Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 13 2004DISCLAIMER: 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 1 Public Works and Safety Committee 2 3 July 13, 2004 4 5 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in 6 the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 7 8 Present: Absent: 9 Dan McShane None 10 Sam Crawford 11 12 Also Present: 13 Laurie Caskey-Schreiber 14 Seth Fleetwood 15 Sharon Roy 16 17 18 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 19 20 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.82, PUBLIC 21 UTILITIES, ADDRESSING TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115 KV AND 22 TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115 KV OPERATING ABOVE 160 MW, AND 23 MODIFYING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.42 AND 20.43, RURAL AND 24 COMMERCIAL FORESTRY CHAPTERS (AB2004-225) 25 26 Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council. 27 28 Motion carried 2-0 with McShane out of the room. 29 30 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY 31 20-YEAR PLAN (AB2004-238) 32 33 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated a draft report dated June 21, 2004 34 in the Council packet supplements the June 3, 2003 report the Council received a 35 year ago. He hopes that any unclear issues in the report can be cleared up, so he 36 can finish this report and publish it to the Island community. He needs to finalize 37 the supplemental information for the community that will allow them to understand 38 their choices. He will submit an article about parking development on Lummi Island 39 and the survey in the island newsletter. 40 41 Brenner stated they should also publish about the house on the property. 42 Monsen stated he will. 43 44 In the report, he will talk about cost recovery, parking at Gooseberry Point, 45 tideland lease, level of service (LOS) standard, and the pros and cons of the survey. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 2 Operation and maintenance cost and boat rental rate. One issue that 1 influences recovery of 55 percent of the operating cost is that they established a 2 boat rental rate, much like other county vehicles. A monthly rate is charged and 3 compared periodically against actual costs. He referenced the chart on packet page 4 160. In the late 1990’s, the County was not collecting enough to cover costs. The 5 County charged higher fees in 2002 through 2004 to recover that operating loss. In 6 2005, the rate will go down because they have caught up on the operating costs. 7 8 They should reconsider how they calculate operating cost to not get in that 9 position again. It’s important to go through that exercise so cost recovery is clearer 10 over time, and isn’t artificially influenced by an administrative rental rate. 11 12 By code, the level of fare box recovery of operating cost is 55 percent. The 13 State recovery rate used to be 60 percent, and has been raised to 80 percent. 14 Pierce County followed suit, and it has a recovery rate goal of 80 percent in about 15 ten years. The State and Pierce County don’t recover capital expenditures as a part 16 of that recovery. Pierce County includes depreciation of all capital facilities for 17 future replacement in their recovery rate. The Skagit County recovery rate is 18 currently 39 percent, and does not include capital expenditures. Skagit County has 19 no intention of raising its recovery rate. That’s how other entities stand on this 20 topic. As he discusses a code amendment to clarify how they calculate 55 percent, 21 he will clarify how other people deal with it. 22 23 Brenner asked if Mr. Monsen talked to Skagit County to find out where it 24 subsidizes the rest of the cost. Monsen stated Skagit County’s method of collecting 25 the operating costs is identical to Whatcom County, except for its recovery rate. 26 The Pierce County ferry operation is larger and has been aggressive in recovering 27 cost. Skagit County has a much smaller ferry operation than Whatcom County. The 28 service that each county is providing is different from other counties. Policies, 29 services, fare box rates, and recovery goals are all different amongst the counties. 30 31 Parking. The County has a lease agreement with the Lummi Nation for more 32 than 80 parking spaces. It is a three-year agreement, which is short term. Now, 33 the County is discussing with Lummi Nation to do security surveillance. He 34 proposes extending that lease. The County and Lummi Nation will be more 35 aggressive dealing with long-term siting of a Lummi ferry and parking agreement. 36 A driver of the issues will be tribal plans for redevelopment of Gooseberry Point. 37 38 Brenner asked if the County has considered relocating the ferry to 39 Bellingham. Monsen stated only if they could not renew the lease, but not in the 40 context of redevelopment at Gooseberry Point. 41 42 Brenner stated the County will be at the mercy of what the Lummi Nation 43 wants to charge unless they both have something to bring to the table. Monsen 44 stated the 25-year renewal is what the County brings to the table. If they can’t 45 agree on a price, an arbitrator is selected. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 3 Caskey-Schreiber stated the lease would also bring a ready clientele if the 1 Lummi Nation ever wanted to develop commercially. 2 3 Brenner stated that if the County doesn’t have a backup plan to move to 4 Bellingham, there is nothing to bargain with. Monsen stated a problem with the 5 alternative to Gooseberry Point is that water conditions in Bellingham Bay are 6 difficult, and it would require a dramatically different system. The current boat 7 can’t cross Bellingham Bay right now. 8 9 Brenner asked if a bigger ferry would be able to. Monsen stated the boats he 10 references in the report would not. A 150-car boat could get across the bay. That 11 analysis hasn’t taken into account cycle time. They will pursue that analysis, but 12 not to a fine level of detail. The County is not in a strong bargaining position. 13 Another alternative is to move northerly along the coast to off-reservation areas, 14 but that gets to industrial lands where security issues are a concern. 15 16 Brenner stated people would also have to travel further into Bellingham from 17 that area. 18 19 Caskey-Schreiber stated if the route is changed to Bellingham, the County 20 would have to negotiate with the Port of Bellingham. 21 22 Monsen stated the County made headway with the Tribe on the lease of 23 tidelands eight years ago, because the Tribe wanted to do redevelopment. 24 However, the Tribe shifted all its energy to the casino. Now, the Tribe is ready to 25 bring energy back to Gooseberry Point redevelopment. 26 27 Parking on Lummi Island. He has approval to move ahead with purchase of 28 property west of ferry land, the Embrey property. There is a purchase and sale 29 agreement of $495,000. The closing date is this Friday. The County is trying to 30 extend the closing date. There are issues about a well, water line, and water supply 31 from the water association. The County needs to know those issues clearly before it 32 closes on the sale. 33 34 Caskey-Schreiber stated the County will possess the existing house. A citizen 35 is interested in keeping the house there as shelter or concession stand for the ferry. 36 Get some citizen input from an advisory committee on how the residents want that 37 parking lot developed. Monsen stated he recommended this purchase because of 38 the shape, increased size, and location of property. There are more opportunities 39 for creatively developing the property. Demolition of the house is the last 40 alternative. It could be sold and/or relocated or stay on site. It depends on 41 financing. All the options are open at this moment. 42 43 Brenner stated the decision the County makes about the house should be 44 based on finances and benefits to the County. Some people want to move it or 45 leave it there. Monsen stated he will focus on the long-term financial impacts of all 46 alternatives. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 4 1 McShane asked if the current recapture rate includes the capital cost of boat 2 replacement. Monsen stated it is dry dock and fuel. 3 4 Crawford asked if that number would go up if the County bought a new ship. 5 They would still have dry dock and fuel costs, in addition to the cost of a new boat. 6 Monsen stated a policy decision that needs to be made is whether the operating 7 cost includes the cost of replacing the boat. Without a change in County policy, 8 capital costs of the boat would not be included in the rate structure. The 9 administration does not propose doing that, but the Council must deal with that 10 question. 11 12 Level of Service. At this point in time, level of service (LOS) is considered in 13 the capital facilities plan. For the ferry, the formula is a bit odd. The formula looks 14 at the maximum number of users on the boat and the number of uses they have 15 now. That is not a classic version of LOS. It should be amended. The Lummi 16 Island Community Club wants the County to reconsider LOS not on how many times 17 people use the boat, but on how many opportunities there are to move people 18 across. Focus on people, not deck space. Total capacity is more important to 19 people. Morning use is the highest demand. He would recommend a combination 20 of total capacity and also consider that the highest demand is a peak hour issue, not 21 an average use issue. He’s not sure how to mix those from a land use planning 22 standpoint. Ultimately, the final 20-year plan has to be clear on the significance of 23 peak hour use versus average use. If they have a boat twice the car deck size, they 24 will still have a morning demand that would fill the boat. That demand would 25 consolidate to the capacity of the boat. 26 27 McShane stated that if the LOS established is not met, it would trigger denial 28 of building permits. Monsen stated peak hour service drives the level of 29 improvement. That is not the case with ferries, which look more at averages over 30 time. It’s not clear how to match the two for land use planning. One question is a 31 reasonable wait time. There is plenty of capacity to get off the island in the 32 evening. That doesn’t mean people should have to shift their schedules. It’s a 33 balancing act. 34 35 Caskey-Schreiber stated the higher LOS, the more incentive there is to 36 develop in that area. It’s an induced use factor, where they will maximize capacity 37 again, because more people will think living on Lummi Island is a viable option to 38 commute on a normal schedule. Monsen stated part of the reason for the existing 39 financial issues is that revenue generation can’t grow because the boat is reaching 40 capacity. Creating capacity can generate revenue, and artificially limit the increase 41 needed for added cost in fare structure. Changing capacity during peak hours can 42 increase revenue. The kind of growth they saw in passenger cars peaked and 43 started to decline. The last rate increase was to encourage walk-on passengers. 44 45 Brenner asked if they are creating a gated community on Lummi Island. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 5 Caskey-Schreiber stated it already is. 1 2 Brenner stated it depends on the size of the ferry. Monsen stated his purpose 3 is to provide the financial plan as a service to the County. That issue is a land use 4 question. He won’t address the land use question. At one point, the Council said it 5 doesn’t want to use the boat as a method to control land use. 6 7 Caskey-Schreiber stated the issues are tied together. They have to consider 8 them. That’s the reality. Monsen stated that if they quadrupled the capacity of 9 moving people and vehicles across the passage, it would have nearly no influence 10 over development demand. Today, it clearly does. The 20-year plan will balance 11 financial responsibility while allowing the community to develop to where it should 12 go. 13 14 Caskey-Schreiber stated they’re trying to keep it at a level where they can 15 support it without making it subsidized even more by the rest of the residents in the 16 county. 17 18 Brenner stated limiting ferry size wouldn’t limit development. It would just 19 limit the kind of buyer. It would encourage more retirees instead of families. 20 Monsen stated that’s correct. It also depends on how frequent the ferry runs are. 21 22 Crawford asked if a bridge is out of the question. Monsen stated in late 23 1950’s and early 1960’s, there was an effort to develop a bridge by individuals who 24 promoted Lummi Island being the point of ferry service to the San Juan islands, 25 instead of Anacortes. However, the State chose Anacortes and the local motivation 26 for a bridge was lost. Financially, for the kind of bridge needed to still allow boat 27 traffic, the cost would be the same as the cost of running a boat for a long time. 28 Permitting a bridge would be difficult. A bridge would be expensive and change 29 character of Lummi Island and the reservation. 30 31 Proposed survey. The County wants to ask the community where it wants to 32 invest the next major capital investment capacity, whether it be toward car deck 33 space, walk-on space and support services, or to continue as it is. They can 34 continue with a combination of plans, but the question is about the major 35 investments. 36 37 Caskey-Schreiber asked if the second option would be to facilitate transit by 38 adding a foot passenger-only boat. That item can have stronger language about 39 better facilitating pedestrian flow. 40 41 Brenner asked if the reference to better transit is intended for Whatcom 42 Transportation Authority (WTA). Monsen stated the reference to better transit is to 43 improve current LOS and address future growth. WTA may not be enough. In the 44 financial analysis, he included the cost of providing a transit bus to a satellite 45 location. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 6 (Clerk’s Note: End of tape one, side A.) 1 2 Brenner asked the purpose of a satellite location instead of the current 3 location at Gooseberry Point. Monsen stated the parking at Gooseberry Point is 4 through a lease with the Tribe at the Tribe’s discretion. A satellite parking lot would 5 be owned by the County. His concern with the survey is coming up with what they 6 would calculate the number on. He wants to know the direction the County should 7 focus its investments. Residents select their preferred option on the survey form, 8 but they are not voting for or against one over the others. 9 10 Pros and cons. He and the Lummi Island Transportation Committee 11 submitted suggested pro and con language for each option (on file). He will 12 consolidate that information and submit the final pros and cons on the matter. 13 14 Financial impacts. There are two scenarios for car capacity and two scenarios 15 for people capacity. The two scenarios in option one is to purchase a new boat in 16 two to five years. Scenarios two and three ignore the financial implication that the 17 County will still need to replace the Whatcom Chief in 10 to 15 years. 18 19 The financial information in the draft plan tries to convey the range of cost 20 changes to the current rate formula. His analysis ignores the fare structure of cars 21 over passengers in terms of deck space and passenger space. 22 23 Brenner stated that even if they promote walk-on passengers, don’t shift the 24 rates to walk-on passengers. 25 26 Monsen stated this financial information is just to give them an idea. 27 Whatever they will decide will involve a rate structure discussion. 28 29 Crawford asked the point of the survey. The ferry is reaching capacity and 30 will eventually need to be replaced. He asked why they don’t just decide on option 31 1A to plan for the future. He asked why they are going through this process. 32 Monsen stated there was a request from the community to go through this process. 33 A previous Council committed to going through this process. He is developing the 34 survey and this information because of previous commitments. 35 36 Crawford stated option 1A is one of the clearest presentations he’s seen of the 37 inevitable direction they need to move ahead. He is in favor of moving forward with 38 that option. The Council is sympathetic to the LOS the community desires. 39 40 Brenner stated option 1A is the cheapest in terms of percentage of fare 41 structure increases. 42 43 Roy stated the community survey is important. Not everyone agrees on 44 increasing capacity. The survey gives people a sense they have a say in the 45 decision. It would be nice for the County to get that feedback. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 7 Brenner stated she agreed. They have to weigh the community desire with 1 the cost. In the end, it will cost more to do nothing. 2 3 Crawford asked what the County would do if something happened to the Chief 4 today. If something happened to the Whatcom Chief and it is no longer a safe boat, 5 the County will have to do something about it. In 2000, people suggested the ferry 6 was beyond its useful capacity. He doesn’t understand the logic of prolonging it for 7 ten to 15 years, other than to put off the financial expenditure. 8 9 Brenner stated the islanders have to know the corresponding fare structure 10 increase. They have to understand the financial ramifications of every option. 11 12 Monsen stated one scenario not included was eliminating that capital expense. 13 14 McShane stated there are two issues. The first is capital cost. The second is 15 recovery rate. Two major policy decisions need to be presented to the community. 16 That may influence how the community thinks. They’re talking about significant 17 increases. If the County increases the recovery rate to 80 percent, it significantly 18 increases the cost to the public and may change some people’s preference. Have a 19 healthy debate about that. 20 21 Brenner stated that if the County provides a van service, it has to include the 22 cost of that also. 23 24 Monsen stated scenarios 2A and 2B tried to capture those kinds of costs, 25 assuming a van service would not be subsidized by WTA. 26 27 Brenner stated option three still assumes they have to purchase a ferry in the 28 future. Monsen stated scenarios two and three ignore that fact. 29 30 Brenner stated that no matter what they do, they would have to purchase a 31 new ferry soon. Monsen stated there is no reason to believe the boat can’t continue 32 to operate at a reasonable price for ten to 20 years. However, the boat is 33 functionally obsolete. There could be a State or federal requirement to change the 34 boat in the future because of higher standards. 35 36 Crawford asked how much the County is spending on the Austin Creek bridge 37 replacement or on Frost Road. Monsen stated the Frost Road cost is $500,000. 38 39 Crawford asked the cost of the Smith Road widening project in today’s dollars. 40 Monsen stated that cost is $1.5 million per mile. 41 42 Crawford stated the County hasn’t tried to recover those costs. There are 43 mechanisms in place to recover some of this ferry cost. They are far from 44 discussing what percentage that should be. A cost of $6.1 million is not that far out 45 of the question. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 8 Monsen stated the survey is a mail survey to the residents. He has two lists 1 of names and addresses. One list is 690 Lummi Island registered voters. Of those, 2 476 own property. There are 214 registered voters who don’t own property on 3 Lummi Island. About 20 property owners are registered to vote, but who don’t live 4 on the island. 5 6 Brenner asked about non-registered voter property owners. Monsen stated 7 there are 1,439 parcels. That represents about 1,000 ownerships. Of the 1,000 8 ownerships, 476 registered voters own property. About half the property owners 9 are registered voters living on the island. 10 11 He is trying to get a sampling of the various interests. Insure that everyone 12 has access to a ballot. The question is whether they send one to all registered 13 voters and also all property owners. Some of those names are duplicate. The 14 County could tally what the voters said versus what the property owners said. 15 16 The committee concurred to compare voter response versus owner 17 response. 18 19 Monsen stated the list of property owners doesn’t identify the number of 20 owners. It is an ownership and a mailing address. How multiple owners of one 21 property respond is their issue to resolve. 22 23 Crawford stated the two surveys, one for owners and one for voters, is 24 appropriate. 25 26 Brenner stated they will see a difference in results. The audience at Lummi 27 Island is divided already. She doesn’t want to encourage that division. However, 28 the County needs the information it can get. 29 30 Sheila Marshall, West Shore Drive, stated she has a concern about the 31 Embrey property. Leave the doors open to the house as a community center. The 32 Lummi Island Community Land Trust may be able to keep up the building. It will 33 meet and discuss the issue tonight. The previous owner and current owner have 34 done a lot of work on the house. There is not enough room in the library for 35 community meeting space. People don’t use the Grange Hall without paying a fee. 36 They can barely use the schools anymore. The library doesn’t charge a fee. 37 38 Bob Fodor, North Nugent, stated the County should keep the Embrey house 39 there. It wouldn’t have much value if it were moved. It doesn’t take up that many 40 parking spaces. It is well-situated. The west and south sides of the lot are ample 41 for parking needs. The residents need a community center. The Lummi Island 42 Community Land Trust is chartered for this kind of purpose. Keep the house. If the 43 County decides to sell it, don’t give it to someone on the island without a public 44 process. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 9 Art Thomas, Islandview Road, stated the survey started as an advisory 1 measure to give the Council an idea of what the islanders want. The assessed value 2 of property in 1958 was $500,000. The Whatcom Chief was purchased for 3 $250,000. Today, assessed value of property on Lummi Island is $139 million. The 4 cost for a new ferry would be $6 million. That doesn’t seem too expensive 5 compared to 1960. 6 7 The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the transportation element 8 complement the land use plan. It’s illegal to use transportation to control growth. 9 10 Capital recovery is something the Council needs to consider, but as a 11 countywide policy. It’s reasonable to charge those who use bridges. 12 13 Fred Kinney, Legoe Bay Road, listed his credentials. He thanked Jeff Monsen 14 and his staff for their help and cooperation. As a resident, he knows the Whatcom 15 Chief is 40 years old and is exposed to saltwater environment. It goes 25,000 miles 16 per year. The ferry has been well-maintained, but there were issues with the last 17 shut down. It’s starting to show its age. The vehicle service on Lummi Island is 18 inadequate. Peak capacity is less than half the peak demand. There are wait times 19 of one to two hours. Increased demand for walk-on passengers is a result. That’s 20 the driver behind the better passenger service. Increased demand for passengers 21 includes increased demand for parking, more congestion, better passenger facilities, 22 and better security. Facilities would serve only ten percent of community that are 23 walk-on passengers. Money spent to serve walk-on passengers would be a high 24 cost and a low benefit, and fails to address the core problem. The County needs to 25 plan for both passengers and vehicles. Larger vehicle passenger ferry is the most 26 cost-effective means of the problem. A 40-vehicle ferry will increase peak capacity 27 only from 60 to 80 cars per hour, due to single-lane loading. New dock 28 modifications are needed in the future to accommodate two–lane loading to 29 increase capacity to 120 cars per hour. With a five-year lead time for a new ferry 30 and two-and-a-half to three percent population growth per year, demand will 31 increase by 12 to 15 percent by the time a new ferry can be put into service. They 32 will only add 33 percent capacity when they increase to a larger ferry. Delaying the 33 purchase of a new larger ferry will result in increased cost and more aggravating 34 ferry service. 35 36 Richard Frye, 2072 Granger Way, stated the issue is investment pricing 37 capacity. There is a lot of talk about the vague concept of demand for ferry service. 38 Costs are vague. The issue is appropriate timing, pricing, and capacity to maximize 39 social benefits to the County and Lummi Island residents. Talk about demand and 40 what demand is about. It’s about willingness to pay for a certain kind of service. 41 The issue is not that the current ferry doesn’t carry all the cars. The issue is when 42 the ferry carries the cars and how long people are willing to wait. If people are 43 willing to wait all day, the current ferry would probably handle all the cars. Then it 44 becomes a peak load demand pricing and allocation problem. Combine the supply 45 side and the demand side. Measure benefits as well as cost. The main issue about 46 LOS is about how long the average person waits in line during the day. 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. Public Works and Safety Committee, 7/13/2004, Page 10 1 If they are going to do a survey, don’t have three general questions. Instead, 2 strive for maximum amount of granularity in the data, which involves information 3 about how often people use the ferry, the amount of time they wait in line, time of 4 day they ride, willingness to pay for shorter waits. 5 6 The question of capacity is tied to the Council’s decisions on the growth rate 7 of Lummi Island. If there will be unlimited growth, the County will need a bigger 8 ferry sooner. If a new ferry only increases capacity by 25 to 30 percent, the County 9 will be in the same position in five to ten years. Consider the appropriate growth 10 wait in addition to the ferry size. 11 12 13 OTHER BUSINESS 14 15 There was no other business. 16 17 18 ADJOURN 19 20 The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. 21 22 23 ______________________________ 24 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 25 26 27 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 28 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 29 30 31 32 ______________________________ ___________________________ 33 Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair 34