HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole June 17 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
June 17, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(1 :37:06 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer, Pete
Kremen, Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL OFFICE 2015 -2016 BUDGET PRIORITIES
(AB2014 -205A)
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, described the budget timeline for the
Council Office and asked which additional service requests (ASRs) the Council is interested
in putting forward.
Weimer stated the County Executive asked the Council to have a discussion about
their budgeted travel money sooner rather than later.
Crawford moved to approve a travel budget for each year equivalent to $3,000 per
councilmember, for a total of $21,000, to be put into a general pot within the Council
budget that councilmembers can use with the approval of the Council majority or Council
Chair. There are opportunities councilmembers have missed. He would like to not have to
negotiate monies. They must invest in councilmembers' abilities to get education,
participate in state and federal legislative processes, and associate more frequently with
other elected officials who face similar problems. This county is growing. They must be
able to interact with peers. The taxpayers of Whatcom County will receive a return on this
investment in the form of grant revenue received from their efforts.
Brenner stated it's not the councilmembers' job to rub elbows. They have an
opportunity to connect through email, telephone, and video. They must focus on the
budget. If necessary, they can hire another grant writer. This is more than they've ever
done for the Council. She's willing to give up her travel money to other councilmembers.
Increasing the amount per councilmember doesn't set a good example for the rest of the
County departments.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. He recently returned from
a trip to Washington, D.C. during which he networked with White House officials and
discussed the continual cutting of the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program. He
brought that issue to the attention of the federal government because he was there and
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
because the First Lady advocates for early childhood learning. Opportunities like that will be
missed if they don't engage in and participate at the State and federal level. The amount
suggested is more than they've ever had before, but it's less than they've paid for lobbying
efforts in partnership with the Port and City of Bellingham, which hasn't resulted in much
benefit to the County. He plans to attend similar conferences around the country to foster
similar efforts.
The training done by the Sheriff's Office and Health Department, which have
significant travel and education budgets, can just as easily be done by video. The Council
cannot network, lobby for grants, and shape public policy without being face -to -face with
others. One issue discussed at the White House and with Treasury Department officials had
to do with the loss of sales tax to all counties throughout the country because of internet
sales. They're trying to get the administration and Congress to develop policy that will
enable them to recapture lost revenues that they once relied upon.
Crawford stated his motion isn't to pay people to travel, but to have a fund to
reimburse travel expenses, which are set with allowed amounts to be spent, regulated by
State and federal law. This is only for expense reimbursement, not to allow any
councilmember to benefit financially. The councilmembers receive a minimal base salary to
serve on the Council. Anything councilmembers choose to do on behalf of the County is
done out -of- pocket unless there is a reimbursement mechanism.
(1:52:25 PM)
Brenner stated she doesn't mind if the Council has a fund for travel reimbursement
when the Council votes to approve the expense reimbursement, and then gets rid of the
lobbyist.
Browne stated that in the private sector, a group with this decision - making authority
would have a significantly higher travel and education budget. They have a responsibility to
the citizens to seek the best available education before making decisions. He supports the
motion.
Weimer stated he also supports an increased travel budget, but only if there is a
direct benefit to Whatcom County. He's been to a number of National Association of
Counties (NACO) conferences, and not much was worthwhile. If they spend more money on
travel, think about how that goes forward. They must be more involved at the State level
with the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC). He asked if this $21,000
includes the budget amount for staff travel and education.
Crawford stated it does. Brown -Davis stated each councilmember has a travel
account of $500. There is a $6,000 line item that everyone can draw from. She asked if
the $21,000 will be divided and go into individual councilmember accounts or combined into
the joint line item.
Kremen asked the current total. Brown -Davis stated there is an additional line item
for registration and tuition in the amount of $1,000. She asked if those expenditures would
come out of the proposed $21,000 or left in a separate line item. The line item for joint
travel account is called Travel /Other.
Crawford amended his motion and moved to increase the Travel /Other line item
per year for a total of $21,000 for each year. There hasn't been a formal process for
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
approving reimbursement. They've all just been conscious of the limits and have traded
each other's budgets. He prefers one pot of money.
Kremen stated County councilmembers historically were not willing to be involved in
training and other efforts. Government is more complex than in the past. Although this is a
part -time job, councilmembers should make an effort to be more informed and involved at
the State and federal levels and choose their niche so they have a well- rounded, informed
legislative body.
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment that the budget be $2,000 per
councilmember that can be reimbursed without Council approval in each councilmember
travel account, and put the other $7,000 available in joint travel line item that can be used
upon request and that staff can use for their training and travel needs.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment. This is an expense reimbursement
program that must be done with the standard forms and procedures.
Brenner stated she doesn't support $2,000 per councilmember.
Browne called the question.
Crawford restated the motion to budget $2,000 per councilmember that can be
reimbursed without Council approval in each councilmember travel account, and put the
other $7,000 available in joint travel line item that can be used upon request and that staff
can use for their training and travel needs.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Brown -Davis asked what the Council wants to do about the line item amount for
registration and tuition.
Kremen stated two councilmembers should go to the legislative conference in
Washington D.C., which is about $550 for each registration. The line item would also pay
for staff registrations. The current amount is obsolete, low, and should be increased.
Crawford moved to amend the budget line item in the Council budget from $1,000
to $3,000 per year for all registration and tuitions for councilmembers and staff. He has not
used one cent of reimbursement during his time in the Council Office, but they must
realistically look at expense reimbursement.
Brenner stated it's important that staff be able to attend training and conferences
whenever needed. She won't use the money in her account and is willing to give it to
others. Putting it in everyone's line item isn't the best way to spend the same amount of
money. Don't limit how much the staff can spend on tuition.
Weimer stated there is already a $1,000 limit, and they're raising it to $3,000.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brown -Davis stated another potential ASR is for funding the Charter Review
Commission in the amount of approximately $10,000 to $15,000.
Crawford asked what the Council spent for the Commission in 2005. Brown -Davis
stated the cost covers staff support for the Commission. They budgeted $10,760 and spent
$5,300 in 2005.
Brenner stated she doesn't mind padding that account because the Charter Review
Commission needs whatever funding is necessary to operate because it's mandatory.
Brown -Davis stated the Commission will be busy this time.
Weimer moved to create an ASR for $15,000 to pay for the Charter Review
Commission.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann stated he supports all four ideas proposed in Ms. Brown - Davis's email. That
includes a full -time Council staff person in a policy analyst position to help with important
policy issues. He also supports outsourcing someone to host and live stream Council
meetings in a way that is searchable and can be done online.
Brown -Davis stated the County's Information Technology (IT) Division and Facilities
are exploring the option to live stream Council meetings.
Mann stated they should have that discussion with IT staff. It's not expensive for
someone else to host the full video streaming service. Make sure someone in the County
budgets for it. Brown -Davis stated she will have a conversation with IT staff and Facilities
staff. If they aren't looking at it, she will research it and put something in the Council's
budget.
Mann stated create an ASR for the Council and Hearing Examiner for staff time spent
on the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project. Have a second dedicated hearing examiner
from a port city that's dealt with huge projects like this. The Council staff is also spending a
lot of time on GPT. Consider having some level of staff support dedicated to GPT.
Weimer asked what year they would need to budget for a hearing examiner. The
current Hearing Examiner is interested in doing the GPT hearings if the Council contracts out
his current work. He knows the County's code and the way things work. The Council could
outsource the normal hearing examiner issues while Hearing Examiner Bobbink works on
GPT.
Brenner stated GPT is supposed to pay for those expenses.
Mann stated he believes that's correct, but just make sure the Council Office doesn't
end up with an expensive bill with no way to get reimbursed. Brown -Davis stated they
must have money to pay for the service prior to getting reimbursed.
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, stated the Council can amend the unified fee
schedule (UFS) for a specific charge on a per hour basis for the hearing examiner. The City
of Ferndale has a deposit for the hearing examiner services for a certain number of hours,
and then charges per hour over that amount. If they amend the 2015 Unified Fee Schedule,
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
those fees will be in place in time for the Council to make a decision on the GPT project or
any other larger projects that take a lot of time. He recommends that they update the
current contract to ensure that it covers reimbursement for time spent by the Hearing
Examiner.
Kremen stated he prefers to amend the contract than amend the UFS.
Brenner stated she agrees. She asked if GPT pays up front. Schroeder described
how the fees are recovered from GPT and the escrow account used for CH2MHill's cost to do
the environmental impact statement (EIS).
Mann stated he's not interested in how reimbursement would work. Just make sure
the Council Office and Hearing Examiner staff are tracking their hours and are reimbursed.
He asked if Council staff can keep track of their hours.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated it's a policy decision. He doesn't bill his time
specifically to the GPT project. The Hearing Examiner is a judge for the County. There is
now a specified fee schedule attached to it. The safest process for making sure the hearing
examiner service, staff, and use of the facilities are covered on this or any future project is
to charge a fee for up to a specific amount of time for hearings in the fee schedule, and
include a way to charge extra for any overages.
Mann asked who would initiate that change to the UFS. Brown -Davis stated the
Council Office would request that change to the Council portion of the UFS.
Louws stated that if that request comes through, he can review it and approve it on
an interim basis before going through the budget process.
Crawford stated he prefers they amend the contract, not the UFS. The fee for the
hearing examiner has been the topic of great debate among the councilmembers for many
years. He believes the finer points of Whatcom County land use laws can be interpreted
differently. There are many instances in which a property owner feels that the staff's
interpretation is incorrect. Going before the hearing examiner is the only time when an
applicant is on a level playing field. The staff and the applicant are equals before the
hearing examiner. He's argued in the past that they should have minimal or no fee for the
hearing examiner. The GPT project is unique. The County has a contract relationship in
which the County reserves the right to alter the contract and address the costs there. Don't
open the discussion about hearing examiner fees again. The hearing examiner fee covers
the cost for Planning Department staff, not the Council. Brown -Davis stated the Council
Office charges a $300 fee when the Hearing Examiner decision is appealed to the Council.
Louws stated they can put the expense reimbursement costs on major development
applications only, and leave everything else the way it is. That would get to those huge
projects with associated costs.
Crawford stated that would resolve his concern.
(2:28:46 PM)
Kremen stated he is concerned about separating the costs for the Hearing Examiner
and other expenses. It's cleaner to have one individual hearing examiner who works solely
on the GPT issue instead of having to compute various staff hours. It seems very
cumbersome, awkward, and inefficient. It would be easier to administer.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated she agrees with keeping a GPT hearing examiner separate and
isolated.
Mann stated he's talking about charging a flat rate until they go over some threshold
when an hourly rate would apply. That would also protect the little guy.
Weimer stated he prefers making a unified fee schedule change to major
development permits only instead of amending the contract. Hiring a hearing examiner
would be costly because of the hiring process. They don't know what other costs are
coming forward. He asked if the request for proposal (RFP) process for hiring a hearing
examiner or renting Bellingham High School for public hearings could be charged in the
contract. Louws stated a major development applicant would reimburse the County for all
costs associated with the major development application, including hearing examiner time,
staff time, and facility rental. Make that fee and reimbursement policy solid enough to
encompass labor and overhead. They need to account for the cost in the 2015 -2016
budget, regardless of who the hearing examiner will be.
Brenner stated she feels strongly about not commingling hearing examiner and other
services. Maintain a separation.
Crawford moved to request that the Executive have staff prepare a UFS for 2015-
2016 with a base rate plus hourly rate for hearing examiner hearings on major project
permits, in addition to the regular hearing examiner fee.
Brenner asked if councilmembers are interested in having another hearing examiner
just for the GPT project.
Crawford stated he is not. Mr. Bobbink is extremely competent and has been an
excellent hearing examiner. He's prepared to take this on. When it comes to understanding
local code and its history, Mr. Bobbink will be a great asset in this controversial process. He
would dread the process of hiring another hearing examiner just for GPT. The public will
interpret any hiring decision as being political. Keep away from that option. If the Hearing
Examiner feels like he doesn't have enough hours to deal with everything, he can ask to
shift the workload.
Brenner stated any hearing examiner has to be a Washington State attorney. She
has faith that other attorneys can do this work. It would be less controversial.
Weimer stated the Hearing Examiner could bring in a hearing examiner pro tempore
to fill in for the normal hearing examiner duties while he works on the GPT project if
necessary.
Kremen stated that would also be a political and problematic process to leave it up to
the Hearing Examiner, who has expressed a specific desire that he wants to deal with all the
issues relating to Gateway Pacific project. It's cleaner and less problematic to bring in a
separate hearing examiner. The Council is treating this issue differently from any other
issue the Council has ever dealt with.
Weimer stated they don't need to make that decision today. The Council can have
conversation with the Hearing Examiner specifically. Mr. Bobbink never expressed to him
desire to take on the GPT project.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Brown -Davis stated Mr. Bobbink didn't come to her and the Council Chair because he
wants to do the GPT project. She and the Council Chair went to Mr. Bobbink to ask him if
he would take on the project, if that's the way things went. Mr. Bobbink told her he would
reluctantly take on the project because it would be the fairest way to travel through the
process. Mr. Bobbink has not come to the Council asking for the project.
Browne asked if the Hearing Examiner indicated how his workload would change and
if he would need assistance.
Weimer stated the Hearing Examiner indicated that he would need assistance
because the hearing would go on for days. Also, he has to read through all the material
submitted.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to hire a full time staff person as a legislative analyst with legal and /or
land use expertise for the Council who works at the Council's direction, in the amount of
approximately $85,000.
Brenner stated make sure they hire a person who also understands budget issues.
Kremen stated he supports one legislative analyst who can provide the Council with
expertise in issues regarding policy, land use, and the budget.
Buchanan asked if the budgeted amount of $85,000 is for salary and benefits.
Brown -Davis stated it is, in addition to any supplies and furniture that person would need.
Browne stated he's concerned about how a legislative analyst's time would be
allocated. Brown -Davis stated the person's duties have to be approved by a super- majority
of the Council.
Browne stated another option is to split the legislative analyst's time equally among
all councilmembers, so the person isn't pulled in different directions by individual
councilmembers.
Kremen stated Council staff aren't pulled in different directions by councilmembers.
They all can work together peacefully.
Crawford stated the Clerk of the Council is accountable to the Council Chair, and the
Council staff are accountable to the Clerk, not to all the councilmembers. The last time the
Council had a person in this position, councilmembers may have met with her but didn't
give her direction. Duties were assigned during Committee of the Whole meetings and five
votes were necessary.
He is opposed to the motion. The Council has tried this two times in the past
decades. In both cases, the legislative analyst went away, but the position was not
replaced. The information the legislative analyst provided was not critical. The Council
operates fine. Continue to work with the administration under the direction of the County
Executive. Build those relationships of collaboration, policy direction, and resource
allocation.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The most recent person in the Council's legislative analyst position collaborated with
the Planning Director to support and promote decisions that the Council didn't agree with
and eventually left without notice when the Council changed. Given the nature of what the
Council does, it will be tough for this person to keep objective and move in different
directions when the will of the Council changes. He asked what a legislative analyst would
do.
Mann stated the legislative analyst would provide more in -depth analysis and support
on certain proposed issues, such as slaughterhouses and windmills. Many Planning staff
have left the Planning Department. The Council does not have direct control over who is
hired or assigned to a particular issue. If the Council wants good, independent, professional
support, the legislative analyst should be in the Council's control. If the Council super -
majority chooses the workload and the Chair is the point of communication, it can work.
The legislative analyst can go through the science behind each issue to determine which are
valid and peer- reviewed, for example. This person would not be hired to help the Council
achieve a foregone conclusion on any particular issue. The legislative analyst would help
the Council wade through competing evidence for complex issues, provide information, and
write a report on his or her findings. He could use more professional level analysis beyond
what they get from the Planning Department.
Weimer stated this type of legislative analyst would be able to research issues and
provide information that Planning staff may not have time to provide for councilmembers.
Browne stated that requiring a super- majority to allocate the legislative analyst's
duties won't work. Divide the person's time equally and allocate to each councilmember.
He may want the legislative analyst to do research and answer questions on a particular
topic that may be outside the normal process.
Brenner stated it would be extremely inefficient to divide a legislative analyst's time
seven ways. The position will be political no matter what. She will support the motion, but
the position is political. The Council needs a legislative analyst because the Council serves a
check - and - balance function to the administration. The Council and Executive aren't a team.
The analyst position is very important. The importance of the legislative analyst supersedes
the potential for politics.
Kremen stated it won't be a problem for councilmembers to get information from the
legislative analyst. They work well with the Clerk and the rest of the staff. The Council only
works on one or two critical and controversial issues at a time. The Council would be served
well by having a legislative analyst so councilmembers can be more informed, make better
decisions, and work in tandem with the administration.
Louws stated he would like to work with the Council Chair and Clerk to fully
understand the relationship a legislative analyst would have with the administration. The
administration does everything it can right now to provide information on everything that is
going on to all seven councilmembers. Some councilmembers are much more involved than
others. He asked if a legislative analyst would be an eighth person who engages the
administration in addition to what goes on now or a conduit for councilmembers to engage
the administration. The thought processes surrounding the idea of hiring a legislative
analyst must be refined further before he supports it through the budget. At this time, it's
his budget and he will move it forward. The Council can then make changes. Right now, he
needs to know how this person would work. The administration is available to provide as
much information to the Council as it can. All the staff believe the information they provide
is reliable. They want to continue to do that for the Council. If the Council's workload
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, 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
justifies hiring a full -time legislative analyst to work on behalf of the Council, they will move
forward. Refine the details of how the position will function to be successful.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Weimer, Kremen and Buchanan (5)
Nays: Crawford and Browne (2)
Brenner stated the administrative staff are wonderful, but the Council must operate
only as a check - and - balance. It's not personal.
Weimer stated the Council staff can talk to the Executive's staff about the most
appropriate way for GPT project staff time reimbursement to happen.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 22, 2014.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/17/2014, Page 9