HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 10 20041
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 contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
February 10, 2004
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE
DRAFTING OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MANDATORY
COLLECTION ORDINANCE (AB2004-085)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, submitted a handout of Whatcom County
Code (WCC) chapters 8.10, 8.11, and 8.13 (on file). Page seven regarding the
collection district deals with mandatory collection. Page 10 deals with the revenue
generation through the excise tax. The question today about mandatory collection
is specifically in sections 8.11.020 and 8.11.030.
Brenner stated she thought the problem is that they aren't enforcing the
exemption procedures. She has very strong feelings about not getting rid of the
exemption. Don't get rid of it. Send out a notification to everyone. Those who
choose to take advantage of the exemption should be allowed to and should
respond. Those who don't respond should be non-exempt and will be charged. It
cannot be expensive to do that.
Monsen stated it is expensive. The mailing is not cheap. More significantly,
the problem is not so much getting the initial exemption received and granted. It's
a matter of tracking the exemption and whether or not a new owner needs to have
a new exemption.
Brenner stated they shouldn't track the exemption by the residence, but by
the property owner. It's extremely wasteful to track it by person. Monsen stated
that either way, they still need to have someone track that activity and make
contact with the individual.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated they don't have to make contact with an individual. Just
send a mailing. An exemption is an encumbrance on the property. A person
should either sign up for an exemption or be automatically considered to have
garbage service.
Nelson asked if there is a reason why the haulers can't keep their own
records. Monsen stated the haulers have a business interest to track willing
customers. They don't want to track those individuals who don't want to pay,
weather or not there is an exemption.
Nelson suggested that the haulers solicit the business from the residents
directly. If a person doesn't want the service, the hauler can provide and keep the
exemption form. The form could be valid for a certain period of time, after which
the hauler would find out if the resident wants to continue the exemption or begin
to have collection services.
Brenner stated she wouldn't mind allowing a nominal charge for the
exemption to let the hauler make a little money from the exemption.
Monsen stated that suggestion is for a time limited exemption. That's very
different from an exemption that goes with the land until removed.
Brenner stated the exemption should go with the land, not who is living on
the property. If they check once a year, they will pick up any new people.
Crawford stated it's bizarre that they have mandatory exemption, and then
exempt anyone. They don't know who is doing what. He asked what the County
was thinking in 1990, and why they just don't have a franchised trash service. This
is a convoluted way of doing things. He speculates that someone wanted to raise
the public consciousness of waste disposal. He asked what other rural counties do.
Monsen stated it's unusual outside of an urbanized area to require mandatory
collection. When this was done, an issue was how the County and the cities were
going to manage solid waste. The cities were worried that they would be pressed
into more restrictive garbage collection services while the County would not require
it's unincorporated constituency to do the same.
Brenner asked why the cities care what the County residents do. Monsen
stated that was an issue to the cities at that time. He can't speak for the cities
about the reasons for that concern. The more significant motivation to do curbside
recycling is to subscribe to garbage collection. The exemption isn't the issue. The
issue is to maximize the number of people subscribing to garbage collection.
Brenner stated many more people in the county live in places where curbside
collection is inconvenient and would promote less responsible recycling. Forcing
people to pay money will not make it more environmentally sound. If they do this,
all they're doing is forcing people to pay more money.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated that if they don't have mandatory pickups and encourage
recycling efforts instead, they don't have to worry about this issue. Many people
self -haul their garbage. He doesn't like to see garbage all over the road on
collection day. There are drawbacks to mandatory collection. He recycles as much
as he can because he doesn't want to pay as much for disposal.
Crawford asked the impact to haulers and the public if they removed the
mandatory portion of chapter 8.11 and the exemption. Monsen stated the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee raised the issue. The exemption issue is due to
mandatory collection. The real work isn't dealing with those exempt. The focus of
this code is to go out and require collection for those who don't have exemption. If
they aren't going to require collection from someone, then don't waste time trying
to manage exemptions.
Brenner stated she liked Councilmember Nelson's suggestion to have the
hauler's make the effort to generate collections. Charge people a nominal charge
for exemptions. She also liked the idea to get rid of mandatory collections
altogether. Monsen stated he recommends continuing to promote collection
services through the hauling companies and not strong-arm the public. He doesn't
know whether he's ever talked to the haulers about managing exemptions for a fee.
The problem is that they can't enforce those who don't pay for their service and
don't have an exemption.
Brenner stated the purpose of curbside service is convenience. If it's not
convenient, they're punishing people by making them take it.
Crawford stated the people who want the service get it, and those who don't
want it don't get it. Monsen stated the reason for managing exemptions is to shift
as many people as possible into collection through a regulatory means.
Brenner stated the better way to do it is to have the haulers solicit their own
subscribers.
Crawford moved to recommend to the full Council to draft a letter to the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee thanking them for their concern, but this is not an
area the Council wants to spend further work on.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to encourage the committee to talk
to haulers about marketing.
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. Haulers have their
marketing schemes already. He withdrew his motion. Hold this in committee for
two weeks, and they can work on a letter.
Nelson asked what the staff prefers. Monsen stated that if the County will
not enforce the ordinance, than change it.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated he preferred to hold this item in committee. Express the
concern to the Council and propose an ordinance to amend the existing ordinance.
Crawford asked if there is any good reason for the district to continue to
exist if the mandatory collection is removed. Monsen stated chapter 8.11 is there
for the purpose of mandatory collection. He'd have to have some legal review
before repealing the chapter in its entirety. He would find out before the next
meeting.
Brenner moved to hold in committee for two weeks.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WHATCOM CHIEF-LUMMI
ISLAND FERRY 20-YEAR PLAN AND PARKING ON LUMMI ISLAND
(AB2004-098)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is a community meeting
soon where he will present this plan (on file). He will go to the community and ask
them to select one of three statements on a survey about their preferred level of
service. He provided cost estimates for each of the three scenarios. If they assume
doing nothing is not a viable alternative, it seems that it is more financially viable to
buy a larger boat than to promote walk-on traffic. He does not necessarily promote
that option. They don't know how much money will be available from the State or
federal governments to offset a capital expense. They don't know the conditions by
which they can renew the lease at Gooseberry Point. He asked for input on the role
the fare box or on -island revenue will play in covering a portion of the cost. When
one pays to get on the boat, the person is paying up to 55 percent of the operating
cost and nothing toward capital improvement. The question is whether the
residents will help pay for a new boat through fares. The capital expense is not
collected through the fare box.
Crawford stated the residents on a road would not pay for a new road.
Monsen stated that is correct, unless the residents choose to form an improvement
district because they want the improvement.
Brenner asked if this would be done as an improvement district. Monsen
stated the fare box or a special assessment is an option.
Brenner asked why anyone would vote themselves into an improvement
district if the County will do it for them. Monsen stated that if someone really wants
a new boat, and the decision between paying into an improvement district or not
getting a new boat, then the person may choose to pay into an improvement
district.
Crawford stated that when Smith Road was widened, the people on Smith
Road didn't pay any more.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated that improvement was regional. Lummi Island is site -
specific, not regional. Monsen stated the policy direction to this point has been to
consider it a regional facility for the purpose of capital expenditures. Any major
work on the dock is treated as any other bridge in the county. This policy question
needs to be decided before he can create a financial proposal.
He explained the three options that are described on the handout (on file).
With option one, there is little cost difference between keeping the current ferry or
leasing a passenger vessel for use during dry dock. The issue is how they deal with
parking if they lease a passenger -only vessel during dry dock. With option two, a
new dock would be necessary, and would be more expensive than the boat. The
issue today is to decide whether or not he should consider generating funds for
capital investments through the fare box.
Brenner stated it needs to be considered.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford asked about sending the survey to the residents and property
owners instead of the registered voters. Monsen stated there is an issue of how to
get a representative sample of the community. They have addresses to property
owners and registered voters.
Art Thomas, Lummi Island, stated they need to look into the idea of
partnering with the Port of Bellingham, with a high-speed passenger service. They
suggested sending the survey to registered owners only because it was at first an
advisory vote. Now it's a survey. There will be a lot of questions about the capital
costs. They can't ask the question before giving everyone the information. The
County needs to be consistent with capital costs. If the County starts charging for
this capital cost, then either put toll booths on the bridges or privatize the ferry
because it would no longer be a County ferry.
Brenner asked if the capital costs come out of the road fund. Monsen stated
they do.
Brenner asked the status of the road fund. Monsen stated buying a boat
would bring it pretty low. He projects having a fund balance in six years of $4
million. Buying a boat will take the balance to zero.
Thomas submitted information on a way to measure the level of service (on
file). He stated the Comprehensive Plan requires a level of surface, which should be
considered by any of the options.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1. DISCUSSION CONCERNING CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF DELTA LINE
ROAD NORTH OF GRANDVIEW ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED
NEW ROAD ALIGNMENT (AB2004-097)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the County, State Department of
Transportation, developer, and the engineer are all in favor. This item is for
discussion only.
Brenner stated it looks good to her. No action is needed.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003-075B)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, provided a handout (on file). The Airport
Advisory Committee recommends policy 2XX-5 regarding airport siting. The
recommended policy is on pages four and five of his January 12, 2004 memo from
him to the County Council. The committee hasn't voted on this language yet.
Brenner moved to include the language in issue 4 in the January 12, 2004
memo from Mr. Aamot to the County Council. Include the language in bold print
instead of the language that is there.
Motion carried 2-0 with Nelson absent.
Aamot referenced page 89 of the Essential Public Facilities -Exhibit A. The
Growth Management Act (GMA) says they need to plan for inpatient substance
abuse facilities. They also need to plan for the opiate substitution treatment
facilities, which are outpatient facilities. They should include a category of
outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities including opiate substitution
treatment.
Brenner moved to amend the table on page 89 of the Essential Public
Facilities -Exhibit A, to add to the category title, "outpatient substance abuse
treatment facilities including opiate substitution treatment."
Crawford concurred.
Crawford stated he wished the siting of these facilities could go through the
Planning Commission and land use process. Aamot stated staff became aware of
the requirements for these facilities late in the Comprehensive Plan process. The
State legislature amended the law, but didn't amend the Growth Management Act.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated they should site these facilities as tightly as possible. It
shouldn't be allowed in areas that are off the beaten track. There's too much
potential for theft and other crimes like that.
Crawford stated they could include these facilities temporarily and with the
intention of docketing this for the Planning Commission process. Aamot stated they
can do that.
Brenner moved to allow opiate substitution treatment facilities with a
conditional use permit (CUP) in light impact industrial zones only until the issue
goes through Planning Commission.
Crawford stated there is a public perception of these facilities. There must
be something lucrative for a provider to provide this kind of service. It's not
imminent that a facility will locate here, but they may see something eventually.
Aamot stated there are over 2,000 acres of light impact industrial zone.
Crawford asked if the Hearing Examiner would apply the criteria that would
be applied to other crisis facilities to this type of facility.
Brenner amended her amendment to allow opiate substitution treatment
facilities with a conditional use permit (CUP) in light impact industrial zones only
until the issue goes through Planning Commission and include language, "Until
further zones are established, the Hearing Examiner would rely on the crisis
facilities criteria for the conditional use permit." Aamot stated there are conditional
use criteria that apply to all conditional uses. He is trying to work with the mental
health representative on the committee and the Chief of Corrections on language.
Brenner stated she would wait for staff to come up with language. She
withdrew her motion. Use the conditional use criteria for correctional facilities
instead of crisis facilities instead.
Brenner referenced the bold section in policy 2XX-6 and stated she prefers to
use the word "shall" instead of "should." Aamot stated this is policy. Policies use
the word "should." The zoning requirements indicate "shall."
Brenner moved to amend policy 2XX-7(b), "with convenient access to
frequent transit service;" Transit service in the county goes only every one or two
hours.
Crawford stated the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) will generally
provide the level of service that is demanded. The Planning Department will
contact WTA to ask them if they can provide that level of service.
Notion carried 2-0 with Nelson absent.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford referenced the language in policy 2XX-7 and stated the County is
required to have correction facilities within the city limits, and the State allows the
County to put them in urban growth areas.
Brenner stated only the court has to be in the city.
Crawford asked if they can add language about it being in an urban growth
area. He's thinking about where the County can potentially put a jail.
Brenner stated they don't need to at this point.
Brenner referenced policy 2XX-8 and the language about the biomedical
waste operation collocated at one of the transfer station sites. That operation
didn't renew its permit. They're officially no longer there. She moved to take that
language out, "Solid waste handling facilities in Whatcom County currently include
two transfer stations, a bie Fnedieal waste epeFatien, a construction & demolition
debris landfill..." and "...outside of Whatcom County from these sites. TThe-bie-
The
construction & demolition debris landfill...." She asked Mr. Aamot to make sure it's
correct that the bio-medical waste facility no longer exists. She withdrew her
motion.
Brenner moved to amend the second bullet points in policies 2XX-8(a) and
2XX-8(b), "...except , commercial forestry and industrial zones." Type III
solid waste is the real nasty stuff, and handling facilities should not be located
where people live.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. He doesn't see how it conflicts
with agriculture and forestry. Rather than getting voted down, he suggested that
Councilmember Brenner bring the motion forward in two weeks when
Councilmember Nelson is present.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Brenner referenced policy 2XX-9 regarding personal wireless communication
facilities. She asked if they should put another requirement in there that it be
collocated. Aamot stated the policy references Whatcom County Code 20.13. That
requirement is built into the zoning code.
Brenner referenced policy 2XX-14 regarding secure community transition
facilities for sex offenders. Apply the same or similar criteria as are applied to
correction facilities. They should be at least one mile from public and private
schools. Aamot stated the State law specifies this language. He will check to see if
the County is pre-empted. He believes that the County can't be more restrictive
than the State requirements. He'll check on it.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced correction facility recommendations in urban residential
zones. She moved that correction facilities in this zone should be prohibited. They
don't belong there.
Crawford stated most of the urban growth areas (UGA's) are zoned urban
residential.
Brenner stated she doesn't know of any jails that are located in residential
zones. It's not a radical amendment. Aamot stated this section is a transitional
facility for ten or fewer residents.
Brenner stated it's still a correctional facility. They don't have to have them
in all kinds of zoning, just somewhere. It can be in industrial, light industrial, and
commercial zoning. The people in these facilities are criminals.
Crawford stated he'd have to think about that motion, and asked that it be
held for two weeks.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Crawford stated he wants to make sure these correctional facilities have
somewhere to go. Aamot stated the jail would not be allowed in residential zones.
Crawford stated the Council could rezone an area if it wants the jail in a
particular location.
Brenner stated that's what they should do instead of locating it in a
residential zone.
Brenner stated this item is held in committee for two weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/10/2004, Page 10