HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 26 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
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Safety Committee
October 26, 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:
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
Absent:
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM 2005-2010 (APPENDIX F OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (AB2004-337)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the Growth Management Act (GMA)
requires counties to have a capital facilities element that must include inventory of
existing County facilities, forecast future needs based on level of service, proposed
new facilities, and a plan to pay for the new facilities. They do a major update to
this plan every two years, and a summary update with the budget on the off year.
Two processes have a big impact on plan in the future. The first is the
facilities master plan process, including the law and justice center facilities. The
second is the update to the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan,
which will be completed in 2006. These documents may lead to significant changes
to the capital improvement program in the future.
There are four park improvement projects in the proposed plan. The
proposed six -year capital improvement program includes a minimum security
correction facility and planning and design for a larger law and justice center. This
plan references the six -year transportation improvement program and the Lummi
Island ferry, which isn't meeting the designated level of service now or over the
next six years. Currently, a subarea planning process and a 20-year ferry plan are
being developed.
Brenner referenced the last sentence on packet page 194, item D. They are
not going to have increased revenues or decreased expenses. That scenario is
unlikely. Section E on the same page talks about funding falling short of meeting
existing needs. They've been getting predictions about revenues and expenditures.
She asked if they can add language to section E. "E. ...already exists in the
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
48
Comprehensive Plan. They already believe there will be a problem with funding
falling short."
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that section is just a declaratory
statement of the County's ability to issue bonds. They are making plans to issue
bonds in the future for building a jail. They are setting aside the revenue from the
proposed sales tax increase. If the Council decides to implement something for the
Parks program, it could use the real estate excise tax (BEET) 2 funding or other
sources of revenue. The administration advocates that the language stay as it is.
Brenner moved to amend the second sentence in the Master Facilities
Planning section on Council packet page 195, "...time frame and will likely
result in significant..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 197, the Proposed Park
Improvement Projects section, "...the update of this plan try will likely lead to
changes...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 197, financing for park improvement
projects. They've developed nine park acres in two years, and expect to do 249
park acres in six years. She asked how optimistic the administration is that the
County will achieve that level. Aamot stated the Council approved the new funding
source from BEET. The upcoming Parks plan is also significant.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 198. The funding sources for items
25 and 27 talk about grants. She asked if those grants are assured.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated there are
grants available. They need to complete the Parks Comprehensive Plan. The
grants could be for acquisition or development. There are also opportunities that
come forward and could be applied. Some of the projects are pretty rough. It's
sometimes hard to assign financial estimates to them. That's what the Parks
Comprehensive Parks plan will do.
Crawford asked if this language means they will go out and buy more
parkland. Aamot stated it does not.
Crawford stated the County has a lot of parkland it hasn't developed. He's
concerned that they will buy more parkland when they haven't been able to
improve the parkland they've got. Aamot stated the level of service in the
comprehensive plan is for developed parklands. These are projects that would
have money put into them over the next six years for development. This language
doesn't mean the County will go out and buy more parkland.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
48
Brenner referenced Council packet page 200, Future Trail Needs. In the last
five years, the County has developed five miles of trails, and in the next six years
the County has to develop over 90 miles. That seems like an imbalance, given the
past development level. Aamot stated there does seem to be an imbalance. The
same argument applies regarding the upcoming parks plan and staff going out for
funding.
Crawford asked about levels of service. Many folks in cities also have parks
programs. He asked if these estimates came from the Comprehensive Plan many
years ago. It's a strange way to look at this. Aamot stated there is also a
reciprocal relationship from city residents using county parks.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 202 and asked if there is an
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Desler stated it is a statewide
committee providing funding for parks and trails.
McFarlane stated the committee is a clearinghouse for various federal and
state grants for parks and habitat development. Municipalities make application
through the agency, which matches the project with the proper grant.
Crawford asked if the property adjacent to Nugent's bridge, which has just
been purchased, is included. That property can have a public benefit because of its
accessibility. Desler stated that purchase happened recently, and is not included.
The administration will propose a funding structure for this property. The County
and community groups are working on the proposal.
Crawford stated his main concern is that there be a public use.
Ellen Barton, 1581 Marine Drive, Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee,
representing Scott Thompson, submitted a letter (on file). The advisory committee
asks that the bicycle plan be included in the capital facilities section of the
Comprehensive Plan to begin implementation. The Public Works Department has
begun enhancements of on -road bikeways. The greater need is planning for off -
road corridors. Include an off -road, non -motorized transportation corridor in the
capital facilities plan. The advisory committee is willing to dedicate a portion of the
$250,000 from the Road Shoulder and Trail Fund to make it feasible. Another
source for funding is REET. Future grants are also a possibility.
Brenner asked why there is not an east -west connector for bicycles and
pedestrians. Aamot stated the level of service is identified on Council packet page
254, policy 4G-2, and was adopted in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. Trail facilities
are located in the park facilities section. There is not a separate level of service
under transportation. Staff treats trails as park facilities. They've been going with
the level of service of .75 miles of trail per thousand population, which comes
through in the level of trail miles they need in six years. A separate section of this
document relates to transportation, and defers to the six year transportation
improvement program.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
Brenner asked if they need to wait until next July to update it. Aamot stated
the Council can include it as a recreational or a transportation project. They have
to identify location, funding sources, and costs.
Brenner asked if they can say that the location is to be determined. Aamot
stated they should indicate a location if they have one in mind.
Barton stated the location they are interested in is the Nooksack River dike,
which brings together all the population centers.
Aamot asked if they are talking about the whole dike in six years or a
segment of the dike.
Barton stated they are talking about developing it incrementally. This list
does not include an effort to do preliminary engineering or participate in any
discussions about flood engineering and critical areas about how to plan for the
future of the Nooksack River. This allows someone to participate who will make
sure a trail is considered. They've heard that the dikes may have to be breached to
create rearing ponds for salmon, which is fine if they make sure the trail goes
around it.
Brenner stated the County would have to get rights -of -way approval from
neighboring property owners. Barton stated farmers have identified that the cost
of upkeep on the dike is expensive, and there could be an incentive for the farmers
to grant rights -of -way if funding for dike maintenance could be tied to public
access.
Brenner stated that's a cost. She asked if this is feasible. Farmers are
pretty protective of the property in which the dikes are located. Aamot stated it
might be tough to implement it in a planning document. The map of future
recreation projects for the County in the Comprehensive Plan includes it. The
question is whether to put it in the six year plan.
Brenner suggested putting the feasibility study in the six year plan.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated they would have to find out if that
is a valid road fund expense. There is an argument that it can be a transportation
network, or it may be viewed as a recreation facility.
Brenner stated consider it further in the next six years.
Barton stated the concept of a Nooksack River dike bike trail has been on the
books for decades, but no one has acted upon it.
Brenner stated the first step is to begin planning. Aamot stated an option is
to add this project to the alternatives project list on Council packet page 202.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
48
Crawford asked how this is different from the Bay to Baker Trail. Barton
stated the Bay to Baker is not an owned right-of-way. The two trails will create a
loop. The trails will meet up at Nugent's Corner.
Crawford stated they should identify a project they can all agree on, and
then really push it. Many different ideas that come forward diffuse efforts.
Brenner stated there are no numbers, including cost and miles, in the
proposal. She would rather request the administration to look at this option for
inclusion in the plan next year, as a supplemental. She's concerned about including
the proposal without any estimated costs.
Brenner moved to request the administration to consider the Nooksack
River Dike Trail miles and costs with Scott Thompson and Ellen Barton to include as
an update this year or next year, as a supplmental.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
Crawford stated this doesn't authorize funds for expenditure of anything.
This is just a blueprint of where they would like to go. From that blueprint comes
alternative projects.
Aamot stated normally they only do Comprehensive Plan amendments once
per year and amendments to this plan once every two years. They do summary
updates every other year.
Crawford stated that if they amend this, the Council would have to have a
public hearing.
Brenner stated the motion is for administration to work on this over the next
several months, and bring it back to the Council.
Barton stated the advisory committee is trying to get this in ahead of the
revised and updated Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan. It could be
looked at during that process.
Aamot stated that is a very good idea.
Desler stated the administration wants to focus on those things the County
can get done within the context of a larger plan. If they want to add new projects,
they need to not dilute the work already done.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 207. She asked about the Civic
Center Annex housing office space that serves unincorporated areas only. Aamot
stated that the departments in that building also serve the city residents.
cities.
Desler stated the water resource inventory area (WRIA) effort works in the
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
48
Brenner stated those County departments may work with the City, but it
doesn't serve the city.
Desler stated that solid waste is collected countywide, throughout all
jurisdictions. There are projects inside the cities.
Brenner stated Whatcom County doesn't serve the city regarding solid waste.
The City of Bellingham serves the city residents.
Crawford asked the significance of calling out the differences. Aamot stated
that if the population grows faster in city areas, then the services that serve the
city residents might need more office space for those functions.
Brenner asked about doing some studying for the law and justice facility.
The amount of office space reduced in the last two year. She asked how they
expect to gain office space in the next two years.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot stated the improvement projects will hinge on the outcome of the
master facilities plan.
Crawford stated they didn't drop any office space, they just reallocated
space.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 210. She asked if the consolidated
services building will go next to the criminal justice building. Aamot stated that
language says the Sheriff's Office could be co -located at a criminal justice building.
Desler stated it is a placeholder in case the County should try to do that.
The GMA requires the capital improvement program. The process for making
certain decisions and the decisions themselves need to be done locally. They are
doing that now with master facilities planning process and the Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Plan. When those documents are done, the capital improvement plan
will be completely re -crafted. Modify the capital improvement plan to bring it into
compliance with those two documents and the GMA. They are not proposing any
major changes or amendments until those documents are done.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 218, the Whatcom Connector. That
project is at the bottom of the priority list. She asked if they have to take the
Whatcom Connector off the list totally. Aamot stated this just says these projects
are in the six year transportation improvement plan (TIP) for study and may not
occur. Preliminary engineering may be completed in this timeframe. They are
making this document consistent with six year transportation improvement plan.
Brenner stated the Council made it clear that this is not a priority. She
asked why it's even worked on.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
Rutan stated the Whatcom connector is project 57 of 62 projects. There is
funding for preliminary engineering in years four through six of the six -year plan.
The five projects on the plan are the new road alignments.
Brenner asked if they can remove the Whatcom connector from the plan, or
if it must be removed from the six year TIP. Aamot stated the documents should
be consistent. Inclusion in the plan doesn't mean the project will be done in six
years.
Brenner moved to remove "Whatcom Connector" from the proposed road
improvement projects on Council packet page 218.
Rutan stated the Geneva subarea plan lists this project as its highest rated
project. The TIP lists it as a project to plan for. If removed from this document, it
would not change the staff's direction, which comes from the six -year TIP, which is
the staff's direction from the elected officials. The Council can always take it off
the six -year plan. Removal requires unanimous approval if amended before July
2005.
Brenner referenced the West Illinois/Timson Way project. She asked if it is
in the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA). Aamot stated it is.
Brenner asked if the County gets money back if the area is annexed. Aamot
stated the County may get back a portion of the cost.
Barry Englestad, 995 Lakeview Street, Bellingham, submitted testimony (on
file). He read his testimony.
Brenner amended and restated her motion to remove the Whatcom
Connector from consideration at any time.
Motion failed 1-1 with Brenner in favor.
Crawford asked why a City planner said the connector would never happen.
Englestad stated the planner said that was the feeling from experience.
Crawford asked what studies have shown that the connector is not viable.
Englestad stated a councilmember made the statement to him that studies have
shown the connector is not viable. He doesn't know what the studies are.
Crawford stated an engineering study was proposed for a cost of $250,000.
The Executive vetoed the study.
Brenner stated a study was done years ago that showed the connector would
be expensive, obsolete by the time it was done, and would not solve the problem.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
47
48
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic/Development, stated the 1991
Reed Middleton study presented four to six alternatives. There wasn't a formal
conclusion. The project has been on and off the transportation improvement
program (TIP) since the early 1990's.
Crawford stated he wants a prudent process where future generations can
exercise all its options. Thousands of people in Sudden Valley have access issues.
There are environmental concerns that the road adjacent to the lake presents.
Don't stymie future options. Given the funds available and political will, a Whatcom
connector is unlikely. However, he wants to be careful that assumptions are
carefully thought through. Englestad stated that if the project is probably going to
be done, the citizens will have to respond to stricter rules and not be able to use
their property. If it won't be done, don't make those citizens abide by rules they
don't have to.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 219, Proposed Ferry Improvement
Projects. She asked if the improvements, the date, or both are unknown. Aamot
stated both are unknown. They will know more when the ferry plan is complete.
Crawford moved to recommend adoption to the full Council, as amended.
Brenner stated they didn't approve a major amendment she wanted, so she
would not support the motion.
Motion failed 1-1 with Brenner opposed,
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES
CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2004-338)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated there are two amendments. The first
amendment is to chapter four, a comprehensive review of the capital facilities
chapter, including level of service standards. The second amendment is to chapter
six, the transportation chapter. The chapter six level of service standards have to
be consistent with chapter four. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires a
capital facilities component to the Comprehensive Plan. The most significant
amendment is to the level of service. For transportation facilities, staff proposes to
amend the level of service (LOS) in the urban growth areas (UGA's). The existing
Comprehensive Plan contains two LOS provisions in the UGA. One is volume of
traffic ratio that offers a reasonable transition to roads in city UGA's. Another
provision is that the LOS for roads in UGA's are consistent with the LOS set by the
city. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommends an LOS E in the
Bellingham UGA, and LOS B in the other small city UGA's. The Planning
Commission recommended an LOS D in the Bellingham UGA. The Planning
Commission also made a change to policy 4L-2 on Council packet page 255.
Brenner referenced Council packet page 249, two-thirds down the page, the
rationale for the proposed amendment. She asked for an explanation of the
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, 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
48
rationale. Aamot stated the existing information is from 1993 and 1994. They are
simply updating the current financial conditions.
Crawford asked about the one no vote from the Planning Commission.
Brenner stated the issue was the language change from "should" to "shall,"
and Bob Wiesen was the no vote.
Crawford asked if they can mitigate for salmon habitat. Aamot stated this is
a policy document, not a regulation, so he prefers "should." John Thompson said
the "shall" statement is essentially consistent with the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), but there are circumstances when mitigation can occur.
Crawford suggested language that allows for mitigation.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, suggested "no net degradation." As an
engineer, he hesitates saying "shall." It's too black and white.
Crawford moved to amend policy 4L-2, page 255, "Projects selected for the
six -year capital improvement program shall not degrade result in a net degradation
of habitat for threatened and endangered species."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance to the full Council,
as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/26/2004, Page 9