HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works April 18 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
April 18, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11
12
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
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
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS RELATIVE TO THE CANYON CREEK
ALLUVIAL FAN AREA, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM THE FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENACT A
MORATORIUM ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET THE AREA FOR A
VOLUNTARY BUYOUT PROGRAM (AB2000-114)
Brenner stated she wanted to know which areas are in imminent danger.
She questioned whether the map of the alluvial fan is the ancient fan or the active
fan.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated the map is of the most at-
risk portion of the alluvial fan in the immediate and long-term. There is not a clear
cut science to do a formal risk study. The map is of the active part of the fan.
Middleton stated the map is a portion of the active fan. The consultant has
gone through a portion of the active fan and identified the area on the map as the
highest risk areas. The ancient fan is to the north.
Cooper stated that if the channel cut through the road, it would dig a ravine
and would be stuck in its course for awhile, due to the elevation difference.
McShane stated an 80-foot waterfall on unconsolidated soils would not be a
waterfall for long.
Dawson questioned which alternative Middleton would suggest if they don’t
do a buyout program. Middleton stated he has held true to the scientific course,
and leaves that up to the decision-makers who are elected by the public. Right
now, under the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), they require full mitigation of the
danger, as certified by a geo-technical engineer. They’ve had a difficult time
getting anyone to certify that in this entire region. The ancient fan is
straightforward. He didn’t have an opinion on the different options. He is ready to
react to any decision on the options. His concern is leaving the dike where it is, in
the state it is in. If the river gets through the top bend to the north, it will go like a
freight train.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 1
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
Dawson stated she was not interested in a buyout program.
Brenner stated she was interested in hearing about the options. She asked
about option three.
Cooper stated the County needs to engage the Glacier Springs subdivision
more. She has worked primarily with the owner of The Logs Resort, who is
interested in doing a project to repair the existing levy in place. That is where they
started out a year ago. Staff did a preliminary design and got indications from the
permitting agencies that they would not be able to get a permit to do that project.
That project is alternative 1A. It became evident that it would be worthwhile to
work closer with the residents and get an agency meeting so the residents
understand the permitting problems. Jeff Monsen recommended hiring a consultant
to do that. Also, if it is worthwhile, they can get Inter-Fluve to do a presentation on
all of the alternatives for the Council and the residents.
Brenner stated that would be very helpful. She is willing to spend the money
if the County needs to, because this is a critical issue. She wanted to make sure
the people are protected and the County doesn’t keep putting a bandaid on the
problem, which ends up costing more in the end.
Councilmember Crawford stated they could put on a lot of bandaids, at
$20,000 each, to reach the $190,000 limit. If they have a flood event like they did
in 1995 every five years, they would be 50 years down the road before they spent
$190,000, not counting inflation.
Dawson stated permitting for option 1A is not realistic.
Dawson questioned which options could realistically be permitted. A problem
with the agencies is that they don’t look at the health and welfare of the public.
McShane stated he doesn’t think about fish at this site. The County did a
tremendous amount of work with geologists on fish mitigation, which didn’t make it
through the first winter. He is more concerned about the perception of residents
who are building their homes without realizing the risk they are at.
Dawson stated there are two areas they are talking about. One is the alluvial
fan, and the other is the nature of the river. According to the public comment, the
river has not been a problem in the past. The logging caused the river to shift.
They need to differentiate between the two elements.
McShane stated there is a large landslide that was probably impacted by
logging in the watershed and contributed a fair amount of gravel. It is an unstable
area and they will continue to see landslides whether or not there is logging. It is
an unusual alluvial fan that is unstable. The Nooksack River cut the toe of the fan
off. Even though there is an ancient part of the fan that is not active, and because
of that, it will take the whole area out if the creek ever gets onto any of the old
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 2
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
parts of the fan. It is a difficult area. It is a difficult stream. They are dealing with
large volumes of sediment. Inter-Fluve was very pessimistic about even the most
expensive fix. He didn’t want to give people false feelings of security about a site
that isn't secure. From a financial perspective, he questioned whether the County
should spend the money there. He wants to pursue buyout options to take
advantage of the fact that people in these disaster zones get bailed out by the
federal government all the time. The County should try to tap into those programs.
He is not suggesting buying out everyone with the flood fee. It should be a
voluntary buyout.
Cooper stated there is a pot of money called the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP), which becomes available after a presidentially declared disaster.
They do an assessment of damages in the state, and then make a certain
percentage of the damages available for hazard mitigation. Until recently, that
money was available for structural fixes as well as acquisition. They now focus on
acquisition and relocation, not structural fixes. That money is money that the
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) targets to taking the structure out of
hazardous way.
Brenner asked about alternative three. Cooper stated that project couldn’t
be funded under HMGP. FEMA is involved in flood insurance as well. From their
standpoint, they've been paying 75 percent of fixing dikes and the flood insurance
claims. They probably approach it from a financial standpoint. That was a decision
they made recently. After the 1995 event, a lot of the dikes were repaired with
FEMA money.
Brenner questioned whether the grant would cover the buyout option.
Cooper stated it depends on how much money the County would get. It is a
competitive process after a flood event.
Brenner stated alternative three sounds like it has a high level of protection
on everything. The total cost is a little over $1 million. Option four has some
problems, and ends up costing in the long-term. She questioned why they would
not consider relocating the dike. Cooper stated the consultant used the flow rate
from the 1989 flood, which was an extreme flood. To move the dike back, it would
open up the cross section, so the water would have a bigger cross section, resulting
in a smaller velocity and smaller shear stresses. They could use smaller rocks.
That was one alternative in which they could move the size of the rock that they
need to stay in place. That will still require long-term maintenance of the system.
The one thing that doesn't address is the unpredictable nature of sedimentation
during a flood event. She didn't know of any good ways to get at that. It is totally
unpredictable. With option four, in terms of moving all the structures out of harm's
way, it is the only option that has predictability.
McShane stated that if they move the levy back, the forces of the creek
flowing on the levy will be reduced, so the levy will be more resistant to erosion.
However, because velocities are reduced, the creek channel fills in. The problem
with alluvial fans is that the stream fills up the channel and flows above the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, 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
surrounding area. The longer it builds up, the greater the likelihood of evulsion.
With the sediment load coming down the stream, the risk is greatly increased.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director - Maintenance and Operations, stated that is
currently happening at Smith Creek. The only difference is the dogleg. At that
time, the houses were 14 feet under the water. The houses are completely covered
now. It has lessened the impact on the dikes. They’ve been working with Fisheries
to remove material on an annual basis.
Brenner asked Cooper to respond to Mr. Herod's letter (on file) in terms of
doing what he is proposing. Prieve stated Mr. Herod’s letter probably refers to
option 1A. The number that The Logs Resort had was $89,000 vs. the County's
estimate of $190,000. The person who came up with the $89,000 estimate thought
that the rest of the County's cost was for mitigation. They can do the project
cheaper, but there will be expensive mitigation. It is questionable whether they can
get permitting to rebuild the dike.
Cooper stated permitting is a crapshoot for any option except the buyout.
Dawson stated the goal is to get back to the natural river.
McShane stated that, from a financial perspective, it is a dangerous place for
fish to be.
Dawson stated there are problems with permitting. Anything permitted will
be a short-term fix and costly. A voluntary buyout seems to be the fix.
Cooper stated there are other organizations that may be interested in
undeveloped plats.
Brenner questioned whether they’ve estimated the cost to buy out the land.
Cooper stated the amount is estimated in the packet. It may be worthwhile to go
into more detail in options four and 1A. The community is interested in option 1A.
If the County had a consultant to help facilitate the discussion with the agencies, it
would be worthwhile.
Brenner stated a buyout cost of $2.9 million sounds cheap. Cooper stated
that is based on assessed value.
Brenner stated the assessed value in the county is between 25 percent to 50
percent lower than market value. She wanted an appraisal done on the property.
She liked the idea of getting state agencies and residents of the area involved. She
is not opposed to a voluntary buyout. They need to see if the federal and state
agencies are interested in talking to them about permits.
Dawson agreed.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brenner also wants to see Inter-Fluve present a report. If option 1A can be
permitted, she wanted to see the County do both options. She believes at some
point a person will sue the County if the County doesn't do anything to repair the
problem and if he or she has property or loss-of-life damage, even if the person
doesn’t take advantage of the buyout program.
Dawson questioned whether the agencies will sometimes not say they are
going to permit a project, and wait for the jurisdiction to spend a lot of money.
Brenner stated they won’t know until they ask.
McShane stated they are not facing permitting. The costs have to do with
permitting, but the committee is losing focus of whether they want to spend money
on doing repairs or major capital projects, or doing a minimal amount of repair or
no repair.
Brenner stated she wants to do minimal repair.
McShane stated the agency situation is beyond the Council’s control and is
irrelevant.
Dawson stated the residents pay into the flood tax.
McShane stated everyone else also pays into the flood tax. The community
as a whole should question how the Council handles money for the community and
whether this is an appropriate way to spend flood money. The Council needs to
determine the most appropriate way to spend money, with sensitivity to the
homeowners in the area. The County can provide some relief with a federal
program that is available. The County has obligation from the past because the
subdivision was County-approved.
Middleton stated there is no County liability.
Brenner stated there was a case recently in Palos Verdes, California. An
owner's association was not allowed to build on sharp cliffs.
McShane stated the property owners sued Los Angeles County to allow for
development. The county denied development. The county lost. The development
went in with an agreement that the homeowners' association would continue to do
maintenance to keep the water in check. No landslide occurred, so the
homeowners' association quit running the pumps. The landslides happened, and
the homeowners' association sued the county and won. A voluntary buyout may be
a notification by Whatcom County that there is a problem, but he is not an
attorney. Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor Dan Gibson spoke to the flood committee
and indicated that the County doesn't have much liability. The County might have
liability if it spent a lot of money on a dike and people assume they are protected.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 5
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
Crawford questioned whether the presentation from Inter-Fluve can be on-
site. Cooper stated that would be great.
Brenner questioned whether they could get someone from the Army Corps of
Engineers and someone from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Prieve stated it
might be difficult to get the agencies together. They will try.
Cooper suggested they invite the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. She
can try and get them to the presentation.
Prieve stated it would cost about $1,000 for Inter-Fluve to do a presentation.
During a meeting with property owners, there was some agreement that they
would want to participate monetarily on alternative 1A. The County could spend
some money on creating a design, and not get it permitted.
Brenner stated they haven't talked about the moratorium. She is as
concerned about continuing building as she is about what is already there. She
supports a temporary moratorium until they figure this out. If the County may be
responsible for buying a lot of property, she didn’t want improvements being added
in the meantime.
McShane agreed with the moratorium while this is being worked out.
Cooper asked if there have been any applications.
Middleton stated there have been, and the applicant is appealing the
decision. His department has inquiries quite often. Staff sends the applicants out
to talk to a consultant, but most people don't come back.
Brenner moved to enact a temporary moratorium in the area defined as the
portion of the active area that is most at-risk, until the County can work out the
options and decide which option(s) they want and have a meeting with residents.
Dawson stated she is not going to approve a moratorium. The County is not
legally responsible. The County has a liability by not allowing people to make
productive use of their land.
McShane stated they can move forward with a clear motion of what they
want to do. He suggested they 1. hire Inter-Fluve to present to the community and
County Council on-site, 2. set up a voluntary buyout program for at-risk properties,
funded by FEMA and administered by the County, 3. have the community at Glacier
Springs fund any maintenance of the upper portion of the levy, with assistance
from the County engineering staff. The County doesn't need a moratorium if it
comes up with a clear policy.
Brenner questioned whether they can make a motion to make the community
pay for something. Prieve stated they are not talking about participating fully, but
matching 15 or 20 percent.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 6
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
Dawson stated she liked that idea because the County is providing staff to
assist the residents.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
McShane questioned whether the three suggestions he made were
reasonable.
Prieve questioned whether the three should run in tandem or in order.
McShane moved to hire Inter-Fluve to present to the Council and the
community on-site.
Brenner questioned whether McShane was comfortable with the other two
suggestions taking place after the presentation.
McShane stated they should implement a moratorium if that is the case.
Brenner stated it is a temporary moratorium.
Dawson questioned what temporary is.
Middleton stated temporary is defined. A moratorium has to be temporary.
He’ll need clarification on what properties the moratorium covers. He questioned
whether the moratorium is on any property that touches the boundary or on any
property that the boundary totally encompasses.
Brenner moved to enact a temporary moratorium in the part of the active
alluvial fan that is marked on the Inter-Fluve Inc. map on page 137 of the Council
packet.
Middleton stated there will be properties that are partly covered by this
portion.
Brenner specified any property that is within that boundary. One can always
build outside of the boundary.
Middleton questioned whether the building envelope has to be outside the at-
risk areas. Brenner stated that is correct.
Brenner questioned whether people are requesting permits in the black area
or gray area on the map on page 137. Middleton stated they are in the gray area.
Brenner restated the motion to instigate a temporary moratorium on the
parts of the active fan that are most likely to be at-risk in the short term and long-
term, according to the map on Council packet page 137.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, 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
John Herod, “Y” Road, stated that if the moratorium is going to be short
term, considering a potential risk area seems excessive.
Brenner stated that if someone builds something in the long-term high-risk
area, the County would also have to pay for any improvements made in that area if
it does a buyout program.
Herod stated the risk in the potential area is not defined. The study doesn't
say that Glacier Springs is at risk. If they take any action, except nothing, then
Glacier Springs is not at risk.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Herod questioned how they can say they are in a high-risk zone.
Cooper stated that based on the type of hazard area, it is so unpredictable in
nature, she couldn't say that Glacier Springs is not at risk.
McShane stated that in the past he has been approached by property owners
seeking permits who have been told by the County to get a critical areas evaluation
within the long-term, at-risk area in Glacier Springs. He declined to write a report
because the risk was too high. He did write one report in a narrow area that he felt
was okay.
Brenner stated this gives the Council breathing room to decide what options
to take. They may go with Mr. Herod’s option, but if they don’t, the Council could
end up spending more money to buy out property.
Herod stated a study was done in January that doesn’t mention the risks
mentioned by McShane. When Councilmember McShane worked for Purnell, the
original Purnell study was done before the dike was built, Purnell defined zones one,
two, and three. Zone two is similar to the gray and zone one correlates to the at-
risk area. At the time he built his cabin, he was under the Purnell rules and he was
not in any risk zone. It is amazing that in 1997 he was not even in a risk zone. A
study has been done that says he is still not in a risk zone if they don't do anything.
Now, the County wants to have a moratorium.
Brenner questioned the harm in enacting the moratorium temporarily. It
won’t take more than a few months to define the area. Herod stated they are
encumbering the property owner.
Brenner stated the Council’s responsibility is to the public at-large because it
is their tax money that will pay for this in the end. It will temporarily encumber the
property owners.
Herod stated the buyout would only happen when there is a flood and the
property is destroyed, when the federal government can buy it out. They are
offering a buyout, but they are not opening up a County coffer.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, 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
Brenner stated one option is to use County money to buy out property.
Cooper stated the HMGP is federal, post-disaster money. The County has to
wait for a disaster.
Brenner asked about the Land Trust. Cooper stated the Land Trust may be
more interested in the undeveloped lots.
Brenner stated the undeveloped lots would be more of a reason to enact a
moratorium. Cooper stated the undeveloped lots would be the difficult lots to get
FEMA to buy into. Those are the kinds of things staff can investigate in the coming
weeks.
Brenner questioned how long they could assume it would take to have the
meeting and decide what is or isn’t possible.
Cooper stated she hoped it would take only two or three months. The
agencies are unpredictable. They should also include the tribes in the meeting.
Herod stated part of the reason they are shying away from repairing the toe
is because of stiff regulations. They ran out of time to do a repair because the
Chinook started running. They are going to have to work under a very narrow
window of operation. Agencies will allow the County to do it, but by agency rules.
Cooper stated that is not clear to her. They had to do the project, but there
was no one mutually agreed-upon window of opportunity. When the County
brought this to the agencies a year ago, the agencies said the County was going to
be back in a few years when it fails again. The agencies wanted the dike moved
back. The agencies will never say whether or not they will allow the County to do it
again, but the County got the sense it would be difficult to do this again. That is
why she recommended that the County look at the big picture and figure out the
alternatives.
Brenner stated she didn’t want people to keep developing that property if the
County doesn’t know if they can do that. If the County can do that, she would be
more receptive to looking at that alternative. However, if the County ends up
where it can't do it anyway, it's lost more time, people have developed more
property, and the County is in worse shape.
Herod stated the gray area is a low-risk area, and he questioned what makes
Glacier Springs a sacred cow. The Nooksack River is eating up the Truck Road, but
it has not been established as a high-risk zone. The Mount Baker Rim is facing the
same situation with Glacier Creek. It seems arbitrary that a low-risk zone is getting
this treatment when the County is ignoring other areas.
Brenner stated others say it isn’t a low-risk zone.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, 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
McShane stated he didn’t work on the original Purnell study. He felt the levy
increased the risk. If the levy ruptured, the creek couldn’t get back and would have
to go through the area that was perceived prior as a low-risk zone. That was one
reason they changed it while he was with Purnell. He is sympathetic with Glacier
Springs being a sacred cow. The reason is because Glacier Springs is the first. The
County will see more of this in the future.
Herod stated that in the low-risk area and a lot of the area that is considered
a high-risk area, the age class of the trees is 80 to 90 year-old Douglas Fir. They
are talking about geological terms. The 80 to 90 year-old age class on the Douglas
Fir gives them a sense that they have to do something now.
McShane stated he has seen properties where 800 and 1,000 year-old trees
are in danger. This is an example where using the trees as a comfort is an
inappropriate observation.
Cooper stated this site is penned it, and the river can’t move into the
mountainside across from Glacier Springs. All the material that comes down has to
be stored in a small area. She thinks of moving the dike back as buying time.
Logging didn’t occur when the first parts of the fan were formed. The
unpredictableness is the difference between this and Truck Road.
Brenner stated the arguments have convinced her to pursue option 1A, but
they need some breathing room.
Wendy Cosgrove, The Logs Resort, asked the length of the moratorium.
Brenner amended her motion to clarify the moratorium would be for two
months.
Cosgrove questioned whether the moratorium would continue after two
months.
Brenner stated the moratorium would be lifted in two months. It only gives
the Council breathing room.
Dawson stated the likelihood that once the moratorium is in place, it is more
likely to stay.
Brenner disagreed. If she didn't feel comfortable in two months that it is a
need, she would vote against it.
Dawson stated it is a dangerous area. They are going to be told it is a
dangerous area. Then, the Council will not lift the moratorium because it is a
dangerous area.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner stated they are going to do some work and pick an option. It is not
dangerous over the summer. The Council will come up with an option and move
ahead. She disagrees that the moratorium will not be lifted.
Hazel Olsen, former owner of The Logs Resort, stated she started the resort
40 years ago. Until 1989, they never had any problems. She asked what the big
deal is. They’ve never had any damage to any structures. It is ridiculous to buy
out the property.
Brenner stated the buyout is voluntary. The County will have less liability
because it went through this process.
Olsen questioned why a moratorium is necessary for two months.
Brenner stated the Council hasn't decided what option it will do. The staff
said the Council will probably have all the information it needs within two months,
including their field trip to the area. This is stuff that takes a little time.
Olsen stated the Mount Baker Rim had a number of homes that went into the
river. The cabins at Glacier Creek were very much in danger. Canyon Creek has
never had any problems.
Brenner stated that two months to make a decision is not too much to ask.
A voluntary buyout program would not necessarily affect anyone who doesn't want
to be bought out. What it will do is protect the County in the future from liability if
someone's property is damaged because he or she chose not to be bought out.
Part of what the Council has to do is to protect the interests of the entire county.
Dawson stated they don't know that this will protect the County from liability.
Brenner stated this would show that the County, in good faith, gave the
residents another option. If the residents don't choose to take it, that is the
residents' decision. Chances are that the judge would look at the program and
determine that the County did the best it could to get people out of harm's way.
Hoag stated a voluntary buyout would involve taxpayer funds being spent to
remove properties from the tax roles. She agreed with the people who have
testified and that it seems they are overreacting. If they want a long-term fix, they
should move the dike westward. Everyone agrees that would be the best overall
protection. If they don't want to spend the money for a long-term fix, then they
should fix the dike that is there.
Brenner stated all they are talking about is doing a temporary, two-month
moratorium to decide which option to do.
Dawson stated with any option, the likelihood of getting permitting is very
remote, including moving the dike westward.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 11
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 4/18/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Brenner stated that is why they need to contact the federal and state
agencies.
McShane stated they are ready to move on a temporary moratorium and the
presentation by Inter-Fluve.
Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council a temporary, short-term,
two-month moratorium to provide time for the Council to determine which options
can be permitted.
Motion carried 2-1 with Dawson opposed.
McShane moved to hire Inter-Fluve to give a presentation onsite as soon as
possible to the County Council and the community to present the risks and options,
so the Council can make an informed decision about how to proceed.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
______________________________
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________ ___________________________
Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair