council Chambers, Whatcom County Courthouse, 311 Grand Ave. Bellingham. The purpose of this meeting is to hear public comment and suggestions regarding the recommended concept plan for Southfork Park. The information and comments received will be compiled and distributed to council members for their review prior to the March 27th council meeting, when the tabled proposal is expected to be voted on. The theme for this low impact park is to preserve and showcase the natural history and early pioneer life in the South Fork Valley. The recommended plan encompasses 603 acres of County owned park property along the South Fork of the Nooksack River comprised of three historic farmsteads connected by trail through Department of Natural Resource Lands. Public access will be provided from an entrance off Mosquito Lake Road. Two trailheads are proposed with a 20 vehicle parking area and restroom for general trail users and a 10 vehicle parking area and restroom for equestrians. A 4-mile multi use trail for hikers, equestrians and bicyclists utilizing existing trails and roads will lead park visitors through the park to the historic Nesset Farm located on the southern portion of the property. The Nesset Farm is proposed for restoration and will showcase pioneer life in the valley through the collection of original buildings and artifacts. Approximately 4 acres of the park's 603 acres will be impacted by trailhead development. The remaining 599 acres will remain in a natural forested state and agricultural use. The current plan was developed with input From the public who participated in planning meetings and submitted comments. More information can be found at the Whatcom Parks & Recreation website at www.co.whatcom.wa.us/parks. Contact: Michael McFarlane Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Dept. 3373 Mt. Baker Highway Bellingham WA 98226 (360) 733-2900 11 Southfork Park Listening Session 6:30 PM, Wednesday March 14°i, 2012 Whatcom County Council Chambers Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Ave., Bellingham, WA 98225 The public is invited to a listening session with the County Executive and Parks & Recreation Department staff scheduled for Wednesday evening, March 14'' at 6:30 PM in the Whatcom County Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting is to hear public comment and suggestions regarding the recommended concept plan for Southfork Park. The information and comments received will be compiled and distributed to council members for their review prior to the March 27 h council meeting, when the tabled proposal is expected to be voted on. The theme for this low impact park is to preserve and showcase the natural history and early pioneer life in the South Fork Valley. The recommended plan encompasses 603 acres of County owned park property along the South Fork of the Nooksack River comprised of three historic farmsteads connected by trail through Department of Natural Resource Lands. Public access will be provided from an entrance off Mosquito Lake Road. Two trailheads are proposed with a 20 vehicle parking area and restroom for general trail users and a 10 vehicle parking area and restroom for equestrians. A 4-mile multi use trail for hikers, equestrians and bicyclists utilizing existing trails and roads will lead park visitors through the park to the historic Nesset Farm located on the southern portion of the property. The Nesset Farm is proposed for restoration and will showcase pioneer life in the valley through the collection of original buildings and artifacts. Approximately 4 acres of the park's 603 acres will be impacted by trailhead development. The remaining 599 acres will remain in a natural forested state and agricultural use. The current plan was developed with input from the public who participated in planning meetings and submitted comments. LRg�! OHRTreII latl.mvie ¢ ' ° For more information contact Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Department (360) 733-2900 www.co.whatcom.wa.us/parks 12 Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Southfork Park Listening Session Meeting Minutes March 14th, 2012 I. Call to order Executive Louws called to order the Southfork Park Listening Session at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311, Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. II. Introduction The Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department presented a proposal to the Whatcom County Council at the February 281h meeting. Based on comments at that meeting the Council decided they wanted to give the Administration, the Parks Department, and the community time to have another community meeting prior to the proposal going back for a vote on March 271h. Communication from this evening, all emails and written comments will be given to the Council for review prior to the March 271h meeting. III. Power Point Presentation Mike McFarlane, Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the history of the property, how it was acquired, the park development process, and recommended proposal. IV. Open Session The following people spoke: 1) Speaker: Marianne Carrusco, owner of Blue Mountain Farm and live adjoining the park Position: She and her husband Ken are in favor of the project Comments: They are fishery and wildlife biologists and members of Back Country Horsemen. In favor of the project and feels that it will do a lot to boost recreation use in Whatcom County. Proponents for environmental education and believe this is a great area for this. Love riding in this area as it is peaceful and safe. 2) Speaker: Mike McGlenn, Back County Horsemen Position: Supports current plan Comments: Prefer Plan A, but support current plan. The BCHW and BCHA studies have shown that it is best to have separate areas for stock trailhead and hiker trailheads are the safest way to go. There is a spot when getting horses ready having a separation is best and has been proven several times by Forest Services, DNR, Bureau Land Management, and National Park Service. The footprint on the park is less than 1 % of the total involved acreage. DNR has said no in a letter to Hutchinson Creek area. Private land owners on the south side have said no to access on south side. 3) Speaker: Harry Patz, Acme Position: Not against the park, vehemently against the process Pagel of 5 13 Comments: Has been observing the process this park has run through it various boxes to be checked off. There is a long string of problems with the process this park has gone through. At least 2 Council Members, Barbara Brenner and Tom Brown, were told that access to Nesset was possible. In fact the land is landlocked. There is a conflict of interest as the Director of Parks and Recreation has also served as the Vice President of the Nesset Foundation (Roger DeSpain, Mike McFarlane). He believes that serving in both roles is a conflict of interest, doesn't understand how Michael McFarlane can be impartial in using public funds. Believes we are all victims and subject to that bias. There were violations of state requirements and law, failure to submit an appraisal review, determination of non -significance should have been withdrawn because it was obtained through misrepresentation and a lack of material of disclosure. He also believes that falsified information was provided to the council at the last meeting stating that DNR had received an easement application. He received a letter from DNR that said they were not processing an easement application and that the project was still in the conceptual phase. Parks told the council they expected to have the easement in the next couple of months. We are a victim of that. 4) Speaker: Leanne Heeringa, family farms the property the park is going in Position: Opposed to the park Comments: Family farms the property. She is very concerned about safety issues surrounding the park. There is a lot of acreage and one man cannot manage that large of an area. We are left with the problem and cleaning up after it. In one day we can have anywhere from 1,500 to 5,000 tubers that do whatever they want. They want to maintain peace in the beautiful valley. There are plenty of places for riding horses in the county, neighbors have offered parking. Financially the county can't afford this and should be looking elsewhere to spend resources. 5) Speaker: Leroy Harkness, Acme Position: Comments: Since the beginning of the project he has spoke about the destruction this park proposal will mean to the Acme elk herd. When those 2 parks are connected it is going to destroy everything that they use every day. The herd will dwindle down to nothing and once that happens how can that be reversed. The current proposal is too big, destructive and can be much smaller. If the park goes through it at the very least needs to be a dog free park with seasonal closures that work for the elk. 6) Speaker: Natalie Everett, property owner between the parks Position: Park can be done but needs more work Comments: Represents a family who has owned property between the two parks for 5 generations. Believes the intention of the Nessets and the character of the community has not been considered during the development of this park. They put together a survey with several alternatives to the park that has not changed since the visioning sessions. Feels like a better process would be one that would come to the community without an agenda, build the trust, then build something together that honors and celebrates who you are. The name of our descendent has been put into this project but has nothing to do with considering our cultural heritage of our community. It can be done but needs more work. 7) Speaker: Jena Jacoby Position: Move it to Hutchinson Creek Page 2 of 5 14 Comments: She lives across Mosquito Lake Road from the park. She has spent hundreds of hours to figure out what the community wants. They sent out a survey to the community to figure out what they wanted. There were 211 comments from community members that have disappeared. She had Mike McFarlane sign for them but he said no one came forward. The current park proposal was a done deal and doesn't represent the culture or heritage of the community. What works for us is what is there today. People park on the road and walk in with very little footprint. Knows that DNR is open to looking at the Hutchinson Creek Campground. I think th,at is a great idea and a great trailhead for horses, moves the traffic up the hill, and does not impact the property. 8) Speaker: Sharon Hoofnagle, Whatcom County Resident Position: Supports the park Comments: DNR has said that it is not possible to move the access to Hutchinson creek. The Parks and Recreation Department started holding public meetings back in the 80's and 90's. They were really great about listening to what we wanted in the county. The public came and was asked what we wanted. There has been ample opportunity to tell them. Everyone wanted a park within driving distance. Believes that people in the area will love it. Need to pay attention to public announcements and get involved sooner rather than later as it allows you to have more impact. 9) Speaker: Rand Jack, Member of Whatcom Land Trust Position: Supports the park Comments: Met Tom Nesset and his sister in 1987. Tom wanted to protect his farm and did not want the farm broken up or developed. He spoke with Tom for over 2 years and Tom said that he wanted the property to be a park that people could come and understand what it's like to come from Norway as an immigrant, protect natural environment and give children the opportunity to learn about nature. Tom Nesset stipulated that Whatcom Land Trust had the right to review any plan to protect his vision. They have reviewed the plan, attended many meetings and believe that the proposal aligns with the vision that Tom Nesset had for the property. The Parks Department has done a good job looking for workable alternatives. He came tonight hoping to hear something new and hasn't. It's time to move forward and create the park. 10) Speaker: Russ Pfeiffer -Hoyt, Saxon Road Position: Supports the plan Comments: Believes the current plan has relatively low impact and likes the small parking lot. Has spoken with Mike McFarlane about moving the parking lot up the hill but it is not safe. Mike did consider it and he appreciates it. He is a professional trail builder and likes the separation between horses and regular parking. He was appointed the trustee of the Nesset Farm in order to carry out the wishes of Tom Nesset and he believes the current proposal reflects what they were thinking about. 11) Speaker: Rich Harkness, Mosquito Lake Road Position: Not against the park, against the design Comments: The path taken to get to this point has been corrupt. The property is historical and unique. The surrounding land owners have been there since the beginning. Traditional park and trail applications are being used which does not fit this historical piece of property. The picture that McFarlane showed is a trail not a road. We drive our F150 down that trail and can get from park to park without Page 3 of 5 15 crossing private property. We need to develop something that is unique for this park because it is not the standard typical park. 12) Speaker: Susan Sebastian, Van Zandt Position: In support of the park Comments: Believes the proposal is a very good design. Rides in the Hamilton area which has a huge elk herd and she has never seen or heard of them being disturbed by trailers or horses. Believes the area will have an issue with tubers regardless of the park. Would like to request that you move forward and give us a place to enjoy this beautiful piece of property. 13) Speaker: Jim Strachila, Acme Position: Comments: If you have not seen the information South Fork Heritage sent to the Park Department you are not informed. If you chose to become informed I would encourage you to have another meeting with our members. We do not have enough time tonight to do justice. We may have been wrong — the Park Department may have listened but didn't hear. Spoke with Paul McFarland with DNR 10 days ago about Hutchison Creek and he says it is not off limits. Let's check to see if it's an option today. In 1968 there was a big visioning session there were a lot of folks in that community and people came in and asked for a trail. They were a bunch of hippies. My folks and other community members got together and opposed the idea. What happened to everyone that said they opposed the park? Believes that Tom wanted to preserve his farm but doesn't believe this proposal is what they wanted. 14) Speaker: Rick Olson, Back County Horsemen Position: In support of the park Comments: Not from the valley but family has lived in Whatcom County for generations. This park belongs to everyone that lives in the county. The Nessets wanted the farm to be an educational thing and this is a great opportunity. The only access today is from the north. Likes the job, process, and that the plan is minimal. It's time to move forward. 15) Speaker: Galen Smith, Strand Road Position: Opposed Comments: From the beginning has been opposed to any type of park. Gave credit to the Park Department's massive scale down. The community has not had their rights addressed. While the county went through the visioning session our cultural heritage has not been addressed and the community felt like it was a done deal. The community wants the entrance moved to the Hutchinson Creek Campground. Is certain that it can be opened back up. It closed down because the county did not have the money to fund it. The county bought the park but hasn't figured out how to maintain and operate it. The area is underserved by the Sheriff and the community is afraid. What happens when the tubers come and have no respect for our property, what are we supposed to do. As a business owner we crop a lot of acreage and are already impacted by the elk. If we disrupt them where will they go, this will have a huge negative impact on our business. This park would be fantastic up at Hutchinson Creek. 16) Speaker: John Lamonte, Saxon Road Position: In favor of the entrance at Hutchinson Creek Comments: It was 1990 when the Whatcom County Parks asked for an easement Page 4 of 5 16 from DNR. The wording was such that it was out of the realm of what DNR would ever consider. The Bakke and Lamonte family has told the Council and the Parks that school children and those with ADA stickers to use our road to access Nesset Farm from the south with prior notification but that is all. 17) Speaker: Laurie McBeth, Everson Goshen Road Position: Supports the park Comments: Keep hearing people from the area say what a great place it is and they ride their horses up there. The parks had done a good job. We are all paying taxes on it and should all be able to use the area, it should not be reserved just for people from the area and their friends. 18) Speaker: Jena Jacoby, Mosquito Lake Road Position: Comments: Has heard a lot of reference about not in my back yard, but she did not hear that once from the people in that area tonight. If you wish to come to our back yard you need to knock, be invited in, and be polite. That's all we are asking. We want it to be conducive to our lifestyle and will not change our lifestyle at all. This community has come a long way. We consider ourselves generous people and do want people to enjoy it. 19) Speaker: Mike McGlenn, Back Country Horsemen Position: Comments: The Back Country Horsemen met last year with the Heritage Association at Hutchinson Creek. Hutchinson Creek Campground was closed for some very good reasons by DNR. It is a salmon stream of some nature. You can't put a campground and horses within a riparian area of the creek. After the meeting they met with Ben Cleveland, Region Manager from DNR and discussed the plan. DNR sent in a letter saying no way to Hutchinson Creek. A copy of that letter was sent to the Acme Heritage Association and to Whatcom County Parks. V. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Minutes transcribed by: Darla Smith Minutes submitted by: Mike McFarlane, Director Minutes approved by: Jack Louws, County. Executive Page 5 of 5 17 (3/19/2012) Darla Smith South Fork Park Pale From: Erin Suda To: <JLouws@co.whatcom.wa. us> Date: 3/11/2012 10:16 PM Subject: South Fork Park Dear County Executive Louws: Please support the South Fork Regional Park in Acme. I live with my family in neighboring Van Zandt and would really like to see this project come to fruition. This park will enhance our community by adding a fun family destination where our kids, adults and elders can gather to enjoy the beautiful environment that we have chosen as home. But beyond my own personal enjoyment, I think this park is important so that all residents of and visitors to Whatcom County can have a welcoming place to visit our corner of the county. We are very fortunate, and even a little wise, to have chosen such a great place to live, but that fortune also makes us responsible to share some of the overflow of benefits that come from this land: its sparkling river, rolling hills, forests in all degree of health and harvest, abundant birds and wildlife, amazing waterfalls, abundant local farms... Already the South Fork is a popular summer destination for recreating folks from all over the county, but at this time visitors are not guided by helpful signs, accommodated with public restrooms, or spared a place to park. Instead, those visitors are given parking tickets, frowns from locals, and to the disgust of all, a spot behind a tree on someone's private property to answer the call of nature. It is because we have no official facilities that the current influx of visitors are seen by locals as a problem, rather than the boon for our local businesses that they rightfully are. This wonderful park project could be a first step in funneling the enthusiasm outsiders have for our little piece of paradise into something positive for the local community. Respectfully yours,Erin Suda3231 Hillside Rd Deming, WA 98244 (3/19/2012) Darla Smith South Fork Regional Park in Acme From: ROGER DAVIS To: <jlouws@co.whatcom.wa.us> Date: 3/13/2012 10:16 PM Subject: South Fork Regional Park in Acme Dear Mr. Louws: This email is in regards to the creation of the South Fork Regional Park in Acme. I am a teacher in the county and have taken students to visit the area in the past as part of a statewide historical marker project. My husband and I believe that the creation of this park would provide numerous recreational benefits to all Whatcom County residents that would include something for everyone from hiking, cycling, riding, fishing to county history lessons. The creation of a park will provide many future generations a unique area where they can explore, relax and learn about our local history. Thank you, Judy and Scott Davis 5997 Schornbush Road Deming, WA 98244 19 3/19%2012 .. �.,. h - Su orSouh Fork ParDarla SmitPa e 1 From: Dana Jack To: <J Louws@co.whatcom .wa. us> Date: 3/13/2012 10:02 PM Subject: Support for South Fork Park Dear Executive Jack Louws, I want to register my strong support for the South Fork Park near Acme. Planning for the Park has already undergone extensive public review and careful examination by a range of agencies. The Park is for the benefit of the whole county and for future generations. I have lived in the South Fork Nooksack Valley since 1974, and know that it will be a critically important addition to the heritage of this beautiful area. Sincerely, Dana Jack, 5790 Schornbush Rd., Deming, WA 98244 20 (3/19/2012) Darla Smith South Fork Park Pale 1 From: Lois Holub To: <jlouws@co.whatcom.wa. us> Date: 3/13/2012 11:20 PM Subject: South Fork Park Mr. Louws, I am writing another note to encourage you to support the creation of the South Fork Regional Park, specifically in accordance with the plan submitted by the Parks Department. Postponing this decision as a favor to opponents of this plan, (the "South Fork Heritage Association") is detrimental to everyone involved, as well as to the reputation of the County Council. Five years of study, work, community involvement, and commitment to the greatest good in creating this plan for a regional, sustainable, natural park, should not be dismissed at the last minute just because opponents falsely complain they have not been given ample opportunity to be heard. This delay implies that you are putting politics ahead of obvious common sense. Please stand by the agreements made with this community, and the DNR, and support this park plan. Thank you. Lois Holub 4524 Valley Highway Deming, WA - 21 (3/19/2012) ;Darla Smith South Fork -Park Yes Page,1_s From: Cindy Pfeiffer -Hoyt To: <jlouws@co.whatcom.wa. us> Date: 3/14/2012 5:45 AM Subject: South Fork Park-- Yes! Dear Mr. Louws, I am writing in ardent support of Whatcom County proceeding with development of the South Fork Park, as planned. The jewel that is poised to be preserved for countless generations is of priceless value. Please, let's move forward with this unique and irreplaceable opportunity to benefit all the citizens of the county. Sincerely, Cindy Pfeiffer -Hoyt 6190 Saxon Rd. Acme, WA 98220 22 (3/19/2012)aDarla Smith South Fork Park Page 1 From: "Valerie Lloyd" To: <pkremen@co.whatcom.wa.us> Date: 3/14/2012 6:18 AM Subject: South Fork Park Mr. Kremen... I recently worked with people in my community to prevent the zoning change in the watershed of the South Fork of the Nooksack River. Some of my, arguments had to do with concern about protecting the endangered Chinook Salmon which spawn in this particular part of the river. Before you make up your mind about the vote about the South Fork Park, please find out if there is a plan for protecting the salmon from people being on the river. I've been told by people who support that park that the trails will be so well delineated that people will not be creating their own down to the river. I don't believe that- I've lived on this river for a long time- it's great swimming on the river right near the Nesset farm. I saw how hard it was to stop the tubers from the Saxon Bridge to Acme Bridge. Eventually, tubers were stopped by the Sheriff fining them at their cars when they got out at the Acme Bridge. There will not be a convenient way to "police" visitors to South Fork Park. It seems like this concern I have has not been addressed at all in the planning of this park. Thank you ... Val Lloyd 5784 Saxon Rd Acme... 23 (3l19l2012 ,Darla Smith South Fork parkxy a.. , . _... Page 1 From: Frances Barbagallo To: <jlouws@co.whatcom.wa. us> Date: 3/14/2012 1:11 PM Subject: South Fork park Dear Mr. Louws, As a resident of the South Fork Valley for more than 35 years, I want to encourage the approval of the new park in the Acme Area of the valley. This park will be an asset to our valley and our county for years to come. Thank you for your support of this new park. Sincerely, Frances Barbagallo 5625 Rutsatz Rd Deming, WA.98244 Sent from my BlackBerry@ PlayBookTM www.blackberry.com MAI 3/19/2012 Daria Smith - South Fork Park _ Pa e 1 From: "Jim & Kathy Kyle" To: <jlouws@co.whatcom.wa. us> Date: 3/15/2012 12:48 PM Subject: South Fork Park Mr. Louws, My wife Kathy and I moved to VanZandt in 1981, and we support the proposed park. I'm a commercial fisherman with a boat based in Bellingham, Kathy is a retired teacher. Jim Kyle 25 3/19/2012) Darla Smith Re Fwd South Fork Valley Community Association supports South Fork RegionalPark 6 Page 1 z From: Michael McFarlane To: Darla Smith Date: 3/15/2012 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: South Fork Valley Community Association supports South Fork RegionalPark >>> Jack Louws 3/9/2012 3:24 PM >>> Gail, We will attach this as part of the record that will go to council. Thank you, Jack (Mike, please put in file for council. Thanks, Jack) >>> 3/9/2012 2:30 PM >>> Dear Executive Louws, I am unable to attend the March 14th Listening Session regarding the South Fork Regional Park, but I want to make sure that you receive the email that I originally sent to the County Council on February 27th from the South Fork Valley Community Association. Please scoll down to read. Thank you for continuing to support a high quality of life in Whatcom County, which certainly includes PARKS as significant. Sincerely, Gail Weiss -----Original Message ----- From: southforkvalley To: council <council(a)co.whatcom.wa.us> Sent: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 1:57 pm Subject: South Fork Valley Community Association supports South Fork Regional Park February 27, 2012 Dear County Council, The South Fork Valley Community Association (SFVCA) Board of Directors writes this letter to let you know that we have highly supported and encouraged the work of the Nesset Foundation, Whatcom Land Trust and County Parks as partners to develop the South Fork Regional Park. SFVCA was formed as a non-profit in 1985 (originally named the Van Zandt Community Hall Association) with the name change occurring in 2009 to better reflect the true geographic boundaries of the community, which is loosely defined as the 'old boundaries" of the Acme Schooland the Highway 9 and Mosquito Lake Road corridors. Our mission is to establish, enhance and promote an association for educational, recreational and charitable purposes in the Valley. We believe the Park directly aligns with our mission since the Park 26 (3%19/2012) Darla Smith Re Fwd South Fork Valley ComAmunity Association supports South Fork RegionalPark F'aep2 will enhance Valley recreation through the development of trails for hikers, bicyclists and backcountry horsemen, as well as to promote educational opportunities through historic restoration of old homestead buildings. Based on ideals of acceptance and equality, SFVCA encourages and organizes an extended network of volunteers to collaborate in fulfilling our mission. As you are aware, we are an eclectic rural communitywith a growing number of young civic -minded families. Our families support parks. In fact, there are now 247 people in our rural valley who receive our monthly newsletters and support our mission and programs. Please vote YES! at your meeting tomorrow night. Thank you. Sincerely, Gail Weiss Facilitator for South Fork Valley Community Association Board of Directors 27 (3/19/2012) Darla Smith Fwd South Fork Park Page 1 From: Michael McFarlane To: Darla Smith Date: 3/15/2012 3:02 PM Subject: Fwd: South Fork Park >>> John Stephens 3/1/2012 1:30 PM >>> Could you please include in your plan for the park, ATV trail access ? My name is John Stephens and have lived in the Valley for 45 years. I have a small farm and 5 children. We have rode in the area where the park trails are and would like for you to have ATV trails there also. Thanks John We 19/2U12Darla _ mith N Fwd: South ork Park Page 1 From: Michael McFarlane To: Darla Smith Date: 3/15/2012 3:04 PM Subject: Fwd: Southfork Park Attachments: Re: Southfork Park >>> Bill Elfo 2/29/2012 1:26 PM >>> Our community is facing some severe budgetary challenges that affect our ability to provide essential governmental services. The Sheriffs Office is already prioritizing limited resources to deal with issues that most directly affect the safety of our community. The proposed South Fork Park is in a patrol area encompassing hundreds of square miles and is often patrolled by a single deputy. While I do not anticipate that the Park with be the site of an inordinate number of crimes, the creation and increased scope of uses associated with any large public amenity will undoubtedly impact demands for Sheriffs Office services (trail head car prowls are very common). In light of the fact that a substantial number of residents of Acme Valley oppose and object to the expansion of the Park, it is likely that they will more frequently contact the Sheriffs Office to report objectionable activities. Similar concerns about increased demands on public safety services have been expressed by representatives of the local Fire District. Activities attracting large numbers of people to the Acme valley have already affected residents and required the deployment of extra deputies. Of particular concern is tubing in the Nooksack River. Every summer the Sheriffs Office is inundated with complaints from Acme valley citizens having very legitimate concerns about tubers engaging in drunken and illegal behaviors to include assault, trespassing, openly and knowingly engaging is sex acts in the presence of small children and associated DUI and reckless driving at the end of the day. The Sheriffs Office has attended multiple and well attended community meetings on this subject and has expended extra resources to bring it under control. It is my understanding that Executive Louws is meeting with area residents to try and resolve community concerns. The Sheriffs Office is more than willing to assist from a public safety perspective. I have attached an email chain between Mike McFarlane and I that occurred in January 2010 that pertains to public safety and citizen concerns. Our Vision; "The Office of Sheriff. Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safety, " Sheriff Bill Elfo WhatcomCountySheriff's Office 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 676-6650 (360) 676-7728 (fax) http: / /www.co.whatcom.wa.us/sheriff/ 29 2012) Darla Smith Re Southfork Park Page 1 From: Bill Elfo To: Michael McFarlane Date: 1/26/2010 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Southfork Park Mike - thank you for the update (I received additional calls today on this same issue). Bill Our Vision; "The Office of Sheriff.- Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Pub/ic Safety. " Sheriff Bill Elfo WhatcomCountySheriff's Office 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 676-6650 (360) 676-7728 (fax) httn: / /www.co.whatcom.wa.us/sheriff/ >>> On 1/25/2010 at 1:49 PM, in message<4B5DA11B.19C3.000E.O(G)co.whatcom.wa.us>, Michael McFarlane wrote: Good afternoon Bill, We have not changed any design elements, activities or the scope of the South Fork Regional Park plan since we met with you on August 25th to review the plan and proposed operations. The plan we reviewed was essentially the same plan you and I also discussed on the 29th of April in your office, except for the equestrian parking and trail parking areas being located closer to Mosquito Lake Road. As before, we're still not aware of any use or activity by the public that would create heightened concerns or additional work for your Office. The park is essentially a trail based passive recreation area limited to hiking, horses, and bicycle use with a collection of historic buildings. We would expect Public use and issues to be similar to those at Stimpson Family Nature Reserve, the Chuckanuts trails and Squires Lake Park. Unlike these other areas, we also have a part-time caretaker to assist with the maintenance and oversight of the park. Please see my responses and let me know if you have any questions. Michael McFarlane, Director Parks & Recreation Dept. 733-2900 >>> Bill Elfo 1/25/2010 10:08 AM >>> Mike, Over this past week and weekend, I received telephone calls from several residents of the Acme Valley expressing concern over the design and planned usage of the proposed South Fork Park. I do not know if since the time of our last discussion on this issue, any adjustments or changes have been incorporated into the plan for the Park that would result in heightened concerns. I have summarized the law enforcement and public safety issues that area residents have expressed as 30 _^ 3/19/2 �_.. .. 2) Darla Smith. Re . Southfor G1 k Park..... _ _.. _,....._,. Page 2 concerns: Concern of Residents #1. The Park will attract numerous visitors to the area resulting in increased traffic, crime and disorder issues. The residents are concerned that given the limited resources the Sheriffs Office has available for patrolling this area, responses to the new park may decrease our ability to respond to other pressing needs in the community and adequately patrol and respond to incidents within the Park. When we last reviewed this proposal, the plan involved the creation of a rather passive park with hiking and equestrian trails that would not host large outdoor events (e.g. beer gardens, outdoor music festivals, etc.). You indicated that you were proceeding with a plan that included limited parking capacity and a resident ranger housed at the facility. We agreed that deputies would be provided codes for 24/7 access. # 1 The South Fork Regional Park is essentially a trailhead and trail system with a historical farmstead on the southern end of the property. Unlike a highly developed active park with athletic Yields, playgrounds and special event areas, by design the South Fork Park is not expected to attract large crowds at anyone time and will primarily be used by hikers and equestrians. With the focus on the natural environment, education, and the historical attributes of the farmstead, I see no reason to expect a need for increased patrols. Parking is being accommodated for 30 vehicles with 20 reserved for single vehicles and 10 for vehicles with horse trailers, Vehicle access beyond the parking area is restricted by fencing, We also have a part-time caretaker that lives on the southern end of the property to provide additional oversight. Similar to our other park areas, your Officers should have no problem with 2417 access to the park if needed, Concern of Residents #2. Proposed hiking and equestrian trails run very close to private property and will result in instances of trespassing as well as confrontations between property owners and trespassers. I have not reviewed the plans from this perspective. It would be appreciated if you would provide me with your perspective on this issue and the potential for it to become a problem. # 2 We don't belie ve this is a problem as the park trail is located o ver 100' from the property line for the private in -holdings and over 1,000' from the existing buildings Park visitors generally stay on the developed and marked trails. I don't know whysomeone would want to access private property but if this becomes a problem, the property line can be fenced or signed as necessary, As trespassing isn't a problem for neighbors adjoining even for our largest developed multi use parks like Silver Lake and Hovander, there is no reason to expect the South Fork Regional Park to be any different. Concern of Residents #3. Tubers frequently use the river for drunken and raucous behavior that has resulted in trespassing on private property, littering, assaults and alcohol offenses. Increased Park access will increase this type of behavior and raise associated risks to safety and the tranquility of the community. A concern is that if the parking lot overflows, tubers will park on the roadway resulting in traffic/safety issues (which is currently a problem in Van Zandt). Complaints regarding tubers has been a constant for some time. #3 Tubing within the portion of the river that adjoins the park is currently prohibited and informational signage will be posted as a courtesy to park visitors. It is nearly 314 of a mile from the developed park area to the segment of the river legally open to tubing on Highway 9. Its not expected that the park would be a desirable parking area for tubers due to the long distance from the put -in area and the location of existing shoulder parking along Mosquito Lake Road adjoining the river. The park is not designed to attract or encourage tubing although the restroom may receive some use by this group. Current rules prohibit alcohol in open park areas and park staff will monitor the situation as part of their regular assignments Within the park it is over 1,100 feet from the parking area to the bank of the 31 (3/19/ZJ121 Darla Smith Re Southfork Park W Page 3R river and over 3,000 feet from the parking area via the nearest trail to the overlook on the river. The Park Department does not have jurisdiction on the river, tubing activities or on other properties in the South Fork valley. It is expected that the park will have no impact on the tubing issue positive or negative, but staff will continue to monitor and manage the situation as the park is developed and used. If you can provide me an update and let me know if there have been any changes that would heighten the concerns of neighbors, I would appreciate it. It also appears that groups plan on bringing these issues before the Council. Thus, I will forward a copy of this communication to Council and the Executive. Please feel free to copy Council on your response or give me a call on my cell (410-0466). I am in meetings most of the week, but will try to step out and take your call. Thank you, Bill Our Vision; "The Office of Sheriff Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safety, " Sheriff Bill Elfo WhatcomCountySheriffs Office 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 676-6650 (360) 676-7728 (fax) http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/sheriff/ 32 C u ecncouroo� j -IV)(� VC R �i o-� � _© oL j het t��in " TRAIL LEGEND 1 Od\w u�e `,��. /��� ` Multi -Use Trail ®© !•liJ; x � �;Hiking t.�` �~ _--- Hikin Trail BicycleTrail A ® D...,: a NR Trail Easement . . - �XT€...a :tu: .,„�A• ' �•'�°� ..;., r��.,.... '.>r . .,�: Cam oc�nd: ; �M ff p `r M .;,.%.t .'MPS• pp'' •4' aY' i _ :4x .. - 4 R t• otatibi x5a ,�, .' 4w: ve _ wr. �'�qD t _ xt - -�w .:} -railhead .�r ,,~ r • '` " - `; , t: - s � Galb ' fly. Farm r � x ' T tl✓1?ailhead ��-" -�M ! ,I. �y��J !! n r - - - e eqq,i ^ Inf t g ✓'. � rt :: ' ter.. s•.`^;� - - f, - W. o a: vec. ! 96- RW��,�i l IS Nesset Farm W. XP 0k. �V ter— .;n;.'f 41 �R { A 4 S � yI •-0� , i� i , SOUTH FORK PARK ' CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN -RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE •y If Bf1UARY J01J - %• - 33 TRAIL LEGEND Multi -Use Trail NO -- Hiking/ Bicycle Trail ®® i -----• Hiking Trail j' 5: Mosquito Lake Road >t Tra4lhead' . 1 cz Piz 4P6.. FUkOg Trailhead' inf6rmaition`KiosK \ 4 'ke 4 20 sing lg UnlParking Spaces --K N, 2 E uestrlan TraI�YE'a' :rRestrooms i, f a Pfcmcshelter i �._ F- b ActiesstbleMounbnglam-i`�7_" ¢r y: • f"` Infoilnabon Kwsk ,..` ' P Q �r S�uMW 1DAuto 6ZPafler,Parking5paces � R`-" � a. Lp 3 '�` --- 1 'a• s• 'S _ '.��,; 'w,ti����_ .ems-��e.-- � ^' �' - - ti ■ r - - •t:ti a-..4 . h SOUTH FORK PARK GALBRAITH FARM TRAILHEAD - RECOMMENDED ALTERNA1=sTIVE I I-F BIR ARY JO 12 34 March 14, 2012 To: Whatcom County Executive Board, Parks & Recreation Department Re: Southfork Park My name is Helen Almojera. I am married to Herman Almojera, a Nooksack tribal member. Together we live on family land, part of 160 acres homesteaded in 1863. Like the proposed park, our land borders the Nooksack River. We feel a responsibility to preserve the forest and river habitat for the creatures who live here. It is our position that the proposed park is the best way to preserve and maintain open space in the South Fork valley. Visitors to the park will have a chance to enjoy nature and will take away with them a renewed appreciation of our woodlands and waterways. It would seem that if the park plan fails, the County will have no recourse but to divide and sell the land for housing tracts. The beautiful stretch of river would only be enjoyed by an elite few. Development would displace the wildlife, make adversaries of homeowners and larger creatures, and threaten the salmon with a decline in water quality and loss of habitat. Please continue with your vision to open this park as proposed with the horse, human, and bicycle trails as planned. Thank you. Respectfully, Helen Almojera 4753 Valley Highway Deming WA 98244 35 p�GpUN 1,YF� DEP A�� 9 P.O. Bog 37 Acme, WA 98220 Phone & Fax: 360-595-2161 Commissioners G. Knaus H. Maleng B. Knutzen Chief E. Kalsbeek Se cre C. Roberts AcmE-VAN ZANDT-WICKERSHAM � tti , aoia N VA A =fl Ottentng OungOveg ton (Ad and quvice to Othm 36 o�GpUNTYON Fl� R DEP P.O. Box 37 Acme, WA 98220 Phone & Fax: 360-595-2161 Commissioners G. Knaus H. Maleng B. Knutzen Chief E. Kalsbeek Seergiga C. Roberts ACME -VAN 2ANDT-WICKERSHAM % �% Afte, aU 37 ( inhiNn ArrhnnOr►nCS Info , lid nrnd Onnn ► ►.�►.4% (OAf .n >>> Eric Jacoby 3/16/2012 5:29 PM >>> Mr. Louws, My name is Eric Jacoby. I live on the Mosquito Lake Road - several miles east of the proposed South Fork Park. I am a professional forester and native of the South Fork valley. I did not get a chance to speak at last Wednesday's listening session - mostly because my testimony cannot be distilled to a 3 minute speech. But, also recognizing that the decision makers are weary of the "same people saying nothing new", I think my input is best articulated in this manner. In all truthfulness, I really have nothing new to add. However, as I sat and absorbed the testimony and dialogue of the last several meetings, it became clear to me why there might be frustration with the group that is not supporting the current design. The input they've provided has certainly been heartfelt and honest, but sometimes the context and background has been missing. You've been hit with hard to follow story that has been organized in a manner not unlike the progression of a David Lynch screenplay. The argument against the design has not been clear whereas, the proponents have been concise and relatively polished. I'd like to take editorial freedom for a few moments to add some clarity. Why all the griping about inner tubing - there's no connection, right? True, with the department's movement of some facilities away from the river, there is reassurance that this park is not promoting what locals believe spawned it in the first place. "Not promoting" and "allowing" are two different animals though. The county's history with the innertubing issue is suspicious, at best. Locals have been treated very badly by this activity, and the county has done very little - until recently - to reassure them that their interests are understood. It's going to take a lot more work to convince people it's ok to look at the park through anything other than the lens of past performance. Reconveying 287 more acres is not a big deal in the big picture. As a matter of percentage, it isn't. But locals know the value of this land to the economy. Parks has made good progress by taking the easement approach on the current design. But, everyone knows that all parks has to do is quibble with the DNR about easement locations or parameters to default back to reconveyance. I am not optimistic that the best interests of the local economy and trust beneficiaries will be in the forefront of any future expansion considerations. There is still a lot of convoluted and missing information about the already completed reconveyance of the Overby Farm portion of this park. Knowing of the players in that deal, I'm sure the trusts got stiffed. He said, she said I work with the DNR on a daily basis and know all of the people who might be involved with any land transfer negotiations locally. You can be assured that the DNR is willing to negotiate any thoughtful proposal that doesn't impair their ability to manage this ground practicably. Anyone who tries to convince the county that the DNR is not willing to talk about Hutchinson Creek as an option - is lying, or relying on old testimony that suits their agenda. It is well known that the Hutchinson Creek entrance was the parks department's very first choice for an easement. The Backcountry Horsemen have nixed this entrance as an option. A reason for the BCH not wanting this entrance has been elusive. Irony This park was conceived - apparently - from the wishes of homesteaders at the south end of the park (Nessets). But as it grew, it swallowed up property owned by the Galbraiths - homesteaders residing at the north end of the park. My guess is that Tom and Ingaborg would not have envisioned this. Nor do I suspect that they would've planned for any inconvenience for their homesteading neighbors next door - the Bakkes. The Galbraiths probably wouldn't have minded, but now their mile long driveway will be crossed several times with trails. They are very worried about their privacy and I don't blame them. In the end, the interpreted wishes of one homesteader family have trumped the peace and security of the living descendants of at least two others. How can we shut you people up? It's true we've already conceded that there will be a park and weighing the benefits with the gains - it's unfortunate. From my perspective, the only way this park will not become a bitter pill that leaves a very bad taste in more than a few mouths will be to move the entrance to Hutchinson Creek with an easement to the south. This accomplishes a lot more than you'd think. It would: 1) Leave the Galbraith field for elk habitat and agriculture. This prevents the dispersal of elk from the field they now feel safe in to neighboring farms, which will lead to their demise. 2) Minimizes the amount of reconveyance of land the county and locals are economically tied to. 3) Minimizes the loss of hunting opportunities by not encircling remaining DNR land by County ownership. 4) Ensures the privacy of homesteaded families on both ends of the park. 5) It will conceal the users, and thereby not constantly remind locals how little the county thinks of their interests and values. Thank you for listening. 39 (3/19/2012) Darlamit Sh Fwd March 15 South Fork Regional Park Listening Session Page 1 From: Michael McFarlane To: Darla Smith Date: 3/19/2012 10:01 AM Subject: Fwd: March 15 South Fork Regional Park Listening Session >>> Lance Weaver 3/15/2012 1:47 PM >>> First of all, thanks to you Jack, and to the other council members in attendance last night at the March 15th Listening Session on the South Fork Regional Park. While I didn't speak at the meeting, I decided that I did want to communicate a few feelings that I have on the issue: I am 41 years old and have lived in Whatcom County since I was 5, so I consider myself a "lifelong" county resident. My wife and I live in the county, just outside of Bellingham a little ways out Mt. Baker Highway. While not a South Fork Valley resident, I have hiked, camped, fished, and "explored" the South Fork Valley off and on since I was a kid. I have great respect for both the beauty and the fragile nature of all of our county's undeveloped natural areas, including the proposed park site. I wanted all of you to know that I am the type of person that is pushing for, and that will be using, this park; someone who will respect and protect the area and it's residents as well as other park users. I'm also a member of the Whatcom Chapter of the Backcountry horsemen of Washington and I am firmly in support of the park and of the proposed park design as presented at last nights meeting. I feel that the proposed design, with a seperated parking area for equestrian use, will be much safer than trying to mix the horses in with all other users at a single parking area. I also believe that two smaller parking areas, as opposed to one large area, will actually "feel" like less of an impact on the land. Also, contrary to a statement made by a South Fork Valley resident at the meeting last night, there really are NOT that many public rural places to ride your horse on trails in Whatcom County, at least not reasonably close to Bellingham. Some very legitimate concerns have been voiced by the valley residents including: 1.) an increase in crime due to increased user traffic, 2.) loss of the rural and historic "feeling" and "nature" of the park land due to increased user traffic, and 3.) an increase in area use by innertubers and an associated increase in public nuisance issues. In regards to these issues, I would hope that the Sheriffs Department would be appropriately funded in order to accomodate these added policing duties. Adequate policing will be crucial in ensuring that this park is a success. In regards to the innertubing issue in particular; I believe that this issue will be there whether the park is developed further or not. Sooner or later, the county needs to address the innertubing issue in order to improve public safety and control litter and public nuisance issues. The innertubing issue has been around for a long time and is not going away, so at some point in the near future we need to give it some directed attention and improve the situation for valley residents. In regards to (3/19/2012) Darla Smith Fwd March 15 South Fork Regional ParkxListening Session w_, w.T Pale 2 the "increase in crime" worries, I think that the worst thing that we could do would be to move the parking areas back up to the old Hutchinson Creek Campground area. The less visible Hutchinson Creek area would only encourage illegal activities and endanger public safety, as proven by the old campground's recent history. I believe that sharing this park with more people, by making it more accessible, is the right thing to do. I believe that through this sharing, more people will become aware of this area and more vested and caring stakeholders will be created. How better to protect an area than to make more people fall in love with it! I feel that this debate has gone on long enough and that an adequate amount of time has been spent in debate and planning. This process will continue to drag out as long as we let it. As a county taxpayer, I am tired of paying for this process and would ask that all of you do whatever is possible to see that this project moves forward. Thank you for your time. Lance Weaver Whatcom County Resident 41 mm�d am N O N Y L 0 LL 0 Cl) 43 ca 0 0 a) 45 �; i Q U cn -� -.-O Jc: O O CD U Ocn i O O U � d- O cn � — M E tv , 0 .�-o (DN cn cu �L a�ui o� 0. L O O C: o. O U cn U� -- 0 m n CU O� m —�N0 CO E(D SUN::3 a)C � , > cLi 0 C: 0 �e C: 0 a) cn L. a E cz Lo- 0 0 z CL LL "M - 2 O Co O 00 O > � cm O H L. 0)> O O C �Z C). �-OZ 04 0 0 0 ai O U U > C: C: o x o : U z cl C: c O U ° L E O m am N CO� L- a vn cU m °� m > - 0- 0 0_ z cn —a) C: 0cm E 0 CL r- 0 U Q Q O N cu U O Q I- FL I 0 I I I I ,.y' is •• '� i �' �} / SS' `.. K Of \ r j 0. i; .:, Y/v •_.' t n� `C L��I }, ir�7� • �'� +t �'rf ¢ d _'."_`� ,,•� �i�`, �'.,` s-� "a/. t �`4 s - �7 �;3" i•� 1 '� „41 ��ew3'�.. �? 1f'.� rw If Aw `7 . s j �. k. dp. "" ;yam .i'--�,� �-�.�.a � ,��..• �, . ��,. � '. •� ` c y_. � .• , ,�!� ':�=t � = � �f fix_ �c . - � ,'�'Y , � i:,' , NA, r{,.. ��y.•Sw!!� r, ! .i _ ..w �. � a� �a41 S �.�„ y1 '' `xy{�' IN • of /' ���,a� . , s �r ,� ��y� , . i• 50 s Afl 52 i 0 LM 0 w U U � O :+_ N U U _4-0 � V N 0 •� Q � O _ � � � � CCS CU L Cl) 4-0 � CD o U cn 0 U co 3: LL O c W 0) C: a) 4— _ (D cn cn... � --cm p _ •c: Cl)cu Z > Cn 0 O Ca C.)O cu w I I I Q N c) I Z 1 •x ` w1 `mow^.' 1..-._.�^. +�.�� �' •.. � N e"' 54 55 56 Ann* ti Yry I o 3 z m m I'll "IF r. -0 - - E -0 la Lul 2 ry 57 z O NW LL Q a 2 O U W H NQ w W J Q Q Q QQQ (N9 N 0�0 0000 C N D Q O O J E > r Q a 'O O) U i N O) L Q d N O CE G d V 0. O � (0 O dj m . `� �`:Q� " E QQQ Q Q l00 M 0) ((0 0 0 C E C 0_ O N J > N a O) 'a U O N L O) Q Y ` d U y N O O : `� (6 O CL �Q� E a QQQ Q Q CO 0)N� m ro MON (O C N E -O O 0_ O O J > O Q O) O) 'O U N O) Q d O c. IL U 0 0 0 o ti c� 6/ I r I 6 / -4-/ O U O .. Cl) CU N 0 .. oo ao C) o a) M L _ , 1--i =3 ��� (0 Q�6 >�� Q -0�z L N 0 C:L L L 0J0 J U � U N N .•';it's,- 04 um �"/'' M:��, ., w �. ,"R�.-t}'¢etvx' ��'t' +•. "t'. ' tea. ��4:. � x .. >, .F 'dip •` �.-.._ _ - as O Z rcm e 4 _ :fir_,` - �•: - - TRAIL LEGEND }' Multi -Use Trail -- Hiking/ Bicycle Trail ®® ------- Hiking Trail ® pQ0 r% yF`, ' DNR Trail Easement �O. --- —.: • � y ` - _ {. � ; _, i. f ? i % gists' Former.' Pk(Y ,• Cam ground 5 �OCcltlOfl=: L•" y'�'{.`„t;.` art L'- - _ .x.gg•�., •',yk;*:_ :'."*x �y .a+• tii 2th Ffirfi ,F� i''`� X K iL j mhhead �� s ?. aye ae` Qalbrrar Farm ;;`+ ;•, fRe f'; °' ' „. ��r1a�Trail;.hifxad '•'{ya'.mot �•'� _ _ vim' �': •'n'-„ ' t ;.�• Y,: - .. — `ice•" �`K�'�isi.- a�,-;p'„g�Yy ,x- 4 f'SS-�� •"('�' _ Y. - P_ _ zi. i" 'M-!i,,' .,'.C, <°.�;. z. ����: • - „ _ aS•.:,�,r...�.:': �f • `.'e" '�.'r.:r-..,'= is Nk ,y,� - fr t.QVerbyFel,Illl A Cl Nesset Farm'•:;_a.::. t a.,,.y.,.-,'•F;. ..,.,. i rya `Fr�,� ,f�' rr� 3� � �i �.' e4' �,:. s � R i.- .��' �•s-a� t. 4 + f i�,° ft0�}Q y$t^ • • sA . '. TK'"t- F` 4 P,`!' a 9 fY 'SA7f0 "Wo ,ttFt tht,S SOUTH FORK PARK �- 7 ' CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE. y � IR_alARv)Uii TRAIL LEGEND Multi -Use Trail Hiking/ Bicycle Trail Mm J -� , ------- Hiking Trail Mosquito Lake Road 11pGalbr-a"it Q I- I &H to a 0 S j� v iaeraFwn%__>paces .4 �w e: %o t que's fan r­` 7tra "116e` a� d, estrooms A Akio bimnein kam d6n osk lib, irking ces P 77- -qz, N, tf J,. vV-1 01 K 2k, 74 ......... . . . . �i W_ 0 SOUTH FORK PARK GALBRAITH FARM TRAILHEAD -RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE I RRI ]A' RY /0 1 63 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. o $?o 1 9— 1 5 h4 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: LK 4130112 E C E� V E D 518/I2 Finance u U MAY 01 2012 Committee Division Head: Dept. Head. 1 HATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor: • • COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: VENT- TITLE OF DO Recommendations for moving forward with the new jail. ATTACHMENTS SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Executive Jack Louws and Sheriff Bill Elfo will present Council with recommendations for moving forward with the new jail. COMMITTEE A CTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. •A WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-042 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Finance Committee Originator: Executive 04130112 0510&112 Council Division Head: MAY 0 1 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOC Initial response to threat of aquatic invasive species in Lake Whatcom ATTACHMENTS: Memo from County Executive Louws Cost Estimate SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The attached memo and cost estimate summarizes actions and associated financial burden proposed by the Lake Whatcom Management Program for the remainder of 2012 and first quarter of 2013. The Administration seeks affirmation of the scope and priority of proceeding with this new program commitment. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.uslcouncil. 65 WHATCOM COUNTY Jack Louws co EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE P``oM �.y� County Executive County Courthouse �s ;N , 311 Grand Ave. Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225 ��`QNING�0 NIEMO TO: Whatcom County Council Members FROM: Jack Louws, County Executive SUBJECT: Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species in Lake Whatcom DATE: May 1, 2012 Rapid spread of invasive aquatic mussels across the nation poses a substantial threat to the ecology and infrastructure of Washington lakes and streams. Past and present County Administrations have been working through the Lake Whatcom Management Program to quantify the risk to Lake Whatcom and develop a responsible and affordable response. A general Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Plan was adopted by all three legislative bodies in mid-2011. About the same time, Asian clams were found at several Lake Whatcom boat launches. By late 2011, experts determined that these invasive shellfish were well - established in Lake Whatcom and Lake Padden. This finding demonstrated that the risk of infestation by the much more damaging Quagga and Zebra Mussels is considerable (see htti)://www.cob.org/services/environment/lake-whatcom/aquatic-invasives.asox). The Lake Whatcom Management Program has explored all reasonable and practical response options. Member Administrations have concluded that (1) action must be taken as soon as possible to inform the boating and general public about the risk to Lake ecology and infrastructure, and to their own interests, and the steps they must take to ensure that their boats are not a vector for infestation, (2) additional information must be collected as soon as possible to characterize the logistical, financial, and cost -benefit considerations of a permanent boat inspection program, (3) a secure source of revenue must accompany any long-term financial obligation, (4) the implications of reducing boat launching opportunities (e.g., inspection, closure) at Lake Whatcom on other area lakes and streams and the associated feedback risk must be understood before an aggressive prevention program is started at Lake Whatcom, (5) a regional or State-wide prevention program should accompany local response efforts. The Administration seeks affirmation of these conclusions and puts to the Council Finance Committee the question of proceeding with interim measures. Interim measures include contributing to an inter -jurisdictional team that will, for the duration of the 2012 summer boating season at Lake Whatcom and other area lakes: • inform the boating and general public about the risk of infestation • educate boat owners about proper inspection and maintenance procedures • conduct boater surveys • offer voluntary inspections • collect boat launch use -data • sample invasive species monitoring sites • post signs Office 360 676 6717 Fax 360 676 6775 TDD 360 738 4555 • coordinate volunteers • attend events Cost information about proposed interim measures and a possible timeline for future actions are attached. No new budget authority is required. Jon Hutchings, Public Works, is acting as Program Manager, and Laurel Baldwin as Noxious Weed Control, for Whatcom County. The $36,000 is a cost estimate of the time they are contributing on an ongoing basis. The $17,000 for seasonal staff will be paid out of current budget authority. The Administration will seek guidance from the council as this program develops. JL/al 67 C) C) m C) C) C:) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) Qjr,c- C) C) C) C) 0 C) C:) C) C) C) S C) C) C=) �1-1 0 C) C) C) C) 0 C) C) C=� C) C) C) C) C) C=� C=� q Ln C=� Ln N rLn rq Lr� N -zf N rq � -4 M C:) qj)- qj)- qj)- C) C) C) C) C� C� C) Ln m r- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C=� C=� C=� C=� Ln N -4 M CD - CD 4 qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- C) C) C) lzrLr� CD 0 0 0 0 0 (.0 Cs 6'. qj)- qj)- I. C) C) C) C) C� C� N C) m qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C=� Lr� C=� Lq qj)- qj)- qj)- qj)- m ca cl LO } � � ) � % � ) _ / ui rm -Fu (U CL �5 co E E (U to (U to 20 E E m aE m y.0 to ■txo C) 0 txo txo 0 to Q. a—j V) w m 4A V) j th (D MINO-V WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-168 CLEARANCES .Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator. 5 G 4/26/12 W E C E� V E D 5/08/12 Fin/Council Division Head. MAY 01 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head. Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: A 4/26/12 Executive: TITLE OF DOC . Approval to Purchase Waterborne Traffic Line Paint ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Public Works SEPA review required ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Public Works Maintenance & Operations is requesting approval to add an additional vendor to their list of sources for the purchase of Waterborne Traffic Line Paint using an interlocal agreement with Pierce County. The vendor is Ennis Paint, Inc. This is a regularly budgeted expenditure and all purchases are based on actual need. The budget for traffic line paint is $450,000. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www_co.whatcom.wa.us/council. We WHATCOM COUNTY rP�G caoti ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES \SHI N DATE: 26 April 2012 TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manager FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #503 Bellingham WA 98225-4082 Brad Bennett, Finance Manager SUB.IECT: Approval to Purchase Waterborne Traffic Line Paint for 2012 • Background & Purpose Public Works Maintenance and Operations is requesting approval to add an additional vendor to their list of sources for waterborne traffic line paint. Whatcom County has an Interlocal agreement with Pierce County that allows us to use their bids. The vendor is Ennis Paint Inc. Product is purchased on an as needed basis. The total budgeted for traffic line paint is $450,000.00. • Funding This is a regularly budgeted item and funds exist in the current budget. I concur with this recommendation. AS Finance Manager Approved as recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action 70 EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director .(GSM. CO �9ShINGtG@ MEMORANDUM 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9610 Phone (360) 676-6759 Fax (360) 380-8115 Eric L. Schlehuber, Division Manager TO: The Honorable Jack Louws, County Executive and The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, PW Director q1�'�`' FROM: Eric L. Schlehuber, PW Equipment Services Manager(g) Jeff Gollen, PW Maintenance & Operations Superintendent RE: Interlocal Agreement with Pierce County — Contract #200209010 Waterborne Traffic Line Paint DATE: April 25, 2012 ■ Requested Action I am requesting Executive and Council approval to purchase the following material as needed during 2012 from Ennis Paint, Inc., in the amount of $450,000.00. This purchase is permitted through an existing Interlocal Agreement between Whatcom County and Pierce County, pursuant to the Washington State Interlocal Cooperative Act, RCW Chapter 39.34. Due to potential supplier issues as we had in 2010 and 2011, we are requesting multiple vendor sources for waterborne traffic line paint. Combined, purchased from Ennis (Pierce County bid), Sherwin Williams (Lewis County bid), and Alpine Products, Inc. (Washington State Bid Procurement List) will not exceed the above amount of $450,000.00. ■ Background and Purpose The Maintenance & Operations Division of the Public Works Department uses these materials regularly as part of the road maintenance program. This agreement is for the purpose of providing waterborne traffic marking line paint throughout the year to be used on county road maintenance and road projects as needed. ■ Funding Amount and Source These are regularly budgeted expenditures for material, which is used on an annual basis as needed and has been budgeted during the 2011-2012 Budget process. ■ Recommended Action Please approve this purchase and forward to the Executive and the Whatcom County Council for approval at the May 8, 2012 Whatcom County Council Meeting. Please contact Jeff Gollen at extension 50660 or Eric L. Schlehuber at extension 50607, if you have any questions or concerns. Enclosures 71 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-169 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council ff lice A enda Date Assi ned to: Originator: 4/26/12 MAY 01 2012 5/08/12 Fin/Council Division Head: . De t. Head. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor Purchasin /Bud et: 4/27/ 12 Executive: TITLE OF DO CU T Award of Bid 12-22 Replace Portions of Courthouse Root ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and the Facilities Management SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Administrative Services, Facilities Management is requesting approval to award the bid and enter into a construction contract with the low bidder, Mike's Roofing, Inc., for the replacement of portions of the courthouse roof. This is a planned project and funds were approved in the current budget. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 72 �GOM co WHATCOM COUNTY s'�Pmti„ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN .10 DATE: 27 April 2012 FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #503 Bellingham WA 98225-4082 Brad Bennett, Finance Manager TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Bid Award, Replace Portion of the Courthouse Roof BACKGROUND Bids were advertised for replacement of portions of the courthouse roof. Two responses were received on Tuesday March 13 and are noted below. Vendor Base Bid Tax Total Mike's Roofing, Inc. 121,000.00 10,527.00 131,527.00 H tech Roofing, Inc. 134,500.00 11,701.50 146,201.50 Facilities Management is requesting approval to award the bid and enter into a contract with the low bidder, Mike's Roofing, Inc. in the amount of $131,527.00. FUNDING This is a planned project and funding was approved in ASR's 2011-4766 and 2011- 4767. 1 recommend approval. Brad Bennett, Admin. Services Finance Manager County Executive Date of Council Action 73 WHATCOM COUNTY AS- Facilities Management 316 Lottie Street f Bellingham, WA 98225 360-676-6746 360-676-6789 Fax Memorandum TO: Brad Bennett FROM: Carol Rofkar THROUGH: Mike Russell DATE: 4/18/12 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Roof Bid #12-22 Michael Russell Facilities Manager Courthouse Roof Replacement installation bid 12-22 closed Tuesday March 13, 2012 with the following bid results: Mike's Roofing Bid price $131,527.00 Hytech Roofing Bid Price $146,201.50 This project consists of the reroofing of the Rotunda at the NE end of the Courthouse and the roof over the Assessors and Executives offices at the Southwest corner of the Courthouse. This project involves the complete tear off and replacement of the existing roofs. The contractor is responsible for the complete demolition and installation meeting all warrantee and bid requirements. ASR 2011-4766 and ASR 2011-4767 were approved to be combined in an email dated 1/30/2012 from Marianne Caldwell. Originally there was $300,000.00 in combined funds available for the project. Facilities believe there was significant savings by combining the two ASR's and bidding the roof replacements as one project as well as a favorable bidding climate. This work is funded in the Public Utility Fund. Facilities recommend moving forward with a contract for Mike's Roofing for the amount of $131,527.00. While we have not worked with this contractor previously, his references are good and his firm appears competent to complete the project. The bidder information is attached to this memo. 74 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-170 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 4/15/11 E C E u V E D MAY 01 2012 5/8/12 in/Council Division Head: Dept Head: WHATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor COUNCIL Purchasin /Bud et: 4/15/11 Executive: TITLE OF DO NT: Approval to Award Bid 12-12 Annual Supply of Asphaltic Mixes ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Public Works SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Public Works is requesting approval to award Bid 12-12for the delivery and supply of asphaltic mixes. Two bids were received and Public Works would like to award to both bidders and select the vendor that has the best value based on price and cost to transport the product to the job site. This is a regularly budgeted item and estimated expenditures will be approximately $85,000.00. Funds were approved in the current budget. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 75 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE: 26 April 2012 TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #503 Bellingham WA 98225-4082 Brad Bennett, Finance Manager FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 12-12 Annual Supply of Asphaltic Mixes BACKGROUND & PURPOSE Administrative Services advertised for bids to supply Public Works Maintenance & Operations with their annual supply of asphaltic mixes. Two bids were received on Tuesday April 17. Public Works uses the material on county road projects and selects the vendor with the most economical product based on low price and source location.. Vendor HMA 1/2" HMA 3/8" ATB Cold Mix Granite Construction — Everson Goshen Rd 65.00 69.00 52.00 no bid Whatcom Builders — LaBounty Rd 60.00 62.00 52.00 110.00 AWARD RECOMMENDATION Public Works is requesting approval to award to both bidders. They will use the most economical bid for a particular job, based on low price and source location. This is a regularly budgeted purchase and product is purchased as needed. The budgeted amount is $85,000. concur with this recommendation. Approved as recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action 76 EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director �GOM CO ZP c G,y �9`SF/I NG�Ot, MEMORANDUM 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Phone (360) 676-6759 Fax (360) 380-8115 Eric L. Schlehuber, Division Manager TO: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manager THROUGH: Frank M_ Abart, PW Directo/t FROM: Eric L. Schlehuber, PW Equipment Services Manager Jeff Gollen, PW Maintenance & Operations Superintendent RE: Bid #12-12, Annual Supply of Asphaltic Mixes (Hot & Cold Mix) DATE: April 25, 2012 ■ Requested Action I am requesting Executive and Council approval to purchase asphaltic mixes as needed during 2012 from any of the following vendors: Granite Construction Company or Whatcom Builders, Inc. I further request and recommend that Whatcom County reserve the right to utilize vendors based upon the location of the project, distance to the plant(s), and product availability up to an annual expenditure of approximately $85,000.00. ■ Background and Purpose Bids were duly advertised for the supply of asphaltic mixes. The Public Works Maintenance & Operations Division will use the asphaltic mixes on various county road projects as part of the annual road maintenance and repair program. Two bids were received Tuesday, April 17, 2012. We received good responses from two vendor's (total of two plant locations). Attached is a bid proposal tabulation sheet listing each type of asphaltic mix with the lowest bid highlighted for each category. Public Works Maintenance and Operations Division purchases approximately $85,000.00 annually of this product. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR ASPHALTIC MIXES (HOT & COLD MIX) YEAR 2008 2009 2010 2011 ANNUAL COST $ 20,086.56 $ 51,885.93 $ 38,702.36 $ 14,204.14 ■ Funding Amount and Source These are regularly budgeted expenditures for material, which are used on an annual basis as needed and have been budgeted during the 2011-2012 Budget process. Based on prior and estimated usage it is anticipated total expenditures will be approximately $85,000.00 and therefore requires Whatcom County Council approval. Please approve this purchase and forward to the Executive approval at the May 8, 2012 Whatcom County Council Meeting extension 50607, if you have any questions or concerns. Attachments (1) and the Whatcom County Council for . Please contact Eric L. Schlehuber at 77 Bid 12-12, Supply of Asphaltic Mixes Page 2 of 2 April 25, 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BID #12-12: SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC MIXES BID PROPOSAL TABULATION SECTION A F.O.B. Delivery Point VENDOR PLANT, LOADED INTO COUNTY VEHICLES Vendor Supplier Plant Location. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6956 Everson Goshen Road WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. La Boun Road Planf: Prices Firm through Aril 17, 2013 March 31, 2013 HMA Class %" $ 65.00 $ 60.00 HMA Class 3/8" $ 69.00 $ 62.00 A.T.B. $ 52.00 $ 52.00 Cold Mix NO BID $ 110.00 Special Conditions Please call ahead. None SECTION B F.O.B. Delivery Point DELIVERED WITHIN TEN 10 MILES OF VENDOR PLANT Vendor Supplier Plant Location GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY .6956 Everson Goshen Road WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. La Boon Road Plant Prices Firm Through Aril 17, 2013 March 31, 2013 HMA Class 1/2" NO BID NO BID HMA Class 3/8" NO BID NO BID A.T.B. NO BID NO BID Cold Mix NO BID NO BID Special Conditions N/A N/A SECTION C F.O.B. Delivery Point DELIVERED WITHIN TWENTY 20 MILES OF VENDOR PLANT Vendor Supplier Plant Location GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6956 Everson Goshen Road. WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. La Boun. Road Plant. Prices Firm Through Aril 17, 2013 March 31, 2013 HMA Class 1/2" NO BID NO BID HMA Class 3/8" NO BID NO BID A.T.B. NO BID NO BID Cold Mix NO BID NO BID Special Conditions N/A N/A 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee Of The Whole April 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CREATING CHAPTER 20.51, LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO ADDRESS STORMWATER AND LAND USE REGULATIONS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2012-117) Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report and stated the Planning Commission, at its last meeting, made a recommendation and moved to the Council proposed codes, definitions, and removal of Lake Whatcom references from the current code, but it has not yet approved Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission will vote on Findings of Fact on Thursday. Kershner stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting. It's not the Planning Commissioners' understanding that this is their recommendation to the Council. She would like clarification on the items in the Council packet that are actual recommendations from the Planning Commission. She understands that the Planning Commission wanted more time to work on it, so there are sections that they did not address or amend. Craver stated the Planning Commission motion was to approve Chapter 20.51 and all the associated sections. That motion passed unanimously, along with the definition section. Kershner stated the motion was to replace language. It was not a motion to move to approve and recommend the entire section. Craver submitted and read from a presentation (on file). The amount of naturally - occurring phosphorus loading from native vegetation is determined to be .16 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year. The original criterion from the Department of Ecology is to allow no additional phosphorus loading beyond that amount. Only new development activity Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 1 79 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. on a site would be under stormwater review. One is not required to retrofit an entire site to the phosphorus loading criteria. If there is a low threshold for a retrofit of the entire site, that site may not ever come into compliance. Work directly with the new addition or activity on the site, and use other means to cumulatively reduce the impacts of the phosphorus. The proposed threshold is 500 square feet. Weimer asked if the City's threshold triggers retrofitting an entire site, and whether the City's requirement or County's requirement will meet the total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements. Craver stated the City requires retrofit of the entire site. Their threshold is 300 square feet for a redeveloped site. A comparison analysis of retrofitting an entire site versus just the project area hasn't been done. She doesn't believe that anyone in the city has had to retrofit an entire site. Every project has been just shy of that trigger. Kremen stated the City's setback from the lake is only 25 feet, which is why they have to have more stringent regulations. The County has a lake setback of 45 feet. That is a big difference. It makes sense for the City to have more stringent regulations. There's a rationale for it. All these years, Bellingham enabled houses to be built up to 25 feet from the high water mark, which is almost twice as close as the County allows. Mann asked whether any City residents entirely avoid retrofitting requirements for the entire site by not getting any permitting. Craver stated she doesn't think anything gets by the City enforcement staff. They're out there quite a bit. They have a very good watch on what's going on. They could provide numbers of how many projects come close to the threshold. The City and County exchange information about the types of activity they're seeing. The City will begin reviewing their code and whether they want to make modifications. The overall goal is to allow people to have their development and find a responsible balance. Mann stated the point is that if the threshold to require a retrofit is too strict, they might realize an effect different from what they're trying to achieve. Craver stated the staff and Inter -jurisdictional Coordinating Team have discussed that concern. Craver continued the presentation regarding options for stormwater treatment. Crawford referenced option one and asked if the purpose of the native vegetation is to take water from the roof, for example. Craver stated it is. Water is being directed toward the native vegetation. Kremen asked if they calculate the amount of native vegetation such as a large cedar or fir tree, using the tree canopy or trunk size. Craver stated the calculation includes the canopy. Craver continued the presentation on other options for stormwater treatment. Kershner asked if the engineering option could include some kind of stormwater district or collecting area to take the stormwater away to be processed. Craver stated it could. Kershner asked whether there is an option for people who can't make an engineered system work. Craver stated potentially a variance process could be an option. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 2 80 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 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Mann asked if the phosphorus loading profile allows 25 percent or 125 percent. Craver stated that is the Planning Commission recommendation. The Department of Ecology criteria is no additional phosphorus loading. The amount allowed is 25 percent of phosphorus loading beyond a forested condition. Crawford stated the amount of phosphorus allowed is 125 percent of the amount contributed by native vegetation. Craver stated native vegetation is zero. The Planning Commission is to allow 25 percent phosphorus loading beyond that. Crawford stated the amount of phosphorus created by native vegetation is .16 pounds per acre per year on average. Twenty-five percent of that is .04 pounds per acre per year. Therefore, the development would be allowed .20 pounds per acre per year. Craver stated Ecology's criteria was no additional phosphorus loading beyond native vegetation, and the Planning Commission recommendation is to allow 25 percent beyond that. Crawford stated he would like clarity on that recommendation before the Council votes on it. Weimer asked if there has been any consultation with the Department of Ecology about increasing phosphorus by 25 percent. Craver stated that at this point, the Department of Ecology will look at the entire ordinance and then decide. The Planning Commission discussed whether other regulations can deal with phosphorus if they can't be dealt with in the land use regulations. Craver concluded the presentation on the timeline. She asked what kind of background information the committee would like to have. Brenner stated Exhibit D allows different ways for people to control runoff, including other dispersion methods if the lot isn't very big. Craver stated the ordinance and exhibits dated March 13 in the Council packet beginning on page 271 are an old version that should not have been in the Council packet. Exhibit D was provided by a Planning Commissioner who initially wanted it to go into the Code, but realized these were some bigger policy questions that they wanted to forward to the Council to contemplate. Her response was that she has a land use regulation part of Title 20 that needs to be passed. It is the Council's responsibility to weigh those other pieces, as they do with the management program. This was their duty of passing that forward. If there is a specific piece of the discussion that the Council would like them to go over, they can do that. Brenner stated item 7 on Council packet page 314 should say, "Smaller lots without the ability to utilize onsite infiltration should be given access to dispersion sites in the watershed in the County." Craver stated they will need to discuss what that really means as far as mitigating offsite and where these other sites are located. One issue is that capital facility projects require a lot of conservation easements on properties, which can be expensive. Including a stormwater facility to treat a large area is a concern they'd have to balance out. If they want to go through that discussion, they can if the other options aren't feasible. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 3 81 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated oxygen aerators don't require conservation easements. They should have that discussion. Kershner stated attachment D includes good ideas forwarded from the Planning Commission for the Council to consider when looking at the overall Lake Management Plan. Ms. Craver wants them to focus on the actual development regulations today, knowing that these are good ideas the Council needs to incorporate into the Lake Management Plan at some point. She congratulated the Planning Commission for creating one of the best, most comprehensive working document of suggested ideas that she's seen. She would like to hear from the Planning Commissioners, and then discuss where they go next. She asked what information the Council received has been recommended by the Planning Commission. She asked if the packet the Council received includes everything the Planning Commission recommended. Gary Honcoop, Whatcom County Planning Commissioner, stated the Planning Commission never made a motion or took a vote for recommendation on what the Council has before it. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission made several motions for replacement of language and for some addition of language in the definitions. They never had a motion or vote on a recommendation. Brenner asked if Mr. Honcoop is talking about the item that included a Planning Commission recommendation and staff response. Honcoop stated he's talking about the entire ordinance before the Council. The Planning Commission never made a motion or took a vote on the entire document. Kershner asked for a reason why. Honcoop stated part of the reason includes a lot of work done by an ad hoc subcommittee that has since been done. They asked for comments from engineers, and focused specifically on the best management practices (BMPs). That was where the line was supposed to be drawn. That's where he kept it drawn, and focused on getting that portion done. That was dealt with at the last meeting. That's as far as they got. They received an email saying it would be moved forward with whatever work they had completed by that point. That's what has happened. Basically, the email said they would take the work done to -date and send it forward. Brenner asked if the Planning Commission wants to work on this any longer, and how much longer they're talking about. Dave Onkels, Whatcom County Planning Commissioner, stated the ordinance isn't ready for prime time. They are going to receive feedback from the Department of Ecology, according to this worksheet the Council received today. There are certain conclusions included in the Council packet that were not part of the Planning Commission proceedings and are not part of the Planning Commission packet for this Thursday's meeting. He submitted a handout (on file). The Planning Commission worked with a native vegetation phosphorus loading number of .15 pounds per acre per year, not .16 pounds per acre per year. That results in a number of .1875 pounds per acre per year, which is 25 percent more than the .15 pounds per acre per year. That's the reason for the confusion between the .1875 and .20 numbers. At the last Planning Commission meeting, they moved and voted to accept the amended language for section 20.51.420 and the amended definitions for 20.97. Ecology Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 4 82 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. has heartburn about the additional phosphorus loading, but he solicited input from quite a few members of the engineering community during two separate meetings. At neither meeting did anyone, with one possible exception, express the opinion that no additional phosphorus loading was an achievable objective. That's the reason he convened the second meeting with the engineers, Mr. Peterson from Public Works, Kirk Christensen, and Commissioner Honcoop. They asked the engineers in private practice for input about what form achievable standards and BMP methods might take. They soon received valuable input from all those engineers. The day after that meeting, he and Commissioner Honcoop worked for several hours on new language for section 20.51.420 in an attempt to arrive at an achievable BMP solution. Mr. Peterson was on the telephone with them for about four hours. They also met the following Monday for several hours. Mr. Peterson continued to help them. That work culminated in the extensive list of definitions proposed for section 20.97. An engineer can look at the BMPs, refer to the definitions, and have a clear idea of what will be and won't be achievable in terms of working with the stormwater manual. Honcoop stated attachment #4 has the side -by -side comparison between the original proposal, the Planning Commission recommendation, and the staff response. He referenced item 1 under item B regarding Stormwater Management BMPs. The engineering people continually questioned where they start regarding the forested condition phosphorus level. The solution isn't perfect to establish a .15 or .16 pounds per acre per year. Some areas will produce more than that, and some areas will produce less than that. Crawford asked if they've determined a way to find that out for a particular location. Honcoop stated they have not. That was part of the engineers' issue. They can spend a couple hundred thousand dollars and take two years trying to determine the forest condition for natural phosphorus for each specific location. The natural output of natural condition phosphorus will vary based on type of year, rain event, and other things. The engineers asked repeatedly for a starting point for what is a natural forested position, and they came up with a number of .15 pounds per acre per year. Kershner asked where that number came from. Crawford stated it was derived in the total maximum daily load (TMDL) findings generally for the entire watershed. Kremen stated that is an average figure for the entire watershed. Honcoop stated this appeared to be an acceptable number for a reasonable amount of phosphorus generation from a native condition. Use that as a starting point. There is still disagreement over what it could be. The engineering community doesn't necessarily believe that number. Many believe that the number should be higher, but they have to start somewhere and use their judgment to determine a baseline. That's where the starting point came from. Moving on from there, they came up with a factor of 1.25. It's very confusing whether it is a 25 percent increase or 125 percent increase. They had written it both ways, and then revised the language to say, 'shall not exceed by a factor of 1.25." That was an attempt to clarify exactly the Council's question. The reason for 1.25 is due to two issues that drove them to increase it beyond zero. The first issue is the question of whether zero is achievable. After hearing from many people, including engineers and people from the City of Bellingham, they agreed that zero is Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 5 83 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. not achievable except if no water leaves the site. The BMP for full infiltration, item 3, requires that no water leave the site, which makes it achievable. Regarding full dispersion, it's a 6.5 to 1 ratio. An element left out is that one is also required to have a 100-foot flow path. It's not just about the amount of square footage one has. There has to be 100 feet of travel for the dissolved phosphorus to have uptake and remove it. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, the topography isn't always conducive to that travel area. The engineers continually said that removing all the phosphorus is very difficult, if not impossible. The biggest issue is dissolved phosphorus. The technology doesn't exist to remove dissolved phosphorous in a mechanical way versus a natural way. They conveyed through a motion to have the engineering folks come back in. A number of staff people attended. He and Mr. Onkels demanded that the engineering folks participated. Their input was needed. They received input from all except one person. Then they spent many hours trying to put something together that would work, including getting input from staff. That's how it was rewritten. When the 200 square foot threshold was proposed, the question asked was how that threshold number was arrived at. The answer was that 200 square foot is when there must be a building permit. They didn't buy that argument as an acceptable reason to establish a 200 square foot threshold. There was a debate over several thresholds, and they eventually settled on 500 square feet. Kershner asked if there is an option that won't meet options one through four. Honcoop stated that using full dispersion, one needs about 22,000 square feet minimum. The biggest impact, and another reason why zero increase wouldn't work, is to the small lots. That's where Sudden Valley comes in. It's a challenge to not disallow the existing lots. There were comments about how the small lots can store or disperse the water, but those are difficult and costly things to do. They're not very practical. Kershner stated it was difficult to find out how much phosphorus goes into the lake from natural forested conditions. She asked how they measure a lot allowed to contribute 25 percent more than natural forested conditions. Honcoop stated there is a demonstrative approach. One has to demonstrate how to remove phosphorus down to that level through the engineering design. That's a challenge. Brenner asked if there was any discussion of allowing community dispersion by people contributing to a fund that would create oxygenators or something like that offsite, but in the watershed. Honcoop stated there was a lot of discussion about that. Oxygenation does not take care of phosphorus, according to the engineers. Brenner stated it provides more oxygen, which helps prevent more phosphorus loading. Kershner stated they are on the 303(d) list for low oxygen levels. Crawford stated nothing in that process prevents phosphorus loading. It is trying to create an environment that is not good for algae. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 6 84 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. (4: 05:18 PM) Brenner stated a good, high oxygen level will result in less phosphorus and algae, all other things being equal. Onkels stated conditions are not going to be as conducive for the growth of algae during the time the lake is stratified. Otherwise, they're not reducing phosphorus loading in any way with lake management techniques. The Department of Ecology website has recommendations. Brenner stated something in the information says that reduced oxygen causes more problems with phosphorus. Crawford stated no one is arguing that. Brenner read from information, "Low dissolved oxygen levels have been connected to phosphorus loading, resulting in sediments entering into Lake Whatcom through land disturbance...." They're connecting it. Onkels stated he doesn't know if he agrees with that sentence. The Planning Commission proposal has an off -parcel mitigation parcel option so small lot owners might have an opportunity to purchase or lease a mitigation site from another property owner, and take phosphorus from an unmitigated site and install natural forested conditions or a permanent forested reserve. Also, the dispersion and infiltration mitigation methods are presumptive. If one meets the numbers, then one is presumed to meet the standard. Last, he noticed a discrepancy between the Planning Commission packet for this issue and the Council packet for the issue. It resides in the conclusions. The Council has conclusion three, "Because changing conditions have created a threat to public health...," but there's not documentation of that threat, "...and/or safety, and because this ordinance will reasonably address that threat, this ordinance shall apply to all lots of record existing or created before, on, or after its effective date." Give careful consideration to that language. Craver stated this is a draft ordinance that staff took from previous ordinances regarding Lake Whatcom and used as a template and moved it forward. It was also part of the packet that was withdrawn from the Council packet. It was dated March 13. She didn't understand that it would be part of this Council packet. That was a misunderstanding with Council staff. That wasn't intentional. They pulled that ordinance, and it does say it's a draft. They haven't resubmitted anything with that language. She apologized for the confusion. Mann asked about the baseline issue. He used to work for a company that would design these things. There is pretty good software out there. One takes a survey of the property, model the existing vegetation, the slopes, and the flow, and then come up with a computer -generated model that gives a number for how much phosphorus one can have. He asked if that is where they would get the baseline from. It is an Hydrologic Simulation Program —FORTRAN (HSPF) model. Honcoop stated it requires an input to start with. Mann stated input hundreds of years of rain data and treatment information. Honcoop stated that model is primarily related to water quality other than phosphorus. It's not necessarily related to phosphorus. It was universal from the engineers that there is not a method. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 7 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Mann asked if they can't model phosphorus with all those software techniques. Honcoop stated that is correct, according to the engineers, without a study of a specific location. Mann asked about stormwater control on small lots, such as those in Sudden Valley. He asked if they could do a community phosphorus field for those lots in Sudden Valley. Onkels stated the Planning Commission recommends an off -parcel mitigation option. There are 717 lots in the watershed under 10,000 square feet and that would probably not be able to conform. There are an additional 196 that are under 20,000 square feet. Many of the lots aren't buildable under current regulations. Mann stated many of those Sudden Valley lots are close together, making them a useful place to create some engineered solutions. Have that option available. Brenner stated Exhibit D included a recommendation for smaller lots to be given access to dispersion sites in the watershed. Craver stated they would have to talk with Public Works to develop an entire program. Honcoop referenced attachment #4 under stormwater BMPs, item two. They have a tendency to focus on existing off -parcel phosphorus unmitigated areas being far away. That's not necessarily correct. A neighbor may be cooperative and grant an easement for stormwater, allowing a recorded protected native growth area. The idea was to create some flexibility with an option that isn't extremely cost -prohibitive and is more natural. Anytime they can disperse water rather than collect it at a point is better. Brenner stated that if a lot is a lot of record, the County must allow the owner to build. The Council can't write regulations that aren't doable for the small lots. Crawford asked if people could still have a 2,500 square foot building envelope if they can't meet the stormwater regulations. Craver stated they can't, according to this. The limit, also with the caveat of the 2,500 square feet, is removed for these options. They're exploring where the regulation won't work, and looking for ways around it. Kremen asked if the County has a reasonable use ordinance. Crawford stated that's in the critical areas ordinance, and he doesn't think it covers stormwater. Craver stated it doesn't cover stormwater. Brenner stated she thinks the law says the Council can't put regulations in place that are impossible for builders to meet. Craver stated that when they start getting into the regulations, they can fine-tune the argument and the scenario that they're really looking at. Crawford stated there are pieces of land, such as those on Chuckanut, that are, in reality and relative to the cost it would take to stabilize an entire mountain, unbuildable. It sounds like they're treading into a discussion about making quite a number of lots in the Lake Whatcom watershed unbuildable for all practical purposes. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 8 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 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated Councilmember Kremen just said a taking. Crawford stated that gets into a description of a legal issue. He doesn't think it's a taking. Kremen stated he doesn't think it's a taking, either. The Supreme Court ruled that as long as people have access to their property, it still has value. It doesn't guarantee a residential lot. Crawford stated it sounds early for the Council to get this. He would like to see the Planning Commission's work, including the meeting minutes to look at their discussion. They're just taking things out of order. As they move into discussions about this, he would like a phosphorus 101 discussion. He can understand the land disturbance part of it, but not where the phosphorus will come from once the house is built. Go over why this impervious surface is creating a problem. He's trying to understand what they're getting at with these designed stormwater systems. Brenner stated fowl management is strange. Kershner stated they produce three pounds of fecal matter per bird every day. Crawford stated that when they talked about measuring phosphorus off a particular site, he thought about why someone couldn't just take a shovel -full of the soil, examine it, and determine how much phosphorus is in it. It must not be that easy. That's why he's trying to understand where this phosphorus is coming from and how the development regulations will impact it. Kershner asked how this will go forward and what the Council needs to do today. Craver stated the purpose of this discussion was to get the Council's mind wrapped around what these regulations are going to be. It was staff's understanding that the Planning Commission moved and approved these sections to move forward. It was indicated they would move forward to the Council, regardless at that point, during the March 22 meeting. That's why it's scheduled here. They came up with a very general overview to have an understanding. She's sensing now where more detail needs to happen. That's the kind of feedback she'd like to get. She needs to come back and revisit more in-depth about what the smaller lots look like, what the off -site mitigation recommendation looks like, and examine the thresholds and BMPs. Scheduling another committee meeting would be a good step. She can't make the decision on whether or not the Council introduces it when there are findings, or what's going to happen at the Planning Commission. She's not the one to make the call about whether or not this actually moved forward. She has minutes that say that the Planning Commission moved to approve these different sections. Brenner stated she would like to see it go back to the Planning Commission and let them feel like they've finished it to make their recommendation. There is just a difference of opinion. Crawford stated the Council will know when it has a signed document from the Planning Commission. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 9 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated the Planning Commission obviously doesn't think it's finished. She talked to somebody who said they didn't think it would take much longer to get to that point. Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the staff hasn't had that discussion. The reason they made a more hasty decision is because she wanted them summarized and get it moved forward. The Planning Commission did a lot of hard work, but there was no feeling that would ever end. There was a lot of staff time with the Planning Department and other departments, so she determined that it was time for the item to move forward, whether or not the Planning Commission made a recommendation. Fortunately, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation. There is some confusion about what the recommendation was. At any rate, she felt it needed to be moved forward to Council, and Council could start doing its deliberations. She asked how much time they spend at the Planning Commission. Expecting the Commissioners to be the scientists that they're not isn't fair. They've done a lot of homework, but it needed to keep moving forward. The Planning Commission has an agenda for the year and things the staff needs to do. Her concern was that the Planning Commission was not moving forward. It just kept revisiting the issues and was not accomplishing anything. Brenner stated that this is a high priority. If the Planning Commission wants to take more time, she would like to see them take more time. Whatever they do, they save the Council time. Ryan stated they do, the whole reason Sandy Peterson put so much effort into trying to help, on his own time, was to get them to the point where they could hand it off to the other Commissioners, and make a decision and move it forward. She thought they were ready to do that. Kershner stated it's interesting that this project has been in the works since last March, but the Planning Commission wasn't brought into it until November 17. For future projects of large scale significance, the stakeholders and interested parties should be brought into the process earlier so they don't spend a lot of time going in the wrong direction. Crawford asked if there is a deadline for completing this item. Ryan stated the original timeline was to have this before the Council, so the Council could make a decision by June. That is not a hard and fast deadline, but it was the original commitment by the former County Executive. Crawford stated he's confused about how that occurred. He asked if it was a Council strategy to move this forward. Ryan stated it was the staff's direction to start meeting, putting this forward, and doing workshops. It was the direction staff was given. Kremen stated they shouldn't procrastinate any more than they absolutely have to. During a meeting with two members of the Department of Ecology, Mr. Grout and Mr. Hood, they told him that their view of achieving zero phosphorus loading was not that difficult to achieve. In retrospect, he thinks that message is not valid or accurate. It may have been hopeful thinking. He was lead to believe that achieving zero phosphorus loading was not going to be that difficult for most people. He doesn't agree with that now. That's one reason for trying to achieve this as quickly as possible. He heard Mr. Honcoop say that the Planning Commission did not take any action or make any formal recommendation on this. Therefore, he concurs with Councilmember Brenner. There needs to be a definitive product Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 10 88 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. from the Planning Commission working in concert with staff as quickly as possible. This is premature to start to take action now. This meeting was productive, informative, and useful. Send it back to the Planning Commission to resolve discrepancies from staff and from the Planning Commission. Then the Council can work on whatever product is delivered. Craver read from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. There was a motion to recommend language from the advisory committee for section 20.51.010, which is the purpose section. That was voted on unanimously. They also voted on section 20.51.420, which is the new section. The other sections, with the exception of minor details regarding uses and prohibited uses that were already in there, have the thresholds and BMPs. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to adopt the definitions for section 20.97. Maybe there wasn't a formal motion to move the entire chapter forward. Anything that was new was voted on unanimously to move forward. The other pieces were the already -permitted uses, prohibited uses, and conformance. Those sections were not new, and were already contained in Title 20. Knutzen asked if the document in the Council packet has been changed, and the minor changes still to be done are in the additional information the Council received. Craver stated the original packet that came to the Council with the entire chapter 20.51 included all the changes. It was a combination of the three existing chapters that had to do with Lake Whatcom. The pieces that are new, the BMPs and thresholds, are contained in section 20.51.420, which the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend and move forward. Knutzen stated the ordinance in the packet has the past Executive's name and the past Council Chair's name as the ones who agreed to it. Craver stated she explained that was a draft ordinance provided as a placeholder that was given to the Council in early March. That meeting never happened. This was used as a template. She pulled it, but it continued in the Council packet, which it shouldn't be. This draft with the former Executive's name should have been pulled on March 13, because the Council never had that meeting. Mann stated there seems to be a lack of communication between staff and the Planning Commission. He doubts anyone is up to any nefarious activities. He sympathizes with staff who want to move this forward because they're understaffed and can't spend a lot more time on it. It's troubling that they don't have their stories straight. That looks bad. He doesn't understand why it had to be that way. If the Planning Commission agreed on the hard things, and all that's left is to put an entire ordinance together to vote on, then it shouldn't take the Planning Commission much longer. They can do that in one meeting. He gets a call from the Planning Commissioner Chair and other Planning Commissioners have said that they didn't do what staff is saying they did. It's not helpful when they're trying to prove who is right. Crawford stated let the Planning Commission continue to do its work. At the same time, have a phosphorus 101 discussion. Ms. Craver got good feedback today about what the Council wants. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 11 89 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Mann stated give them a timeline. They have a lot of work to be done. Craver stated the Findings of Fact are on the Planning Commission agenda this Thursday. They made the changes to the sections that are new. All they have to do is make the motion to move that forward. According to the Code, the Planning Commission doesn't have to recommend an ordinance. The Planning Commission does have to pass the Findings of Fact. If there needs to be a motion to recommend the entire chapter, it can be done on Thursday. She wants to be clear that the Planning Commission already voted on the sections with the big changes. She's not sure how it would be to send it back and have them open it up again. Brenner stated send it back to the Planning Commission until they're comfortable they've voted it one way or another. She doesn't care how it happened. It won't take a long time for them to do that. Let the Planning Commission schedule what they want to do and how they want to do it. She moved to send the item back to the Planning Commission and give the Planning Commission a deadline of three months. month. Kremen stated that's too long. Brenner stated they can compromise and have it done in two months. Mann, Knutzen, Kershner, and Kremen stated they would support a deadline in one Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to set a deadline of one month. Craver asked if the motion is that the Planning Commission is to make a motion and forward a recommendation on the Findings of Fact to the Council by the Commission's last meeting in May. Brenner stated that's correct. She accepted the friendly amendment and clarified that the deadline would be the last Planning Commission meeting in May. Mann stated it's happened in the past where they can't get enough votes to send something forward. If they can't get five votes, it would still come to the Council. They can send it forward with no recommendation. The Committee concurred. Kershner stated that the Council will receive a complete package with Findings and Conclusions and with no typos. Councilmember Brenner's motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 12 M1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 13 91 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council April 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL (7:01:45 PM) Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:01:31 PM) Kershner announced there was discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amending Whatcom County Code Title 20, creating Chapter 20.51, Lake Whatcom Watershed Overlay District, to address stormwater and land use regulations in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2012-117) during the Special Committee of the Whole meeting this afternoon. The Council voted to send the item to the Planning Commission until the end of May. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REVENUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT FOR 2011, PRESENTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB2012-150) (7:02:37 PM) Jack Hovenier, Behavior Health Advisory Committee Chair, introduced the committee members and County staff. He gave a report on the fund balances, expenses, and revenue for 2011. The committee members reasons for the large fund balance include a desire to establishing a reserve fund for a triage center in a new jail, challenges in getting contracts and service providers, and the changing human landscape based on cuts at the State and federal level. The committee recommends that they set aside $3 million for a triage facility in the new jail and $1.6 million for one-time expenses or capital facilities. Issues in the community include a significant heroin problem, gang problems, and a lack of places for people to live. Local treatment providers are experiencing cutbacks from federal, State, and private insurance sources. He thanked the County Health Department staff, Executive, and County Council for their support. Anne Deacon, Health Department, stated the new jail needs to have a pre -booking diversion option for citizens with significant mental illness and who regularly interface with Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 1 92 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. the criminal justice system so they can be better -served with treatment as opposed to incarceration. That facility doesn't necessarily need to be on the same site as a new jail, but siting the facility will be discussed. She gave a staff report on 2011 achievements. A goal for 2012 is to expand services. Knutzen asked if there is potential to use the one -tenth of one percent sales tax on the project that staff brought forward earlier today. Deacon stated housing must be a component of a treatment program. It can't pay for subsidies. It can pay for capital and operating costs of a housing program that's part of a comprehensive treatment program. 2. BEHAVIORAL REVENUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FIRST QUARTER REPORT FOR 2012, PRESENTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB2012-151) See the above item for the staff report and discussion. 3. JAIL PLANNING TASK FORCE TO PRESENT FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (AB2012-156) (7:12:36 PM) Pete Dworkin, Jail Planning Task Force Chair, thanked the Council and Executive Louws for working together. Every recommendation from the Task Force is unanimous amongst all the members, and every member supports it fully. Lisa McShane, Jail Planning Task Force Member, gave a presentation and stated the new recommendation is the County's need for a new jail and to move forward quickly with building a new jail. Dworkin stated the second recommendation details the components of a new jail, which begin on Council packet page 328. They classified the components into necessary, ancillary, required, or discretionary. McShane stated recommendation three is to retain a professional jail planner, continue the Jail Planning Task Force, and reinstate the Law and Justice Council. This was a unanimous recommendation. The Task Force strongly urges the Council to authorize the search and hire of a jail planner. She read an email from Dave Christensen, who says this is a plan for action now. Recommendation four is about the size of the jail and its level of security. It must be cost-effective. The jail planner will determine the maximum, medium, and minimum jail. Dworkin stated the recommendation of 500-700 beds requires that it be expandable. The fifth recommendation is the site selection criteria. Beginning on Council packet page 354. The Task Force was not in a position to identify specific sites. The decision of whether the jail is downtown or in the county is a political decision for the Council. Long-term operational cost and size are the two most important considerations. In conclusion, the final recommendation is that this needs to happen now. Right now, find and authorize the funds to hire a jail planner. At the same time, work with the Executive to identify preliminary sites with a range of alternatives that fit within the site selection criteria. The jail planner is critical to determine the needs assessment of the County and the bed range. Work also with a citizen committee, jail planner, and Executive Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 2 93 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. to develop a three pre -architectural, pre -construction phases, which are needs assessment, facility master plan, and jail programming. These recommendations are a guide to accomplishing that. Finally, continue to involve the citizens in making these decisions. Kremen thanked everyone on the Task Force for participating. The group was intentionally diverse, so their product includes a lot of consideration and compensation. They've done an excellent job. There is a huge discrepancy between 500 and 700 beds. It seems the Task Force was somewhat torn on what size the jail should be initially. Everyone agrees that the new jail should be able to expand in the future. He hoped to narrow the bed recommendation range. McShane stated the recommendations say, "It is important that the final number of beds planned for construction is not selected arbitrarily, but is instead based on information specific to Whatcom County's needs and budget." That's what the jail planner will do. The Task Force could have come up with a number, but it would have been arbitrary. The County doesn't need that. Kremen asked if the Task Force is hoping that the jail planner will be able to narrow the range. McShane stated the planner will be able to do that. Part of that is figuring the maximum, medium, and minimum. Kremen stated the recommendations are timely and well done. He thanked all the Task Force members. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he also thanks the Task Force. The recommendations are solid, well done, and appropriate. He and the Sheriff have been meeting recently, and were anxiously awaiting the Task Force recommendations. A meeting is scheduled in a couple of weeks, and includes staff from the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and Facilities Management Division. He anticipates coming back to the Council in the next month or so asking for permission to proceed. The community will be a big part of this process. He appreciates the Task Force members being willing to continue working on this issue. MINUTES CONSENT (7:28:55 PM) Knutzen moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 13, 2012 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 13, 2012 3. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 20, 2012 PUBLIC HEARINGS Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, 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 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 10.34, FERRY RATES, AND THE CORRESPONDING WHATCOM COUNTY 2012 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2012-130) (7:29:37 PM) Frank Abart, Public Works Director, gave a staff report and stated this is a recommendation from the Lummi Island Ferry Task Force. He explained the history of the ordinance. The financial impact to revenue is just under $1,000. They can't predict the impact to cash sales, but can guess that the impact will also be around $1,000. A resident child won't pay for ten months out of the year. They pay during July and August, when there will be a ticket for $23, which allows 25 rides. He recommends moving this ordinance forward for approval. Crawford asked if they're proposing a net reduction to fares by eliminating the charge for people between 12 and 19, when they're not in school. Abart stated that's correct. Crawford stated the operation doesn't meet the County's stated fare box collection rate. He's surprised that the one of 50 recommendations coming forward is a fare reduction. Abart stated several things will come forward over the next six or seven months that will make those adjustments. This seemed to be very important to the Task Force. The financial impact isn't significant, and it should reduce some administrative costs of having to sell, report, and track those tickets. =11 Crawford asked if costs will go down by adopting this ordinance. Abart stated they Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Jim Dickinson stated he was a member of the Lummi Island Ferry Task Force. One reason for this ordinance is due to some parents who were sending their kids without money to cross the ferry, and it became almost a point of terror for these children. Also, friends of students wouldn't come to Lummi Island because of the costly ferry fares. Students who come to visit will bring their parents and cars, so it may bring in more money than what is lost. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. (7: 37: 49 PM) Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 2. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2012 THROUGH 2O17 (AB2012-137) (7:38:44 PM) Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 4 95 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated this is three amendments to the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Mann stated the committee reviewed the resolution, which makes minor changes. It's a good thing to do. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) OPEN SESSION (7: 41: 05 PM) The following people spoke: • Bruce Ayers spoke about public safety issues and a jail facility. • Richard Maneval, Law and Justice Council Member, spoke about building a new jail. • Gregory Todd spoke about preventative jail alternative programs. • Dave Grant, Whatcom County District Court, spoke about using economic development investment (EDI) funds for broadband service to the county. • Ray Baribeau, Jail Planning Task Force, spoke about building a new jail, the Law and Justice Council, and jail alternative sentencing programs. • Constantine Papadegas spoke about building a new jail • (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Constantine Papadegas requested that his/her testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available on the meeting's audio recording.) • William Cox submitted information (on file) and spoke about wind turbine ordinance revisions. • Teresa Erickson spoke about building a new jail. • Kevin Minnard, Transition Bikes, spoke about the Lake Whatcom reconveyance. • Dorralee Booth, Jail Planning Task Force, spoke about hiring a jail planner. • Irene Morgan, Whatcom County Re -Entry Coalition, submitted information (on file) and spoke about the Council agenda schedule and a new jail. • Terry Terry spoke about building a new jail. • Joy Guilfillen, Whatcom County Re -Entry Coalition President, spoke about building a new jail. • Eric Brown spoke about the State Department of Natural Resources closure of Slide Mountain. • Nicole Brown spoke about EDI funding for broadband service. • Jim Dickinson spoke about the Gooseberry Point dock. Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 5 96 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. CONSENT AGENDA (8: 30: 37 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BID #12-28 FOR 2012 HOT MIX ASPHALT PRELEVEL AT MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,234,335 (AB2012-142) 2. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP NO. 909011 AND APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LOW BIDDER, TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR SOUTH PASS ROAD STRUCTURAL SLOPE REPAIR, IN THE AMOUNT OF $104,008.20 (AB2012- 143) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT 304, DBA UNITED GENERAL HOSPITAL, TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,207 (AB2012-144) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KITSAP PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,401 (AB2012-145) S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY TO SUPPORT THE NORTHWEST HIDTA BORDER TASK FORCE PROSECUTION INITIATIVE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,073 (AB2012-146) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PND ENGINEERS, INC. FOR DESIGN OF THE GOOSEBERRY POINT FERRY TERMINAL WINGWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 (AB2012-147) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL AGENCY RECIPROCAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR RENTAL OF THE UNDER BRIDGE INSPECTION PLATFORM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,928.54 (AB2012- 148) Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 6 97 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO WORK WITH MOUNTAIN BIKE ADVOCATES AND USERS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN CONTINUED USE OF MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN THE AREA OF THE NORTH FORK OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER (AB2012-139) (8:31:24 PM) Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the resolution with one amendment, "Now Therefore, Be It Resolved ... WithdFaw its deadline dese reconsider the closure of the North Fork...." The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Knutzen stated there were comments during the committee meeting about the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) being unwilling to work with the user groups. Ben Cleveland, DNR, attended the committee meeting and seemed very willing to work out a solution. 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #12-24 FOR ON -CALL CONTRACTOR/EQUIPMENT FOR LABOR AND RENTAL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO ALL BIDDERS, WITH THE INTENT OF OBTAINING FIRM PRICING AND TO ENSURE PREVAILING WAGES ARE PAID ON ALL ON -CALL PROJECTS IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT COULD BE MORE THAN $35,000 FOR A SINGLE VENDOR (AB2012-140) (8:33:55 PM) (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Council and the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors.) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 3. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDI FUNDING (AB2012-141) (8:35:21 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 7 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF JOLIE MATKOWSKI TO THE BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (AB2012-152) (8:36:25 PM) Kremen moved to confirm the appointment. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF CHARLES CANNON TO THE POINT ROBERTS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2012-153) (8:36:52 PM) Brenner moved to postpone the appointment until May 22, 2012. The Point Roberts Voters Association is having a meeting on May 10. She and Councilmember Weimer will attend. There is some concerns about whether or not this committee is efficient and how it can be improved. The applicant seems well -qualified, but prefers to delay until she talks to some of the people. Crawford stated the Voters' Association is not a County group. Arden Landry, Executive's Office, stated Executive Louws is fine with holding the confirmation if the Council has concerns. Kremen stated as a former County Executive, he's sensitive to the appointment process. He's unclear about what the concern is. Brenner stated the All Point Bulletin mentioned a disturbance at the committee meeting. Something is going on, and she'd like to find out more about it. The confirmation isn't time -critical. Crawford stated he can't support the motion. He doesn't understand what going to a meeting of the Voters' Association is going to do about the Executive's appointment to the Advisory Committee. If the group has a problem with how the Advisory Committee is working, it doesn't seem like the problem involves whether or not this person is appointed. Brenner stated it may involve whether or not they want to continue with the Advisory Committee. The motion to hold in Council carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, and Mann (5) Nays: Kershner and Crawford (2) 6. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCIES ON SPECIAL DIKING DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. APPLICANTS: FRED VANDER VEEN FOR CONSOLIDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1 POSITION 1, ROGER BLOK FOR DRAINAGE DISTRICT #3 POSITION 1, LOREN VANDERYACHT FOR DRAINAGE DISTRICT #3 POSITION 2, KEVIN Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 8 •• 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. MADDUX FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #7 POSITION 2, DWAYNE MOLENDYK FOR CONSOLIDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #20 POSITION 1, RALPH VISSER FOR CONSOLIDATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #31 POSITION 2 (AB2012-123) (8:42:18 PM) Kremen moved to appoint all applicants, including the four additional applicants: David L. Burgess for Drainage Improvement District #6 position 1, Frank Moser for Diking District #1 position 3, Mike Schoneveld for Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #1 position 2, and James Bouma for Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #1 position 3. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 7. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. APPLICANT: MARTY KULJIS FOR WASTE RECYCLING INDUSTRY POSITION (AB2012-092A) (8:43:54 PM) Knutzen moved to appoint Marty Kuljis. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 8. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER THAN 500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A CUMULATIVE RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100 KILOWATTS (AB2011-223B) (8:44:24 PM) Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Mann stated he's voted against this every time it's come forward. He will change his vote tonight as the Council verges on agreement on a final ordinance. This is a good continuation. Crawford asked if this applies to all zones except commercial forestry and heavy industry. years. Kershner stated it's the same ordinance they've been approving for almost two The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) INTRODUCTION ITEMS (8:46:33 PM) Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 9 100 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. ORDINANCE REPLACING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.14, IN ITS ENTIRETY, DESIGNATING WHATCOM COUNTY VOTING PRECINCTS (AB2012-154) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SEVENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,471 (AB2012-155) OTHER BUSINESS (8:46:58 PM) Kershner stated the Council created the Jail Planning Task Force because it recognizes that the County needs a jail. She knows how bad the situation is. The Task Force was put together to help the County find a location for the jail. That seemed to be the core of the conflict. She's glad the Task Force has made recommendations. She asked the County administration to come forward with options for moving forward with the jail and hiring a jail planner. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (8:48:55 PM) Kremen reported that Big Brothers, Big Sisters, the Whatcom County Non -Profit of the Year, is having a fund raiser called Bowling for Kids' Sake on April 21. Teams are being formed. If anyone is interested in helping a very worthwhile cause and also having a lot of fun, they can contact the organization and ask for information. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 4/10/2012, Page 10 101 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session April 17, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen and Ken Mann Absent: Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (A1132012-024) 1. LAKE WHATCOM INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, gave introductory remarks about the surface water work session schedule. Laurel Baldwin, Noxious Weed Board Coordinator, submitted and read from a presentation (on file). The following people answered questions: • Teegan Ward, City of Bellingham • Clare Fogelson, City of Bellingham Brenner asked and there was discussion of what the zebra and quagga mussels and asian clams cling to. Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether they are temperature sensitive. Baldwin continued the presentation on defining risk levels. Mann asked and there was discussion of whether it's safe to assume that boats with the mussels have made it to Washington waters. Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether the mussels are alive, dead, and capable of reproducing and how long they can live outside a water body. Brenner asked and there was discussion of the lifespan of the mussels. Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether the boat cleaning program flushes them to the stormwater system and creates problems there. Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2012, Page 1 102 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Baldwin continued the presentation. Kershner asked and there was discussion of the source of information on ecological damages and impacts. Brenner asked and there was discussion about: • Contacting the State, joining with other affected regional inspection station at the borders. • Whether there are treatment options that would from attaching to boats and pipes. Baldwin concluded the presentation. communities, and setting up a prevent the mussels and clams Hutchings stated the program would include the jurisdictions of Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. All three jurisdictions have different roles. Identify the roles that each jurisdiction would take. Regardless, something must happen now. It will take time to develop a more aggressive or mandatory program, which would have to be based on information that doesn't exist today. Today, get the word out to the community about the implications and gather information to make future decisions. Knutzen asked and there was discussion of: • Whether other jurisdictions have back -flushed chemicals to clean out their pipes. • Whether a program would also include Lake Padden and other water bodies in the community. • Whether they should implement a boat certification program county -wide. Focus on Lake Whatcom because that's where the majority of the public infrastructure is and it's also the drinking water source. Crawford stated this is a boater problem, and boaters should bear the cost. He asked and there was discussion of: • What information they're missing to develop a mandatory program. • Whether a local boat sticker is required. • What response of local boater groups has been. Get a program together as soon as possible, including a sticker for fee payers. The Sheriff's Office new boat can monitor for stickers when on the lake. Brenner stated a concern is not making the fee too high, so boaters would just find launch alternatives. She asked and there was discussion of whether the mussels can grow in the Nooksack River. Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. He has concerns with public outreach and information gathering. This problem may require a more rapid response. If there is an outcry from the boating community, the Council must endure it. He asked and there was discussion of how many border crossings between Skagit and Whatcom County exist and could support an inspection station. In summary, first, move quickly. Second, do not be afraid of political blow back. Third, consider inspection stations in those locations. Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2012, Page 2 103 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 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kershner asked and there was discussion of: • Whether it's possible to engage volunteers to do inspections. • Whether they have considered asking the Governor to declare an emergency. • How the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is using its budget. Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether they've engaged the US Coast Guard, Power Squadron, or other entities to coordinate an inspection program. Fogelsong stated they can make use of volunteers once a program is up and running. (Clerk's Note: Due to recorder malfunction, the rest of the meeting was not recorded.) Fogelsong described four components of the things that are happening now. Brenner stated all counties in the state have this problem and can contribute funding to the State for a State program. Mann asked and there was discussion of controls in the eastern part of the County, including the Dam run by Seattle Power and Light. Hutchings stated and there was discussion of coming to a decision about what an appropriate program will look like and how it will be funded. Mann asked and there was discussion of the possibility of creating a second Flood Control Zone District for Lake Whatcom and the people who drink the lake water. 2. LEVEE ELIGIBILITY FOR ACOE PL84-99 PROGRAM Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated this is about the County's ongoing eligibility for PL84-99 program. She described the program. The Army Corps of Engineers inspected levees and found many deficiencies. The County has one year to address the issues, but they won't complete it. She referenced the graph in the work session packet and explained the three options for transitioning levees, including the Corps' system wide improvement framework (SWIF) program. Mann asked and there was discussion of whether the County staff knew or was surprised about the local systems that were kicked out of the program. Cooper gave a presentation (on file) about the existing PL84-99 levee system on the Nooksack River. She is trying to get the subzones onboard with putting their levees into this SWIF program. She asked if the Council is comfortable with the letter she wrote on behalf of Executive Louws to the Army Corps of Engineers dated April 16, 2012 and going forward with the SWIF program. Crawford moved that the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors support the letter and its attachment, and request the Executive send the letter and add a signature line for the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2012, Page 3 104 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 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kershner asked if there is an appeal process for the Corps decisions. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5) Nays: None (0) Absent: Kremen and Weimer (2) Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether the diking districts are opposed to the program. Crawford moved to support moving in the direction of a SWIF program and still allowing flexibility for discussion among the diking districts on which levees will apply. Crawford withdrew his motion because it seems like councilmembers agree to that direction. The Council concurred. Mann stated and there was discussion of how the federal government is within its rights to set standards if they are going to pay 80 percent of the repair costs, but they need to be based on science and what is working in the field. Crawford stated they are asking for a variance process that is more realistic. Councilmembers should look at a website, www.bbmwd.com, which is an example of a jurisdiction that has a great inspection program. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:11 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 4/17/2012, Page 4 105 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 20I-! 1 —5A CLEARANCES, Initial Date in, Council Office Date Receivedv A enda Date Assi ned to: Originator: 4/13/12 R E E F D APR 17 2012 4/24/12 Introductio Division, Head:. .. 5/8/12 Hearing De t. Head:. . TY WHA ou'Y COUNt+IYI� IL Prosecutor: Purchasin Bud et: 4/13/12 Executive: TITLE OF DOCCUMT. Adopt a resolution to sell surplus property ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions & list of property to be declared surplus SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SU MARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (li this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The attached list of equipment has been determined to be surplus and available for disposal by public auction or sealed bid. The Council may find by resolution, following a public hearing that it is in the public interest to sell the property. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 4/24/2012: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 106 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: DATE INTRODUCED: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on, 2012 to discuss the sale of Whatcom County property; and WHEREAS, it was determined to be in the best interest of Whatcom County to sell the property listed in Exhibit "A" and such property shall be sold by public auction or sealed bid after April 2012, subsequent to compliance with the notice requirements of WCC 1.10.200: and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the property listed in Exhibit "A" be sold at public auction or sealed bid after April 2012 pursuant to the notice requirements of WCC 1.10.200: and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that where there is no bid within the advertised terms the County may withdraw the property from sale, or if the County deems such action to be in the public interest, reject any or all bids either written or oral, and thereafter negotiate the sale of the property providing the negotiated price is higher that the highest bid at the public sale and that the public has notice by advertisement, under Section 1.10.200, and an opportunity to compete, through mailed bids, for the purchase by offer of a more favorable price APPROVED this ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk ARPROV AS TO F M: Civil Deputy P cuting Attorney day of 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Council Chair 107 Whatcom County Public Works Equipment Services Division Fund CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SURPLUS REQUEST Revised PUBLIC WORKS - EQUIPMENT SERVICES UNIT YEAR MAKE MODEL DEPT VIN # EST MILES 1 HRS COMMENTS 0038 2006 Perd PBS IFTRX14146FRI8 turned iR 0069 2003 Chevrolet Blazer 4X4 Health 1 GNOT13X53K172273 116,283.0 turned in Meets mileage & age guidelines 9999 2000 Pert# RangeF4X4 f2'1,�9 tamed -Ire 944 2494 ole! B4ze AYA RLDS ;T,92-9-9 6Tad4A 0136 2004 Chevrolet S10 Blazer 4X4 PDS 1 GNDT1 3X34K1 57255 99,068.0 turned in Meets mileage & age guidelines 0279 1987 Kenworth C510 6-Wheel Dump Truck Parks 2NKCL295HM340498 458,862.0 Already Replaced 0510 1987 Bomford Tiger B588 Mower M&O BA3792 N/A Meets age guidelines 0826 1993 Ariens Mower Parks N/A N/A not -repairable 0827 2007 Gravely PRO 21" Mower Parks N/A N/A not -repairable 0864 2001 Ford F250 Extended Cab 2WD Parks 1FTNX201_71EC33045 109,180.0 Alre& Replaced 0988 2004 BMW R1150RT Motorcycle Sheriff WB10499A94ZE91108 34,373.0 Already Replaced 6834 2004 EXMARK Push Mower 21 " Parks 510860 N/A not repairable 8005 1991 Ford E350 Bus Corrections 'I FDKE30GXMHA96991 239,700.0 Already Replaced Meets mileage & age guidelines 8008 1993 Ford E350 Bus Corrections 1 FDKE30G5PHB84769 201,589.0 Already Replaced Meets mileage & age guidelines DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous broken & unusable tools, parts, and supplies Used & unsalvageable bridge decks Miscellaneous unusable inventory items culvert, timbers, etc. Miscellaneous mower items GENERAL FUND --SURPLUS EQUIPMENT UNI T YR MAKE MODEL / DESCRIPTION DEPT PROPERTY TAG # COMMENTS 1 — Vulcan Convection Steamer Oven Jail 10286 does not work 1 — Parking Lot Pay Station Facilities 11106 does not work/unable to obtain parts 3 - IBM Servers IT 11788 16753,16834 do not work 1 - IBM Voicemail Server IT SIN /GB8646VS9P does not work 1 - Reader/Printer-ALOS Rolifilm IT 11020 out dated technology 1 '87 Boston Whaler 22' Boat Sheriff SN/BWC5E555B787 I not seaworthy/cost to repair exceeds value DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous worn or broken office equipment & furniture Miscellaneous worn or broken computer components Capital Equipment Surplus Request— daRuary-20viz revised April2012 FINIL0811/31/2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2011-223A CLEARANCES Initial Dale Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Alex Cleanthous / / / 0/ 411011 n E (C' E j � /J j� D �j'�LJ/ ll �Vf jC 4/24/20I2 Introduction Division Head. - Wain Harrison 51812012 Public Hearing ;,I W � APR 17 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY Dept. Head: Sam Ryan Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham - (i ' 2 COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett Executive: Jack Lows �^ 1' TITLE OFDOC ENT. Wind Energy Systems ATTACHMENTS: (1) Memo (2) Council's Ordinance SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? (X) Yes O NO SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requester! Date: May 8, 2012 SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Amendments to Whatcom County Code 20.14 Wind Energy Systems. The proposal allows for a range of Wind Energy System (WES) sizes with regulations pertaining to setbacks, appearance, sound levels and measurement, abandonment and complaint issues. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 4/24/2012: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. (:\Planning Division\Long Range Planning\PLN-CP-Code Amendments\2010\PLN-2010 Files\PLN2010-00026 - Wind Energy\Council\May 8, 2012\p1n2010-00026-agendabill- 20120410.docx 109 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax Date: April 10, 2012 To: Whatcom County Council Cp I.E. "Sam" Ryan `y ,,.,Pi recto r RECL, D gsHiN�So APR 1 1 2U12 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE From: Wain Harrison, Manager Building Services Division W% Alex Cleanthous, Planner ,+,/(, Through: J.E. "Sam" Ryan, Director �eK Cc: Roxanne Michael, Manager Long Range Planning Division Subject: WCC 20.14, Wind Energy PLN2010-00026 Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Revisions At the March 27, 2012, Special Committee of the Whole meeting, the committee reviewed recommendations regarding wind energy from the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Those recommendations were discussed along with other items of consideration brought forth by members of the committee. The result of the meeting was a number of revisions approved by motion and an ordinance recommendation to be introduced prior to public hearing. The approved revisions are noted in italics within the attached ordinance exhibit, including some revisions for consistency per the committee's request. Staff has included some minor editing of approved revisions for administrative clarity. 110 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WCC TITLE 20.14, WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, Ordinance 2008-043 adopted development regulations for Wind Energy Systems in unincorporated Whatcom County. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council adopted emergency ordinance 2010-015 prohibiting the application for wind energy systems greater than 500 kw and the application for multiple wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output greater than 100 kw. WHEREAS, Ordinance 2010-018 established a moratorium on wind energy systems greater than 500 kw and the application for multiple wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output greater than 100 kw. WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services notified the Department of Commerce of proposed amendments to WCC 20.14 on Nov 3, 2010. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County SEPA official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on April 13, 2011. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 26, 2011 and voted 6-1 for a recommendation of approval for the proposed amendments to WCC 20.14, Wind Energy Systems. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held work session on the proposal as listed in the findings. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held a public hearing on May 8, 2012. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The Whatcom County Council in response to the moratorium organized a Wind Energy Work Group. The work group was comprised of citizens, renewable energy professionals, Whatcom County staff and elected officials. 2. The Wind Energy Work Group met twice, May 4 and 14, 2010. 3. The Wind Energy Work Group discussed issues such as setbacks, noise, shadow flicker and siting of windmills near residential development. 4. The results of the Wind Energy Work Group were two proposed ordinances, one from Councilmember Brenner and one from Council member Mann. The Whatcom County Council was unable to reach consensus on an ordinance and requested the Whatcom Planning Commission to review the proposals and make a recommendation. 5. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held work sessions on and a public hearing on the results of the Wind Energy Work group on November 18, 2010, and December 9, 2010 respectively. 111 6. At the December 9, 2010 hearing the Planning Commission was unable to find consensus between Councilmember Brenner and Mann's proposals. The Planning Commission requested that staff begin to re-evaluate the current ordinance and make improvements based on concerns raised by the public and discussion at the Planning Commission work session and public hearing. 7. Planning staff held two more work sessions on updating WCC 20.14. Those work sessions were held on January 13 and March 24, 2011. 8. Citizens and Planning Commissioners identified the following as issues to be addressed during the work sessions; permitting and zoning, setback requirements, pre and post monitoring of sound, height limitations, blade throw, shadow flicker, animal habitat impacts, and decommissioning. 9. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held public hearings on proposed changes to WCC 20.14 on April 28 and May 26, 2011. 10. A legal notice for the May 26, 2011 Whatcom County Planning Commission public hearing was publishing on May 15, 2011 11. The Whatcom County Planning Commission at the May 26, 2011 public hearing voted 6-1 to recommend approval to the Whatcom County Council on amendments to Whatcom County Code 20.14. 12.The Whatcom County Council has held work session on the proposed ordinance to amend WCC 20.14 Wind Energy Systems on July 12 & 26, 2011, September 27, 2011, October 25, 2011, and December 6, 2011. 13. At the work sessions issues such as, permits, zoning, setback requirement, sound level measurement, height limitations, general safety, blade tip height requirements, ice throw, blade throw, flicker analysis, establishing a complaint process, and abandonment of the systems were discussed. 14. A public hearing was held at the Council Meeting, 1/24/2012, followed by a work session, whereupon the Council approved several amendments to the proposed ordinance, but agreed to leave the record open to consider comments from the Agricultural Advisory Committee. 15. A special meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) was held on 2/28/2012, where recommendations were discussed regarding setback requirements, underground electrical installation, and foundation abandonment options. These recommendations were finalized for submission to Council at the regular AAC meeting, 3/8/2012, including an expressed concern regarding stray voltage. 16. The AAC recommendations and concerns were presented by staff to the Council Committee of the Whole during a special work session. Expert testimony was provided regarding stray voltage. The committee discussed and approved additional amendments to the proposed ordinance, including consistency changes, setbacks, exclusion zones for large wind energy systems, underground electrical, and foundation abandonment options. The committee approved the amended ordinance for introduction to be followed by a public hearing before the Whatcom County Council. 112 CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal�equirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section I. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) is hereby amended as outlined in Exhibit A to this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk PPP ED as toform: Civil Deputy Prosecutor 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Council Chairperson ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: 113 Chapter 20.14 Wind Energy Systems Sections 20.14.010 Purpose 20.14.020 Definitions 20.14.030 Applicability 20.14.040 Regulatory Framework 20.14.050 General Requirements 20.14.060 Sound Levels and Measurement 20.14.070 Safety 20.14.080 Sound measurement protocol for assessment of proposed and existing wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output over 100 kW 20.14.090 Complaint Process 20.14.100 Abandonment, insurance, and decommissioning for WES 20.14.110 Federal, State and Local Requirements 20.14.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Ordinance is to facilitate the installation and construction of wind energy systems in Whatcom CouM for private landowners, subject to reasonable restrictions. 20.14.020 DEFINITIONS As used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: County shall mean Whatcom CoupV government. 1. County shall mean the Whatcom County government. 2. Decibel — A unit of measure of sound pressure. 3. dB(A) — A -weighted sound pressure scale. 4. dB(C) — C-weighted sound pressure scale. 5. FAA shall mean the Federal Aviation Administration. 6. Flicker or Shadow Flicker — The moving shadow cast by the rotating blades of a WES, or any intermittent, repetitive, or rhythmic lighting effect that is a direct result of rotating WES blades. 7. Flicker Analysis — A study showing the duration and location of flicker potential. 8. Hub Height — The distance from the ground to the center axis if the rotor. 114 9. Qualified Independent Acoustical Consultant —A private, third -party individual with full membership in the Institute of Noise Control Engineers INCE), or other demonstrated acoustical engineering certification. 10. MET Tower or "Meteorological tower" - a structure designed to support the gathering of wind energy resource data , and includes the tower, base plate, anchors, guy cables and hardware, anemometers (wind speed indicators), wind direction vanes, booms to hold equipment anemometers and vanes, data logger, instrument wiring, and any telemetry devices that are used to monitor or transmit wind speed and wind flow characteristics over a period of time for either instantaneous wind information or to characterize the wind resource at a given location. 11. Rotor — A system of airfoils, usually but not limited to a blade with a flat or curved surface, designed to provide a desired reaction force relative to the movement of the surrounding air. The rotor is connected to a hub that rotates around an axis. 12. Small Wind Energy System (SWES) - A wind energy conversion system, with a rated output up to and including 50 kW, consisting of. wind turbine, tower, base and associated control or conversion electronics, as well as all anchors, guy cables and hardware. 13. Total Height — The distance measured from the rgrade plane (WCC 20.97.162) to the tip of the SWES/WES rotor blade extended to its highest point. The support tower structure may be freestanding, guyed, or a monopole. 14. Tower Height - The distance measured from the grade plane (WCC 20.97.162) to the hub height of the wind turbine. This structure may be freestanding, guyed, or a monopole. 15. Upwind Turbine Design — A WES that has rotors and towers aligned such that the wind encounters the rotors before the tower. The tower will always be downwind of the rotors. 16. Wind Turbine - The parts of the wind system including the blades, generator and tail. 17. Wind EnergSystem (WES) - A general reference for a wind energy conversion system, consisting of. wind turbine, tower, base and associated control or conversion electronics, as well as all anchors, guy cables and hardware. For purposes of this ordinance, WES also represents systems with a rated output greater than 50 kW. 20.14.030 APPLICABILITY 1. The reauirements set forth in this Ordinance shall izovern the sitinLy of wind ener systems used to generate mechanical or electrical energy to perform work, and which may be connected to the utility grid pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 80.60, Net Metering of Electricity, and serve as an independent source of energy, or serve as part of a hybrid system. 2. The requirements of this Ordinance shall apply to all Small Wind Energy Systems (SWES) and Wind Energy Systems (WES)proposed after the effective date of this Ordinance. Any SWES/WES for which a required permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be required to meet the requirements of this Ordinance; provided, however, that an.. s�pre-existing SWES/WES that is not producing energy for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance prior to recommencing production of energy. No 115 modification that increases the height of the system or significantly increases its output shall be allowed without full compliance with this Ordinance. 20.14.040 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .041 PERMITS AND ZONING System Type Re uired Permit Zones MET Tower. Outright permitted All — for up to 24 months One SWES. Outright permitted All WES with a rated output greater than 50 kW up to and Administrative permit AG, CF, HII including 500 kW. Multiple SWES per parcel Administrative permit AG, CF, RF, HII, LII with a cumulative rated output Lip to and including 50 kW. WES with a rated output greater than 500 kW, Conditional Use permit AG, CF, HII Multiple WES per parcel with Conditional Use permit AG, CF, HII a cumulative rated output greater than 50 M. Single or multiple WES with a Not permitted Within the boundaries of rated output greater than 50 the Lake Whatcom Watershed that are recognized and approved by kW Whatcom County. 1 — SWES, WES and MET towers are required to be in compliance with but not limited to Whatcom County Code, Title15, Buildings and Construction, and acquire the necess bar ui�gpermits. 2 — Administrative Permit WCC 20.84.235 3 - Conditional Use Permit WCC 20.84.200 .042 PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY USE 1. A SWES/WES may be considered either as a nrincinal or accessory use. A different existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of a SWES/WES or a part of such facility on such lot. Any SWES/WES that is constructed and installed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. 20.14.050 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SWES AND WES .051 VISUAL APPEARANCE; LIGHTING, POWER LINES 1) Wind Turbines shall be painted a non -reflective, non -obtrusive color such as the manufacturer's default color option or a color that conforms to the environment and architecture of the community, unless FAA standards require otherwise. The zoning administrator mU 116 require a photo of a SWES/WES, of the same model as that proposed in the landowner's application, adjacent to a building or some other object illustratingscale cale (e.g., manufacturer's photo). 2) At SWES/WES sites, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent reasonably possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscapinia that will blend the SWES/WES to the natural setting and the existing environment. 3) No SWES/WES shall be artificialllighted, except to the extent required by the FAA or other applicable authority. 4) No SWES/WES shall be used for displaying any advertising_ except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the wind turbine. 5) Electrical controls, control wiring and power lines shall be wireless or underground, except where SWES/WES wiring is brought together for connection to the transmission or distribution network adjacent to that network, and except that in the Agricultural Zone the minimum installation depth for electrical controls, control wiring and power lines is 48 (forty- eight) inches below finish grade. 6) The road access to the proposed site must be rated to carry an axle load sufficient to bear the weight of all materials, vehicles, and equipment delivered to the site. 7) The compatibility of the foundation, tower, and generating unit (including rotor and rotor - related equipment) shall be certified in writing by a professional engineer licensed in Washington State. The engineer shall certify compliance with established engineering practices and compliance with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. For all SWES/WES, the manufacturer's engineer or another qualified engineer shall certify that the turbine, foundation and tower design of the SWES/WES are compatible and within accepted professional standards, given local design criteria per Whatcom County Code, Chapter 15. 8) The electrical system design shall be certified in writing by an electrical engineer licensed in Washington State unless waived by the Building Official. All SWES/WES electrical systems shall comply with requirements per the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and the current adopted edition of the National Electrical Code when and where applicable. 9) All SWES/WES shall meet requirements per the applicable sections of WCC 20.80.634, 20.80.635, and 20.80.636 for erosion control and stormwater management. 10) Violation of any part of this chapter of the code (WCC 20.14) shall be subject to the provisions of WCC 15.04.050. .052 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The following setback requirements shall apply to all SWES/WES and MET Towers. All setbacks are measured from the property lines of the property on which the project is located: 1) Setbacks table System Size Setback Requirement Up to and including50 kW 1.2 times total height, to a maximum of total height plus 20 feet' Greater than 50 kW 2,000 feet from a property line, unless the neighboring 117 property is a CF, AG, or HII zone, in which case the setback is 1.2 times the total height from the property lines Footnote 1. A reduction in setbacks may be approved if appropriate easements from neighboring propeiiy owners or appropriate mitigation acceptable to neighboring property owners are approved by the Zoning Administrator or Hearing Examiner and recorded against the applicable deed(s). 2) Communication and electrical lines: Each SWES/WES shall be set back from the nearest above -ground public or private non -participating utility a distance no less than 1.2 times its Tower Height, up to a maximum of Tower Height plus 20 feet, determined from the existing power line or telephone line. 3) Setbacks shall be measured to the outer edge of the base of the SWES/WES structure towers. Guy cables and other accessory support structures may be located within setback areas. 4) Setback to other WES: A WES may not be placed such that it substantially disturbs the wind flow into another WES. A new WES may not be placed such that another non -participating WES falls within an egg shaped exclusion zone around the new WES defined by an axis along the rp imM wind direction. In the upwind direction the exclusion zone shall have a semi -circular shape with a radius three times the rotor diameter of the new WES. In the downwind direction the exclusion zone shall have a semi -elliptical shape extending eight times the rotor diameter of the new WES along the axis downwind and extending three times the rotor diameter of the new WES in a direction perpendicular to the axis. In this way the new WES will be at least three of its rotor diameters behind, three to the side of, and eight in front of a pre-existing WES. .053 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1) The total height of a WES shall not exceed 500 feet. MET Towers cannot exceed a maximum height of 100 feet except in the Agricultural, Rural Forestry and Commercial Forestry zones. 2) SWES with a total height taller than 100 feet must obtain an Administrative Permit, except within the AG, CF and HII zones. a). All SWES with a total height greater than 100 feet must provide in writing that the height requested is the minimum height necessary for the SWES to operate efficiently, and provide approved justification for the proposed height and anal according to recognized industry standards.. 20.14.060 SOUND LEVELS AND MEASUREMENT .061 SWES Sound levels, performance, and measurement standards 1. Audible sound is not to exceed 20 dB(a) above ambient background noise or 45 dB(a whichever is greater, at any point beyond the project property line. Detectable infrasound or C- weighted sound pressure is not to exceed 20 dB(c) above ambient background noise or a maximum of 45 dB(c), whichever is greater, except that there is no infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure requirements at property lines adjacent to CF and HII zones. 118 .062 WES with a cumulative output 51 kW or greater sound level, performance, and measurement standards 1. Audible sound is to not exceed 10 dB(a) above ambient background noise or 45 dB(a), whichever is greater, at any point beyond the project property line. Detectable infrasound or C- weighted sound pressure is not to exceed 20 dB(c) above ambient background noise or a maximum of 45 dB(c), whichever is greater, except that there is not infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure requirements at property lines adjacent to CF and HII zones. .063 Upwind design shall be used on all WES 51 kW or greater, unless it can be demonstrated that no detectable infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure is generated above 20 dB(c) and A -weighted hg ted sound pressure standard can be met, as required per 20.14.061 and 20.14.062. 20.14.070 SAFETY .071 General Provisions for SWES/WES 1. Wind Turbine towers shall not provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible to the public and shall be a minimum height of 10 feet above ground level. 2. All electrical equipment shall be safely and appropriately enclosed from unintentional access by means such as barrier fencing, equipment cabinetry or similar. All access doors to Wind Turbine towers and electrical equipment shall remain locked except when access is necessary. 3. Appropriate warning sing_ age (e.g., electrical hazards) shall be placed on Wind Turbine towers, electrical equipment, and SWES/WES. 4. Any SWES/WES found to be unsafe by the building official shall be repaired by the landowner and/or project owner to meet federal, state and local safety standards, according to the regulatory authority of the Building Official and applicable provisions per WCC Chapter 15. .072 Blade Tip Height 1. The blade tip of any SWES with a cumulative rated output up to and including50 kW shall, at its lowest point, have ground clearance of no less than twenty (20) feet, as measured at the lowest point of the arc of the blades. 2. WES with a cumulative rated output of 51 kW or greater shall, at its lowest point, have ground clearance of no less than thirty (30) feet, as measured at the lowest point of the arc of the blades. .073 Over -speed Controls All SWES/WES shall be equipped with over -speed controls to limit rotation of blades to speed below the designed limits of the system. No changes or alterations from the certified design shall be permitted unless accompanied by a licensed professional engineer's statement of certification .074 Iee Throw for WES 1. Prior to permit approval provide a report from a Washington professional engineer that: calculates the maximum distance that ice from the turbine blades could be thrown (the basis 119 of the calculation and all assumptions must be disclosed); and b) the incidence of reported ice throws and the conditions reported at the time of the ice throw. .075 Blade Throw Calculations for WES 1.Prior to permit approval provide a report from a Washington professional engineer that: a) calculates the maximum distance that pieces of the turbine blades could be thrown (the basis of the calculation and all assumptions must be disclosed). .076 Flicker Analysis for WES 1. A flicker analysis is required for all WES. The analysis shall include the duration and location of flicker potential for all buildings and for roadways within a one (1) mile radius of each turbine within a project. The applicant shall provide a site map identifying the locations of shadow flicker that may be caused by the project and the expected durations of the flicker at these locations from sun -rise to sun -set over the course of a year. The analysis shall account for topography but not for obstacles such as accessory structures and trees. Flicker at any building shall not exceed thirty (30) hours per year within the analysis area. Flicker in excess of the limits established in this ordinance shall be grounds for the County or his/her designee to order operational adjustments, which may include mitigation measures requiring cessation of operation during periods when flicker effects any building, for all non compliant WES. .077 Wildlife Protection for WES Prior to permit approval provide documentation from a qualified professional wildlife biologist (WCC Section 16.16, Article 8, Definitions) verifying the following: Endangered or Threatened Species: Development and operation of a WES shall not have a significant adverse impact on endangered or threatened fish, wildlife, plant species, their critical habitats, or other significant habitats identified in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and/or other current studies or plans relevant to the region recognized by the County. Migratory Birds: The project development and/or operation plan shall be designed to prevent WES from having a significant adverse impact on migratory bird species. 20.14.080 Sound modeling and measurements. .081 Sound Modeling As part of the conditional use permit process, all WES proponents shall provide a report by a qualified independent acoustical consultant approved by Whatcom County PDS and in accordance with standard industry best practices, that models the sound transmission of the proposed WES at the 120 project property lines and indicates that the WES, when operated properly, will conform to the sound performance requirements of this ordinance. .082 Sound Measurement Within 12 (twelve) months of a WES project becoming operational, WES project owners shall provide a report by a qualified independent acoustical consultant approved by Whatcom County PDS and in accordance with standard industry best practice, that measures the sound transmission of the WES installation and verifies that the WES is adhering to the sound level measurements of this ordinance and its permits. Post -construction sound level measurements shall be taken with all WES running. If ambient background sounds are significant to determining compliance, then, at the discretion of the consultant, a second round of measurements may be taken with the WES turned off. The project owner is responsible for funding this stud 20.14.090 Complaint process: If two or more complaints from different households are received with 2 weeks of each other, and documented at a particular site, a sound measurement will be conducted within 10 business days by a qualified consultant approved by Whatcom County. The costs of the measurements shall be the responsibility of the WES owner/operator. The operator shall reimburse the County for the expense within ten (10) days of billing_ Measurements shall be conducted where the complaints were documented. If an evaluation shows that the WES is operating outside of its permitted sound performance standards, the operator will have 30 daysjust its systems or terminate operations. To avoid frivolous complaints, any households that registers a complaint against a WES that is proven to be in compliance shall be responsible for the costs of any future complaints originating from the same households for two years unless the WES project has expanded and/or proven to be in violation of the sound performance standards. At the discretion of Whatcom County PDS, if it appears residents are abusing the complaint process, complaints may be compiled for three (3) months at a time and then a sound study conducted at all of the locations. No WES project shall be required to conduct more than two (2) sound measurements at any one adjacent properly per year unless the WES project has expanded and/or proven to be in violation of the sound performance standards. Complaints from properties located farther than 1 mile from a WES project do not trigger complaint process. 20.14.100 Abandonment, insurance, and decommissioning for WES .101 Abandonment: Absent notice of a proposed date of decommissioning WES project shall be considered abandoned when the project fails to operate for more than one year without the written approval of the Director or designee. The Director or designee shall determine in its decision what proportion of the project is inoperable for the project to be considered abandoned and shall notify the property owner. Within one hundred and twenty 020) days of receipt of Notice of Abandonment or within one hundred and twenty 0 20) days of providing Notice of Termination 121 of Operations to the County, the owner of a wind energy system must comply with the removal requirements in Section 20.14.102 below. If the property owner/project owner fails to remove the WES in accordance with the requirements of this section within one hundred and twenty (120) days of Notice of Abandonment, the County shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove the WES. Financial Surety funds shall be used to pay for removal and restoration. .102 Removal requirements: When the WES is scheduled to be decommissioned. the nroiect owner/nronertv owner shall notify the County by certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of receipt of Notice of Abandonment or within one hundred and twenty (120) days of providing Notice of Termination of Operations, the owner of a wind energy ystem must: 1) Remove all wind turbines, above -ground and below -ground improvements, and outdoor storage. In the AG, HII, and CF zones, property owners may choose to leave SWES/WES foundations in place and intact, partially or in whole, for approved, permitted reuse, except that in the AG zone foundations left in place must be located such that the distance between SWES/WES foundations and foundations of existing buildings shall not exceed 50 (fifty)feet. 2) Remove all hazardous material from the property and dispose of the hazardous material in accordance with federal, state and local law. 3) In addition to removing the wind turbine generator, the owner shall restore the site by planting native or other approved vegetation to minimize erosion. .103 Insurance: Proof of continuous liability insurance shall be submitted to Whatcom County indicating coverage for potential damages or injury to landowners, occupants, or other third parties. For WES with a rated output of 51 kW or greater the required insurance is two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Whatcom County shall be named on the liability policy as additional insured. The insurance carrier shall be instructed to notify all applicable governmental authorities of any delinquency in payment of premiums. The liability policy shall be endorsed to notify the County of any cancellation thirty (30) days in advance. Failure to provide such insurances shall be considered abandonment and full and sufficient grounds for termination of the permit and disposal of the equipment and appurtenances as stated herein. .104 Financial surety: As a condition of WES permit approval, the applicant shall be required to provide a form of surety (i.e., post a bond, or establish an escrow account or other means) at the amount of 150% of the estimated full cost of project decommissioning less the approved, documented salvage value of any applicable project materials and equipment, naming Whatcom County as the beneficiary, with fifty percent (50%) due prior to final project approval, twen , -five percent (25%) due within twelve (12) months of the date of final project approval, and twenty-five percent (25%) due within twenty-four (24) months of the date of final project approval, to cover costs of WES removal in the event the County must remove the facility. Nothing may prevent the County from seeking reimbursement from the WES project owner. The project owner is responsible to the County for any costs related to decommissioning that exceed the amount of financial surety. 122 As part of the Decommissioning Plan, the Applicant shall submit a fully inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal, accounting for reasonable salvage value of any applicable project materials and equipment, prepared by a qualified professional. The decommissioning plan shall provide that the decommissioning funds shall be reevaluated every five years from the date of substantial completion of the WES to ensure sufficient funds for decommissioningand, nd, upon mutual agreement by the Applicant and the County at that time, the amount of decommissioning funds shall be adjusted accordingly. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide the County with a copy of the Financial Surety device or another approved mechanism. .105 Decommissioning plan: - As part of the permit approval process, a decommissioning121an shall outline the anticipated means and cost of removing WES at the end of their serviceable life or upon becoming a discontinued use. The cost estimates shall be made by a competent party; such as a Professional Engineer, a licensed contractor capable of decommissioning or a person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity with suitable expertise or experience with decommissioning, as determined by the Building Official or designee. The plan shall also identify Financial Surety to pay for the decommissioning and removal of the WES and accessory facilities. The plan shall also address road maintenance during and after the decommissioning. 20.14.110 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS 1) SWES/WES shall comply with all current adopted Whatcom County Codes & Ordinances, including but not limited to Whatcom County Code, Title 15, Title 16, and Title 23. 2) SWES/WES must comply with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with requirements within WCC 20.80.675 "Height Limitations Surrounding Airports". a) If necessary an applicant may be required to, submit the following information for analysis of airspace obstructions in relation to WCC 20.80.675: Mean Sea Level (MSL) of adjacent airports, (MSL) of proposed site, Euclidean distance from adjacent airports to proposed site, total elevation of (WES) and structure. 3) All SWES/WES electrical systems shall comply with requirements per the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries and the current adopted edition of the National Electrical Code(NEC) when and where applicable. 4) All SWES/WES with the intention to tie to their respective utility provider's grid system, shall meet the requirements of Chapter 80.60 of the Revised Code of Washington, Net Metering of Electricity. 10 123 11 124 MIN - i - - __ a 10, E Mviv _ sTa a Outright n mup- r All _ fo� �n +n 7A �--av-zT months Outright } I All Ardminic}ro+ivo n mi+� Rural AG, CF RF 44 12 125 i WES and MET towers are required to be an GGFnplianGe with but not limited to WGG Title -!�, BuildiRgs and 2 AdministFative pefrn+t, In�C=.R4.2345-. 13 126 14 127 •m Mr. WPM Iv R HE 15 128 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012 44 A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: County Cou 3/6/2012 3/27/2012 County Council Division Head: 4 / 24 / 2012 Introduction Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Appointment of Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee members ATTACHMENTS: Committee member applications SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action) The advisory committee has 7 vacant positions. Either 4 or 5 appointees must be Island property owners. Either 2 or 3 appointees must be County residents not living on or owning property on the Island. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 3/27/2012: Pulled from agenda 4/24/2012: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatconLwa.uslcouncil. 129 CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C. COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360)676-6690 (360) 738-4555 TTY WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL COUNCIL -APPOINTED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VACANCIES COUNCILMEMBERS Barbara E. Brenner Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner Bill Knutzen Pete Kremen Ken Mann Carl Weimer The Whatcom County Council makes appointments. All members must be registered voters, residents of Whatcom County and, if applicable, reside in the area they represent. Applications are available in the Council Office, Whatcom County Courthouse, 311 Grand Ave., Ste. 105, Bellingham, on the County website (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/boards/boardsapplication.pdf), or phone 360-676- 6690. For more information on a board or committee, call the Council office at 676-6690, unless otherwise noted. The County Council will make appointments at a regular County Council meeting in the County Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham. LUMMI ISLAND FERRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7 Vacancies, at least 4 and no more than 5 appointees must be Lummi Island residents or property owners. Purpose: The Committee provides review and recommendations to the Whatcom County Council and Executive on issues that affect the ongoing operations and infrastructure of ferry service to Lummi Island. The committee also provides a forum for those who depend upon Lummi Island ferry service to voice their ideas and concerns about the ferry service. Duties: To advise the County Council or the Executive on the following functions: A. Review and provide recommendations on proposed changes to ferry operations and fares; and B. Review at least annually ferry revenue and expenditures, ferry fund balance, and actual versus targeted fare return, and C. Assist the County in collecting information from ferry riders on actual and desired ferry services, concerns, and ideas for improved service; and D. Analyze and develop recommendations to continue and improve the cost effective operation of ferry service to Lummi Island; and E. Research, review, and make recommendations regarding ferry replacement, long-term planning, parking, transportation to and from ferry docks, alternative docking locations, alternative funding sources, and other major capital and operational issues regarding ferry service to Lummi Island. Term of office is 3 years (Initial staggered terms: three initial positions will have two-year terms). Meets at least quarterly. Applicants, Resident/Property Owners of Lummi Island (choose 4 or 5) • Stu Clark • Charles Baker • Mark Richardson • Charles Antholt • Robert T. Busch • Michael Skenan • Jim Dickinson • Shirley Zuanich • Mike McKenzie Applicants, Non-Resident/Non-Property Owners of Lummi Island who live in Whatcom County (choose 2 or 3) • Joshua Zender • Crispin H. Colburn • Greg Brown 130 1,'`FK MIMS County Executive ¢4c.cm eon mc) E C E V"ILMEMBERS.✓ ra I:. Brenner FEB 2 4 2012 d al li Crawford Kathy Kershner Bill Knuizen WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL. n PeKenrMann Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 1 Name of board or committee -please see reverse: Lummi Island Ferry A&isory Committee You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. Lummi Island resident Do you meet the residency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancylist for requirements.) (3) yes ( ) no Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One ( ) Two (,V Three Are you a US citizen? (W yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? (M yes ( ) no Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? { ) yes (M no If yes, dates: Name: Stirrat (Stu) H. Clark Date: 15 Feb 2012 Street Address: 1564 Seacrest Dive City: Lummi Island Mailing Address (if different from street address): same Day Telephone: 425-231-3413 E-mail address: stuclarkgstuclark.com Zip Code: 98262-8691 Evening Telephone: 425-231-3413 Cell Number: 425-231-3413 Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): eager - Management Information Systems Develop. Professional/Community Activities: please see attached resume summary Education: B.A_ - Math major, Physics minor M.B.A. - Finance major; Marketing minor Qualifications related to position: extensive research and analysis activities_ experienced. communicator, active in community actK-Mes. leadership positions in municipal government Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: eager to continue the collection and analysis of ferry operational data and to explore available options for continuing and improving ferry operations Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes (} no If yes, please explain: References (please include daytime telephone number): Clf£Frydeuberg 360-734-0719 Mike McKenzie 360-758-4145 Signature of applicant: Rand), Smith 3§0-758-2130 Bill Lee 360-778-0271 As a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 131 Stirrat (Stu) H. Clark 425-231-3413 1564 Seacrest Drive Lummi Island, WA 98262-8691 stuclark@.stuclark.com Retirement Activities: Seward City Councilrnember 1996-1998,1999-2003 Vice -Mayor 1999-20W,2002-2003 Mayor 2003 Seward Chamber of Commerce 1992-2005 President 1999-2000 Vice -President 1998-1999 Treasurer 1995-1997 Seward Planning & Zoning Commissioner 1995-1996 Seward Community Library Treasurer 1992-1996 California State Park Volunteer Ranger 1990-1992 US Forest Service Volunteer Ranger 1988-1991 US National Park Volunteer 1986-1987 Occupational Activities: Sanders Assoc. Eng'g & Finance Mgmt, 1968-1983 Mgr. Corp. MIS Development 1975-1983 Mgr. Data Sys. Div. Financial Forecasting 1970-1975 Senior Corp. Financial Analyst 1968-1970 Edgerstoune, Inc. Owner (Bldg. Dsn. & Constn.) 1965-1968 RCA Aerospace Systems Division Program Mgmt. 1961-1965 Sylvania Data Systems Operations Project Mgmt_ 1959-1961 Laboratory for Electronics Repair Depot Mgr. 1957-1959 Rust Industrial Co. Inc. Controller & Proj_ Engr. 1956-1957 Brook & Bridle Inn Assistant Manager (summer) 1954-1956 Franklin Inst. Labs. Computer Engineer 1953-1954 U. S. Army Transportation Corps Personnel Officer 1951-1953 Amherst College Physics Lab. Research Assistant 1949-1951 Education: M. B. A., Harvard University 1954-1956 Candidate for M-S. in Physics 1950-1951 B.A., Amherst College, cum laude in Math. 1946-1950 132 JACK LOUWS COUNCILMEMBERS: County Executive arbara E. Brenner c o` a � E C E v E D' Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner FEB 2 7 2012 Bill Knutzen Pete Kremen 9ShrNGKen Mann 'to WHAT''C((��OM COUNTY Carl Weimer BU`�' APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY R AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. 9P0y Y'a 0A('C_ AV-2/,- kefiY'2s0_,q ►V2 3. Do you meet the residency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancy list for requirements.) (e�-yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One ( ) Two (! hree 5. Are you a US citizen? (Z�Kye s ( ) no 4. Are you a registered voter? ( ) yes ( ) no 6. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? ( ) yes If yes, dates: Name: G k d-r12S /,/, Ai rA a 1T Date: CR 020 �011 Street Address: o, R 6S 7tj 7 [—(2 I CA n 2 City: AL),-n Pr7 it X S lG- n Zip Code: l e6� G v, Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: A'D ' L,'So — % d G S Evening Telephone: E-mail address: rAr h< . a,vc-the 7T� o, ego Cell Number: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): �2e7L)Ver a �-M e Y2 Ti�t�2G''/�� Professional/Community Activities: a a k COn Jn es, 7 DYy 9 Education: /%%_5"- ovklgl(, 3MA7- Qualifications related to position: 4b s e- r Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: 7XI2 Yr irS I-T, S 7. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes (y-nv If yes, please explain: //� References (please include daytime telephone number): '(�%/Y �i �"5 114YTAeAy g Aso — �,-,9 Z & tv% _�-Z �,zr -31 Signature of applicant: 0- 10 /. _'2 -, As a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 133 JACK LOUWS Low U ll cn E C E g �U Ira E. BrenLMEMBERS: County Executive p'� lr B r ner Sam Crawford FEB 2 Kathy Kershner 8 2012 Bill Knutzen �+ Pete Kremen t0 WHATCOM COUNTY Ken Mann COUNCIL Carl APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name of board or committee -please see reverse: You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. Do you meet the residency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancy list for requirements.) (Al"y-es ( ) no Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One ( ) Two (Aj-fhree Are you a US citizen? ( j es ( ) no Are you a registered voter? ( 'yes ( ) no Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? (dyes () no If yes, dates: 18�/�0 [ i Name: V 4h, ,Of kt bj Ick! k, Son Date: 3 An ! 2 Street Address: 2 0 q't lyeV' 9A6Ne bnl v 2 City: �. rr re 1�S��i�t d Zip Code: gk2 Mailing'Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: 3 0- 2Cf6°- 3q �4b Evening Telephone: 7 SS` f 0/ E-mail address: Q U d 1 d/4C (I � 146 A`A l - CDC Cell Number: 360 -Z4G -3q �6 Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): udio 6� in eeh (''e-SI' jek r L.L[cp, yi,,,k 1 _5'.e Professional/Community Activities: L lti hgood 04 aNe A91,-_0n.rCt1 l4 sCoe., A-e(j /jAI %k,i�! Cokp4b 414C6 C� [ full Ot�� - + t G i ..� ,Alcw7ep, .(,:o,jK.J wlewllwnoX y1�"n"i /yf k /G-ce. Education: F fj7uHi,� 4 a 77fy rl,,c/ TecAnofo�'�i Qualifications related to position "1. 7 Fo�'IyIPlN /L1Ps26Ph 6l ���i ��f`C ���'e i vl Y/GIyS %+/O'/�k4 L/ TOJO5 l eu.10— /a ka i sP A0/ eA - .0 ((3N/rA 14S�o c, �r/ ' Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: 7A ,� eiaye ci � BKT�,bu%/4, I ���ul�e T/�t��[/y Ll CL gea/ e ef%cPh7 Z" Z Do you,or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes (ono If yes, please explain: References (please include daytime telephone number): CH H ral- Vultc4 (a/f 75f'- 2/ � l Signature of applicant: 1. /Mc, ro— 1A0A TV,,/If Sala MOP" or agency Ah . As a candidate for a p is board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, d the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 134 MAR-12-2012 09:16 AM SOLAS 360 758 4259 P.01 JACKLOUWS u u E C 1 v E County Executive MAR 12 2012 WHATCOM COUNT COUNCIL QUNCII.MEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Siam Crawford Kathy Kershner BIII Knutzen Y Pate Kremen Ken Mann Cad Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: , k i l m m" is. FeW11114 n L60 ty C41tnd7r Z. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. A n,i,S'rjnew ('/).,.VA,77f8 (1_iknnn.i 1Sj0.hc( y-es�ct4e^ Ahljt arapex'�q oldhe.j 3. Do you meet the r-esidency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancy list for requirements.) 1>4 yes () no 4, Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One r14 Two ( ) Three 5. Are you a US citizen? `A yes ( ) no 4. Are you a registered voter? (A yes ( ) no 6. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? ( ) yes (>) no If yes, date Name: 0.0 A ES A KER Date: Street Address: city: Zip Code: „off al'z' Mailing Address (if different from street address): _ Day Telephone: 31Li 20 301y Evening Telephone: 140 75W , E-mail address: t vie _ 99Cell Number: C;�f Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): _ A(`.� IS A� fi __�Fr~�rN2r �Coairacfor) Professional/Community Activities: —'. a W. W 4 C � ).12 in 9-11- 0 �' �p ,rn . ❑.5"P � ,< Education: Qualifications related to position: Describe why you are Interested In serving on this board or commission: po utf6rl ,07T7ir-n-i _ F'Prnu Cc/1f /C-` --- 7. Do you or your spouse have a financial Interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with WhaAcom County? X yes { ) no if yes, please explain; , References (please include daytime telephone number): Signature of applicant: (J � — As it candldate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commisslon members are expected to be fair, Impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 135 JACKLOUWS County Executive �GoM Co 4. P 1NC+K0 RE C LE u v [ECONCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner MAR 1 2012 Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner WHATCOOUNTY Bill Knutzen Pete Kremen COUNCIL Ken Mann Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS Name: `WdJ r �/7 Date: Street Address: 12- City: Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different om4street address): ,/�� �/�� 9,7 Day Telephone�60' �a/�� Evening Telephone: �7S(f Cell Phone: E-mail address: QJo ('�1%7 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: ,` ljaAlv//��� rLz ` 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to vacancy list. ��/fJ`Ji �JIQ�'I 45/,!�6%f D % 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying? to list.) (If applicable, please refer vacancy ------------------=----------------=-------------------- (yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in?-- ----------- =--------- ---------------------------------- ( ) One ( ) Two (x,.Y/Three 5. Are you a US citizen?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (X/6es ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter? ------------ =----=-------------------------------------------------------------- (;eyes ( ) no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission?---- =----------------------------------------- ( ) yes (V�/no If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business that does business Whatcom County? ----------------------------------------- or agency with ( ) yes (--I/no If yes, please explain: 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community ac'vitieseandeducation.� r kl c 45soc• ► �5, py�D/�"l 4, �� � �w crJ4� ��6,� lq� &Z or-- r� � 10. Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission: References (please include daytime telephone number): �uw��V/v 1Ci Ale ~%J6� 7D#Y1A WlAll 7.0 -,220 77 , L39,0 -h Signature of applicant: THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT: As a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the .public. All board and. commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 136 JACK LOUWS COUNCILMEMBERS: County Executive j� (� 2 Il �10 2 P�°°M °O� Barbara E. Brenner uu uu LL�� �J <�C u v LC Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner MAR 14 2012 Bill Knutzen ty � Pete Kremen gSHiN6�° Ken Mann WHATCOIIMnn��C±±��OUNTY Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR��I1A MiNTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS Name: co)V Street Address: City: Mailing Address Day Telephone: E-mail address: from street address): 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse:, 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to vacancy list. Qk0QaVfqQ M41- 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements' the position for which you're applying? (If applicable, please refer to vacancy list.)-------------------------------------------------------- ,Oyes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in? -------------------------------------------------------- ( ) One �wo ( ) Three 5. Are you a US citizen?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (f yes ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter?------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vylly'es ( ) no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission?---------------------------------------------- ( ) yes o If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ----------------------------------------- ( ) yes A-fno If yes, please explain: 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community !` Please describe why you're inte Signature of applican . THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT: As a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 137 CD JACK LOUWS 0V RO ILMEMBERS: County Executive �p�GOM COGZ tiara E. Brenner MAR Sam Crawford 2012 Kathy Kershner Bill Knutzen WHATCOM COUNTY Pete e eenremen COUNCIL Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS Name: _impa a Z' �c�-{I'?2IJ�onf Date: „11;5 Street Address: 20 9 2. � f�141yC� t� W rf-nf City: Lis IMvvti) ! s ( i&to Zip Code: 9 82(eZ Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: ':?LrO 7S'92.5Zo3 Evening Telephone: NFU Cell Phone: E-mail address: 1mi r Q,w%sN. Gyv� 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: L u.v%m i is, sgiLl�v "✓. C43%r vn orrn-E 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to vacancy list. RE,--s,, i5 /Psq�,-y Q� olu L. T' . 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for -which you're applying? (If applicable, please refer to vacancy list.) _..___.._.__._.___..___._..____._____...__....___...._...._.._.._ ( yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in? - -- - - - - - - - ( ) One ( ) Two ( Three S:,.. Are you a US citizen? -- _......_._..__--_---.._-.-.. __.. _ ._...__._...... ()o yes ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter?-_._---_-----_---_-._____.._:..__..__....__-----.--_..._,-_--.-.---•.-_--_-.-.--.---..._-___---__.__._ Oo yes ( ) no 7.-: Have you ever been a member of this Boa rd/Commission?===- -=--- --=-= ------=---- - - == - ----- ( )yes no If yes, dates:.. ,. 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or that does business Whatcom County? ---- - -- -- ----- ---- - -------- - - ( ) agency with If yes, please explain: $-ihrpzotitw 3V W!{*1`C&VVl C,0*�i/ �u/3tic- WO-A.K.S (?) yes no 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community activities, and education. jR,&Svo 1A9 w 0/rr'c41Iv�, GOv xg-N/ S&A:Onn. tf . S . _ 1n9S Vl . la w u Cl1V_ Cdrbr wtG✓t-cork-c_. t�15! 1'�-m ►'hy 1 N G �. u � , t �� dW N G-Yt,.S t %- y� Sk..1 PATeeJt P&I&SLRAtl='1 `lcvuyf76 INC-, S VP!cAyu-1d1!�e tNS1/1I0NS 2c> + VC'10�Y C-2G"� 6" L LP M� PKI I S w &AAj 0 tZ Ry Y-V L I- 7'jVW& x's) 1Z AyAl 10. Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission: iT tS EgSdhrYYt _Tnlvt--y "�'i.S C.Owtw, , T7'C-C- 1'�S- r71 Rbz,�' tN�u � �-�XV1 C-�x�GYL1 G�cG-►9 1=�Yt-%��9 CGZG`x� _, References (pleaseinclude daytime. telephone -number):. B; Lt_ '?s� 3i 32° ,' Vr►tfE t�kL�N�tr�� 739►- 8 39S Signature of -applicant: `l`1?IS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMtNT: ,As a candidate for a public board or commission, n, the above hiformatio n t,011 bf= available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission me-i-.1bers ;�,re expected to be fair, impartial, and eespectful of the pubfic, Courity staff, and each ether. Fa.ilcire to .:;bade by these. expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. ��x-� 31 l $ / 12 138 own2-N- JACK LOUWS R E C L� 3 Uv Ejo1NCILMEMBERS: County Executive P��oM Coo Barbara E. Brenner MAR 19 2012 Kathy Sam Crawford Kershner Bill Knutzen r � WHATCOM COUNTY Pete Kremen QSh11NG�CKen Mann COUNCIL Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: Lvh� jY- i SLArvc,l Abyl Sof�_,�/ ev�"mte 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. p.vt,Lj- app_U - '71S•, Re-Sitsv--t 3. Do you meet the residency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancy list for requirements.) (✓f yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One ( ) Two (v) Three 5. Are you a US citizen? (v yes ( ) no 4. Are you a registered voter? (✓) yes ( ) no 6. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? ( ) yes (%4'no If yes, dates: Name: IT)' C- h4­e— L S ►' israg to Date: Street Address: 204Q0 G "roc eve, WA If City: Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephoner �''- j - `i333 Evening Telephone: Sfii� E-mail address: k 7 c, Kz �°' C�b"A t- .C,o" Cell Number: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Pe Cd'Fe4 — C=0) . T►efiw S %T Professional/Community Activities: Sec--- Lunn.; -Is �►►� ti�.� �issr�t , &,Aa- Lun, }Herz,qASe IRu:5 (' ekAIP G6\J Cry4<1- se-_- E.Ar3-ALL Ago.AP.-j NA CAmi") Education: AA he-� ee.f_- - 44tee, Li Nc C-C. -- v S CG SeAmAro sk ,,p 2005 Qualifications related to position: A to -fn, cc: (Co-vAzc,cLe' 4 AG-k5eois•e� �-t Awme�� `F ft4el JFIL"t LObo-r FD6L%s-Tfnrsf m:1 l.Ylie- - I' lL4 t Wmbet2 - kirvs 6 Tejzr sii Mb'is6ztj ckn-re , OP Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: To c4 f I e FeQml TES N Fo c e 1 N V*,' CP A P�1- �Us-iAJ6� ���r�e�eS ---, 7. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes no If yes, please explain: References (please include daytime telephone number): IAt �"� �2��=� --�1 S�ri�r�ce - 0jif�Z- A758-ZZ37 , lbtivib Ne5. L`CA 1S,9p Z-�:DS 1 Signature of applicant: w� z/_ZV W) -z- As a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 139 This page intentionally left blank 140 0'pu t'�, "- q 4 &/- JACK LOUWS �GOM co E C L� gWNCILMEMBERS: County Executive �o/— mac. L'-= 9bara E. Brenner Sam Crawford MARKathy Kershner 2 0 2012 Bill Knutzen 4`SNINGSG WHATCO Pete Kremen Ken Mann COUNCIL Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LE%ISL`f and rOMPLETE A� L ITEMS Name: 1 � Ei-t4 ` cz- Date: 19 J M4r1Z`4'L ,ZD12. Street Address: IW3 1 UtHe- Laoe ff City: L i. mMl. TT-�sCr) hGi_r WA Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: Evening Evening Telephone: E-mail address: ,�l��l ke, Q__r,>ll C, �C'\4. &r(g . Zip Code: ;�� 2__- GZ, q -?I.5 t-k . ¢b55.5 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: L j j►/wU,!:scoKA RrN 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. r� Please refer to vacancy list. LM&,t, �sl�nd reS P.rk �ro 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying? (If applicable, please refer to vacancy list.) ...-.-.-...._......_... ... _............................................................................_........... A yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in? .................................................... -...... ... ... ... ... ... ...........­.........---........._...............( ) One ( ) Two (A Three 5. Are you a US citizen?--__-......-.._--..-------_--..___-_..__.__-.--_--_-_-.--___-_-_.._..--_-------------------------.._ X yes ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter?-------------•--------------.---__-.._-_.-----___-------------_._-_----_-_------_ VQ yes ( ) no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? , , ,-- ,- -• --- • - -- ( ) yes no If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? -------_..--------------------------------- ( ) yes no If yes, please explain: 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community activities, and education. emu IP-tl 4LISM I. C CDw5VLT MAX-kLMkSG , EEC eRtla WC' t� t''t��AGEM IT �o4VWtil�►4�) A cr c*j cpN N SDI } rJ 11/ xR- ohs, CorrnV,.y tjt sec I h1CL►.tf_)r,.S PbAm3 c45 4 G P_LS Gr v,,s mb SsLAf�,(t, r-emj it-i tT(A vc- IPWS,, LS 10. Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission70 C0tXr1NLF_ VbPG(�9 Wt 1 O u t9CIL_ i ZXE1QLTmE aJ mtm_fA�L F8ENw-REIkola) i%KVMtr:!, I,WU(O s� p'`P2lU te�E . References (please include daytime telephone number): Signature of applicant: l THIS €S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT- As a candidate fora public board or commission, the above information v4ill be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of t�e public, County staff, and each other. Failure to ,abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position, 141 ATTACHMENT to APPLICATION for LUMMIISLAND FERR YAD VISOR Y COMMITTEE No. 10 Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission: Having worked closely with Whatcom County Government the last two years through our Lummi Island Community alliance, PLIC, I want to continue contributing thoroughly -researched, solutions -based information to the County Council and Executive on the operation of the Lummi Island ferry. I bring to the table experience in research/interview/reporting expertise, government relations, interpersonal communication, community group work, and informational website content. This committee creates an opportunity continuum for building on the last 2-3 years of positive progress on the vitally important, complex, difficult issues that affect a vast and varied group of stakeholders — those who maintain and operate the ferry system, those who pay for it, those who decide how to pay for it, and those who use it. I want to participate in the public-service process for finding workable methods most beneficial to the combined mutual interests identifiable for all stakeholders (i.e., Whatcom County government, businesses, residents, tax payers, and visitors; Lummi Island residents, property owners, and visitors, and all ferry users). Thank you for your consideration. No. 9 Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community activities, and education: COMMUNITY: • PLIC: Board of Directors, 2 years, currently president The Board worked productively with the Whatcom County Council, Executive, Legal, and Public Works offices, directly and in public meetings, to solidify positive government relations and consensus in dealings during the difficult period of ferry lease negotiations. This synergy has continued since the lease agreement last October. My insights gained through working with the County and in establishing island community communications about ferry issues (regular public meetings; PLIC web site; email database) would provide a valuable resource in assisting the LIFAC in advising the County Council and County Executive on ferry and transportation issues. My career and community -action background also would prove useful in helping to maximize the Committee's work. 142 Other community involvement: Lummi Island Boys & Girls Club: Board of Directors, 3rd year; chairman of fund- raisers. ;irectors Lummi Island Beach Elementary School Foundation: Charter member of Board of (2009-11); current active volunteer. • FOIL [Friends of Island Library]: past Board of Directors (2008-10, chair of fund-raising programs); current active volunteer. • Past: Special Olympics of Johnson County, Kan. (chair of largest fund-raiser 2 years); on staff of Team Kansas at International Special Olympics; Brazos County Boys & Girls Club in Texas, co-chair of largest fund-raiser 5 years. CAREER (Semi -retired): o Journalism: Reporter, columnist, editor and management at six daily newspapers; 15 years contracted free-lance assignments with Sports Illustrated magazine, talk radio, and books (six, incl. WWII history, link: http://amzn.to/GBgbo; KC Chiefs football, link: http://amzn.Ig/GAvB2q). �outhern Visiting professor (adjunct) in journalism schools at University of Alabama, University, and University of Kansas; in undergrad management degree program at Tarkio (Mo.) College; and in master's sport management department at Texas A&M University. • Served 2002-`07 on senior management staff at Texas A&M as special assistant to the director of athletics and liaison to the head football coach in media consulting/PR/marketing, and website content. • Part-time 15 years, contracted as facilitator for personal performance and work - group improvement seminars and courses with multiple national clients in the private, nonprofit, and education sectors. Highlights: (1990s) Multi -session contract with Mission, Kan., City Council on Conflict Resolution; Workshop presenter at Lewis & Clark College (Idaho) Regional Conference on Building Drug -Free Communities; Workshop presenter, Hong Kong, International Conference on the Child's Right to Play. EDUCATION: • B.A. Westmar (Iowa) College in theater/speech & English. • Studied SE Asian history, history/languages of India @ University of Malaysia; family part of diplomatic corps at American Embassy, Kuala Lumpur. 143 JACK LOUW I� (I p County Execut LC l v M °ot,,y 3r � MAR 0 7 2012 a n, - �� c✓ COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner Bill Knutzen WHATCOM COUNTY Pete n 4SHiNc.'�° Kenn ManMann COUNCIL Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: /,g4m&i; 1s14nd &nw AkkQ21r _ CoAnnWzc 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to Vacancy List. .1 _ . t . 1_ I .'. 1 P 1 n . 1 1 3. Do you meet the residency/employment/affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying (if applicable)? (Please see vacancy list for requirements.) ()Q yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you reside in? (X) One 5. Are you a US citizen? (70 yes ( ) no ( ) Two ( ) Three 4. Are you a registered voter? (X) yes ( ) no 6. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? ( ) yes W no If yes, dates: Name: N56N R. Date: _03-05-/2 Street Address: I111 3614- 5+rte+ City: B 614hawn Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different from street address):1� l'SC Z Day Telephone: 366-77$'80ZO Evening Telephone: 360-166-61Z7 E-mail address: �osh..Zer�a�r„��uAhce.cov+� Cell Number: 360-966-6/27 Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Finan<t m V,,4ge., Professional/Community'Activiities: U)A-J1ir4p,. Fi;lmricc 04iccrS &5oci�;Aor - Fol"Cn-h61% Corml#ie CrA //5"-k &p(Ce4rT r,4 Alb, C Aced "d-ot" . A530ci-1 on OT 6Atrf) &,1 Acam,61,45 Education: Ph.0. in Amblic ,9aMiniS rgJ�01) OnIf P14bl1i POl%[w — Qualifications related to position: F.xper%sC ii c09�-b"e' 4 Ar"11.5i5 an &A55ional cer-44co on5 : (e--"cd Palic Accourr%.n+, 664Wi'cd 6ovv,747&d- Fl. w 4l 04naqc• Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: 7 9(cc.) u0 in tjt-Arrow+ �— and hAvc; beeA at :QA:&wr►t� 4rapt %C/ on AC WhAom C44, Lww�mi ISlan is awnne , tive ►rns� brot,41 1 �,I Si�'nc+�inr�s on ea.�1•- anA should be chc.i5ly4 bt4 gll cuho or✓csircyisr%o. l&c On 0-C landmass. 7. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes no If yes, please explain: References (please include daytime telephone number): P u;A DonnT0A - 0inac4e cr= RinntC IlT,q _ s27-y693 Signature of applicant; As a candidate for g rOblic boar or mission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executi , and the pu All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 144 March 6`' , 2012 Whatcom County Council Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Ave., Ste. 105 Bellingham, WA 98225 RE: Application for Appointment to Whatcom County Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee Dear Council Members, It is with pleasure that I submit my application for your consideration to serve on the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee. Growing up in the community, I've spent the better part of my life enjoying the beautiful landscape of Whatcom County. While we have many beautiful sites, few experiences embody all of our natural assets as a ferry ride on the Whatcom Chief. From the mist of sea to the spectacular view of our mountains and marine life, the experience should be treasured by all. The ferry also serves an important role in meeting transportation and economic development needs of our community. Unfortunately, turbulent economic times could threaten the quality and long-term viability of this experience. The Council exercised sound judgment in forming an Advisory Committee to address this challenge. I'm convinced that leaders with fresh perspectives and strong quantitative capabilities would be ideal for this committee. Building off the strong foundation established by prior work groups, the possibility for designing a long-term and viable solution is obtainable. As an individual with a unique financial skillset, I'm interested in being an active participant in this decision -making process. My professional experience has been focused on finding creative solutions to solving public policy challenges at both the state and local government level. As a certified financial professional, I have specialized expertise in the area of auditing, budgeting, and financial modeling. My qualitative and quantitative skills align well with responsibilities of the committee and would produce credible information for the Council While I am not a resident of Lummi Island, I have lived on the island previously and can appreciate the needs of islanders. As a current resident and employee of the City of Bellingham, I also understand the interests of mainlanders wishing to visit Lummi Island. My goal in this position would be to build community partnerships through transparency and strong communication. Thank you for your consideration. In addition to responding to the application, I've also enclosed a copy of my resume highlighting my qualifications for this position. If you would like more information about me, please do not hesitate to contact me. 145 JOSHUA R. ZENDER, Ph.D., CPA 1111 36th Street Bellingham, WA 98229 Telephone: 360.966.6127 josh—zender@yahoo.com Expertise: Public sector financial administration, with special emphasis in: ■ program and policy evaluation; ■ governmental accounting and auditing; and, ■ information technology. Professional Experience: City of Bellingham — Financial Systems Manager ■ Bellingham, WA ■ 2011 - Present ■ Provide business support of all financial software in use within the City. ■ Offer leadership related to financial systems usage and standards. ■ Manage all aspects of business and occupational tax receipting. Auburn University — Senior Consultant / Adjunct Instructor ■ Auburn, AL ■ 2007 - 2011 ■ Conducted research and consulting services for state government and other public sector entities. ■ Taught several undergraduate courses and continuing professional education seminars. County of San Diego — Internal Auditor II ■ San Diego, CA ■ 2005 - 2007 ■ Carried out complex performance, operational, and financial audits. ■ Lead process improvement studies of County departments to determine efficiency and effectiveness. Accenture, Ltd - Analyst ■ New York, NY ■ 2004 - 2005 ■ Participated in a research and development effort known as the Public Service Value (PSV), a disciplined approach to public sector performance management that focuses on defining outcomes, quantifying results and identifying ways to achieve increased outcomes cost-effectively. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell - Intern ■ Spokane, WA ■ 2002 - 2003 ■ Conducted policy research and assisted with special projects. Certifications: Certified Public Accountant (CPA) — State of California Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) Certified Information Technology Professional (CITP) Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) Education: Ph.D. - Public Administration & Public Policy ■ Auburn University MPA - Master of Public Administration ■ University of Illinois B.B.A. - Finance, Law & Public Policy ■ Gonzaga University 146 JACK LOUWS County Executive A+TV 1.),-- �'i #--, R EC E ' V E COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner MAR 19 2012 Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner Knutzen WHATCOM COUNTY Petle Kremen COUNCIL Ken Mann Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS Name: `•ris P; .n \A V'\ Date: M ZQ IZ Street Address: 2 to Z G1 P CLC �-- 0 '(- City: I�wt �l�� h/ A Zip Code: c;(q 7'2-5 Mailing Address (if different frA street address): 5 C.\- VVX-P__ Day Telephone: 3 ( --j 15 - 4-� 1 Evening Telephone: 3 60'-13�Sr3 pb-7 Cell Phone: E-mail address: 6,Y'c`J,C.OIbv�v`1f u4GLkoo.C.0VV\ 0.� �dY- Gv-(5C_fqtr'(C��W�-G�.CHOW; 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: �,u Nn w•j �51cet �2 v' %�ViSu r t�VKw,1�'2� 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. / t Please refer to vacancy list. -k- V.. `51cj 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying? (If applicable, please refer to vacancy list.) ------------------------------------------- M yes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in? -------------------------------------------------------- ( ) One (A Two ( ) Three 5. Are you a US citizen?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Vh yes ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter?------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (\ yes ( ) no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission?---------------------------------------------- ( ) yes (V� no If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business witb WhatcQqm Count-------------------ti-----� -- - o.-Q Oyes ( ) no If yes, please explain: P�y p, [S 1nfVV/_�t-C V-%_ v�S�Oe � -: tV" y 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community activities, and education. f --M.r_,,.c-a e� o�S.n-�a�kzel TinahsDov-i'o�l`CKWCAALS +o �- o �� �' "5t 5 u �cw- Ga v--e,e�r � �n c.otio. w. u. v. ` �--i G�.c� A w� � � � �"�c�cr���� •r �-o�� t� v. O V. — W.-2-v✓.y- rti� AcA-Sfi b +3O.I�J b,, Ie �✓ 2 J -e V-01\ s ev ev-a Gz---e\vwu 'Jnl 10. Please de cribe w y you're interested in serving on this board or commission:W�, ` o_+ wTA i vv c_ �--- tfi c,k\0c i V Jejo9 o -e,,A- of mu- 5,e�vLGe,,S Cvv%were wkk-� L"w,.VV , 15 1 C,.v,CL. References (please include daytime telephone number): 1;7 Q-°c hao-tl W cdSV\. W-rA Signature of applicant: THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCLIT4ENT: AS` a candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 30 gaw`5V\01 LF,C-k ka-v- f I Ake-0-9 k v� �3,� o k� r- 1L eJI.ew-W c 11 i 34,b-22426,rb3 147 March 16, 2012 Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 To the Council; RECEIVED MAR 19 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL This letter and the enclosed form constitute my application for appointment to the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee for the Whatcom County Council. Former Lummi Island Citizen's Task Force member, Patricia Dunn, suggested I apply. Pat and I work together at the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA). I'm interested in serving on the Advisory Committee because of my involvement with planning and providing WTA services that connect with Lummi Island and coordinate with the county ferry service. I can provide thoughtful attention to the complex issues facing the Council about the ferry system. I have spent my 35 year career working on a variety of community transportation services. I am accustomed to the public process, group decision -making, and the development of practical approaches to complex service needs. I value finding balance among the competing principles of customer service, support for those who deliver it, responsibility with resources, and accountability to the public. I can offer committed participation and broad experience to the Advisory Committee process. I care about high quality, responsible public services in our community. I would enjoy learning a little about marine transportation, a new Field for me, and discovering how my previous experience can contribute to positive results for the Lummi Ferry. I look forward to talking Further if the Council sees value in my application. Sincerely, % k 6zl' Crispin Colburn JACK LOUWS County Executive U ll APR 19 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY �OUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner Bill Knutzen Pete Kremen Ken Mann COUNCIL COUNTY EXECUTIVE Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS ��oM RECEIVE 3�P tiA APR 18 2012 �9S~rNG�0 JACK LOUWS Name: (/2FG a&QWA Date: 40R.I � Street Address: 36 3 City: cl/� do� zip Code: 9'862A6 Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: 3irrd • JZ�T' 9�i�Z Evening Telephone: S4*1E Cell Phone: a4b -aN -j5 qs- E-mail address:�,p/�Ilry 1. Name of board or committee -please see reverse: ZV,!'►' M; 1 SL AW /",O✓ /7MOLIO 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. n 'j 7— Please refer to vacancy list. 60U w7V /'CES! DEhiT A)0 �lf�i�+4 o2v I_QM#*h4 J-S• 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for which you're applying? (If applicable, please refer to vacancy list.) ---------------------------------------------- (✓ryes ( ) no 4. Which Council district do you live in? --------------- ---------------------------- )ne (VTwo ( ) Three 5. Are you a US citizen?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (_111'y'es ( ) no 6. Are you a registered voter?----------------------------------------------------------------------- (''ryeS ( ) no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission?---------------------------------------------- ( ) yes (u-j'**no If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ----------------------------------------- ( ) yes (O<o If yes, please explain: 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation if retired), qualifications, professional and/or community activities, and education. to lkoo- Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission: References (please include daytime telephone number): Signature of applicant: THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT: As a Candidate for a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. All board and commission members are expected to be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and each other. Failure to abide by these expectations may result in revocation of appointment and removal from the appointive position. 149 HATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-171 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: SM 4126112 F 2 p D If�l� E V MAY 01 2012 May 8, 2012 Council Division Head: Dept. Head. COUNTY Prosecutor: 1iYHATCOM COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DO NT. Appointment to the Public Health Advisory Board ATTACHMENTS: Application for Appointment SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) County Executive Jack Louws requests confirmation of his appointment of Rachel Lucy Cecka to the "atcom County Public Health Advisory Board. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 150 Fax sent by 3607886868 ST.JOSEP" EDLICATioRECENED P9: . 2/2 JACK LOUWS COUNCILMEMIREft: County ExecuWe Barbara F. Brenner APR 26 2012 Sam CmwWd Katy iCershner Bill Kriukw JACK LOUWS -Ken mam COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION POR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOAR -OS AND PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY and COMPLETE ALL ITEMS Name: yor'bal bxjA Date: RO -40 12 Street Address-, 9470 '751m_Ar 1-k- City: '96\,kyl &nn , U)A Zip Code: 9S Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone. % $7o-6 Evening Telephone: Cell Phone: E-mail address; tz ucm peacy laeakh - ac-a i >P- ea*.VJ Apr "L_,a_ boh"ek .'Cft" I. Name of board or committee -please see reverse; ic- �zm" Wisor� 6oarcL 2. You must specify which position you are applying for. Please refer to vacancy list_ 3. Do you meet the residency, employment, and/or affiliation requirements of the position for which '0044*yt (If -applicable, please refer to vacancy list.) -------------------------------------------------------- yes. Il"no. 4. Which Council district do you live in? -------------------------------------------------------- One Two Three 5. Are you a US citizen? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 706 Yes ).no 6. Are you a registered voter? --------------------------------------- 7 ---------------------------------------- Q0 yes -)'no 7. Have you ever been a member of this Board/Commission? -------------------------------------- )yes :.no If yes, dates: 8. Do you or your spouse have a flnancial Interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ----------------------------------------- lies 6460 If yes, please explain: 9. Please describe your occupation (or former occupation If retired), qualifications, professionai and/or community activities, and education. e_miso t4vLr-,+- aluk a- yAASW_-P_,S k:5f"_ 1, tj�lt 4i U Lj wmloetz- 0C C&VAVVLL*-kl�-� "14,k Lvo*s to W14k K7W, 0MC-1 10. Please describe why you're interested in serving on this board or commission: T'v- iq4C4V_i4,_r& I#i . Safi OLnCL KonJ!1_hA0_&441 CCwnr v References (please include daytime telephone number): 60 IS16-4.ttj. _Lbrj�i Mvirr, Viop_soy) &rgA 9exiz Signature of applicant: THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Asa candidate flVe -public board or conmil"lon, the- above inforim-o'Vott Will be.. available to the County Council, County Executive, and -the public. All board, and commission iv*mb&fs are expected to be fair, Impartial, and respectful of the public, County staff, and eacWotber.-ft­ e-140, p11d1k:by., wese expectations may result In revocation of appointment and removal from the aPP67 ve•pos 151 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-172 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: SM 4119112 E C E� V E D May 8, 2012 Council Originator- W MAY 01 2012 Division Head: Dept. Head: COUNTY Prosecutor: ""HATCOM COUNCIL Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OFDOefWjPKT.• Appointment to the Bellingham-"atcom County Commission Against Domestic Violence. ATTACHMENTS. Letter from Susan Marks to County Executive Louws dated 4118112; Application of Kathleen McNaughton SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you mustprovide the language for use in the requiredpublic notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) County Executive Jack Louws requests confirmation of his appointment of Kathy McNaughton to the Bellingham-"atcom County Commission Against Domestic Violence. COMMITTEE ACTION.- COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.waus/council. 152 Community Members/ Affiliation: I RECEIVED Karen Burke DVSAS APR 18 202 May Dumas 0k Consultant April 18, 2012 JACK LOUWS Sheri Emerson Opportunity Council UN EXECUTIVE Nikki Finkbonner County Executive Jack Louws Lummi Victims of Crime Whatcom County Courthouse o nHammer Wmencare Shelter ranAvenue, 311 Grand ASuite #108 o Sherry Mallory Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 Western Washington University Rick Qualls Minister Dear Executive Louws: Manuel Reta NWWHCC At this time, the Domestic Violence Commission recommends Kathy McNaughton, Chief of Stutesman Operations and Clinical Director for Catholic CommunityServices to fill the open Whatcom Count y p Mt. Baker Mt. Baker Planned Parenthood � p Xathy Human Service Provider position, with a partial term ending January 14, 20h2. will be an Greg Winter Whatcom Homeless Service Center excellent addition to the DV Commission, as she has more than 35 years of experience in the Darla Woolman human service field, especially related to children and families, and she is very well-connected and Bellingham Bay Family Medicine respected in the community for her experience and expertise. Vacant Human Service Provider Vacant I am including Kathy's application for your review. If Kathy is approved for this position, then we Community at Large will have every Whatcom County position on the DV Commission filled at this time. Jolie Matkowski Major Employer Please contact me if you have any questions or need any further information. Government Members: Laurie Alexander DSHS/DCFS Regina Delahunt Sincerely, Whatcom Co. Health Department William Elfo Whatcom Co. Sheriff Vacant usan Marks Bellingham City Attorney Director Mayor Gary Jensen Mayor of Ferndale Michael Knapp Enclosure Ferndale Police Chief Jon Komorowski cc: Suzanne Mildner Whatcom Co Public Defender Dave McEachran Whatcom County Prosecutor Linda Quinn Ferndale School District Todd Ramsay Bellingham Police Chief Linda Storck Bellingham Municipal Court Dan Story DSHS/CSO Bruce Van Glubt Whatcom Co. District Court Staff: Susan Marks Director Sue Parrott Program Supervisor Stacy Miler tae. ep os F BEi+,� O STEP Grant Manager I Meaghan Connell Administrative Coordinator BeOingham- Whatcom Goanty :' ► r Est = Commission Against Domestic Violence 1407 Commercial Street, Bellingham, WA98225 360.312.5700 1 www.dvcommission_org 153 tj��lvLauav� -PrreWREWEN County Executive COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Sam Crawford Kathy Kershner Bill Knutzen Tony Larson Ken Mann Carl Weimer K APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: /'i)I'Y) SICJr� a.h }" �QfYIP51S� L%iD��tiGQ Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One (w}rTwo ( ) Three Are you a US citizen? (yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? (yes ( ) no Name:���le e� /'Y�g Date: Street Address: vat_, W P—d-. City: .f r' 1664 LD44,9 LL)A - Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: 340, 4 �7(, 2-( 6 �( Evening Telephone: 3(0. (4`71. /4 36 Fax Number: 34/0. /per b. aLl !o ( E-mail address: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): DQe.Ya. Professional/Community Activities: W Mbus ne r Leo`» r e.A- ' d), 86vd F Z669- /Qh� a, �}✓ }�/itwca�r �ULxnFeer /-Z47—�L�?-� _��LCX�I� c3c A d Dr"tee_fihJ 19Y"S-/9Q'q- � roJ>Q� Education: �1�5 � / Fdet-e'o-fion rn ; s' f 7 �o iDe d�'r„ n,s fi-te n . �n� ue'v�s� 0 ce 4"d41 h« M9,4 , Qua/lifications related to position:� .;vl 8 Lf �a-rrj �`e 5 t n LQ f��+ p e'Y, '� cc ,�z Z f�j.� SP�n �� (a y tea+ t �r.�...�5 _ . a.�C_ _ _ vn4 �-s ' o /oP�l az GCQ-lao-a-6 u.ic - Describe why you are interested in serving,on Is .board or commission: Gi✓� - tl� $ fim .r dC�.l✓ �, 2N ,(�lcthy�i .`_-t) v !J t9 e a� GI�.S / i ` •r 4-1/1 sr, ins B szcC . fin. /e .rs +ntc cue f� /161W_11 -lie if 6 B/,kC/7UY7� �J d 4 s L y1 / �i C�ycJ S2�-tY rr 04i;id Pyle2-be, -%;y /7yd_ S aztyr y s;de, riv pt'©A_5Cl_5 /aw -ep Soi s -rn5 . Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes (,-'no If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number):��r� I Ul `I 61717D / L In / L"J7 ! `lJ�+c�v if/Y� r 3 g` — / q Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above .information will be available to the Coiunty Council, County Executive, and the public. 154