HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 5 20121 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Regular County Council
3
4 June 5, 2012
5
6 CALL TO ORDER
7
8 Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
9 Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
10
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 (7:02:37 PM)
15
16 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner,
17 Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
18 Absent: None.
19
20
21 FLAG SALUTE
22
23
24 ANNOUNCEMENTS
25
26 (7:03:11 PM)
27
28 Kershner announced that there was discussion regarding potential property
29 acquisition for the Flood Control Zone District (AB2012 -018) in executive session during
30 the committee of the whole meeting.
31
32 (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board
33 of Supervisors.)
34
35 Weimer moved to authorized the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom
36 County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with and complete
37 acquisition of one property located along Jones Creek, as long as the purchase price does not
38 exceed the amount discussed in executive session.
39
40 The motion carried by the following vote:
41 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
42 Nays: None (0)
43
44
45 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
46
47 1. UPDATE FROM THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL ON THE EAST WHATCOM
48 REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER (AB2012 -017) (7 :04 :03 PM)
49
50 Dave Finet, Opportunity Council Executive Director, submitted and read from a
51 presentation (on file).
52
53 Cheryl Thompson, Community Council Member, thanked the Council for building the
54 center. She's been working to start a community garden at the center
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 1
Kurt Thompson, Community Council Member, stated he thanks the County for creating
the resource center. The center is important to bring together the residents of the foothills
area and give them an identity. They will work together to improve their quality of life.
Laurel Alson, Community Council Member, stated she thanks the Council on behalf of
families in the area. The center works well for the children. The teachers are wonderful. They
are working on after school programs for the children. There are many kids, and not a lot for
them to do. She is also involved in creating the community garden by writing the bylaws.
Finet concluded the presentation regarding operations and maintenance and about
future plans. Their website is http:/ /www.oppco.orci/ewrrc.
Crawford asked about the Sheriff's Office use of the facility. Finet stated the Sheriff's
Office uses the facility mostly at night. They have their own designated space.
Crawford stated a concern when planning the center was that a regular Sheriff's
deputy presence help with security at the resource center. Finet stated they haven't had any
vandalism issues. The building is well -lit. Also, there is a lot of community ownership of the
resource center.
Kremen stated the County embarked on a plan to develop a resource center a decade
ago. Now it's come to fruition and culminated in a product that far exceeded expectations. A
project like this is unprecedented. Development was difficult because the economy melted
down nationally and locally in the middle of the process. The County persevered and used
dedicated funding to both create jobs and produce this facility. The product achieves what the
County envisioned. He thanks Mr. Finet and others involved to keep the project going,
including Carole MacDonald and Georgina Head. He also thanks Parks Director Mike McFarland
and Facilities Manager Mike Russell for doing a stellar job. This is one of his most gratifying
successes during his 16 years as County Executive.
2. PRESENTATION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND
WHATCOM COUNTY ADOPTING THE JOINTLY RECOMMENDED BUSINESS
MODEL FOR COUNTYWIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (AB2012 -191)
(7 :21:54 PM)
Kelli Linville, Bellingham Mayor, congratulated Dave Finet on the East Whatcom
Regional Resource Center. She presented a joint resolution with the City of Bellingham
regarding countywide emergency medical services. The Bellingham City Council voted
unanimously to approve this resolution, after months and years of work. The goal of the
resolution is to maintain a unified Medic One system for Whatcom County. This is the best
decision for the county.
She acknowledged others who worked on this process, including Bellingham City
Council Member Stan Snapp and Whatcom County Councilmember Sam Crawford.
Jack Louws, County Exeuctive, also acknowledged Chiefs Boyd, Ralston, and Russell
from the Fire Districts, Commissioner Bob Busch, John Carter from the City of Bellingham,
Marianne Caldwell from Whatcom County Finance Division, and County and City staff Tawni
Helm and Brian Heinrich. They've all been meeting for the last four months to create their
vision for a unified emergency medical service (EMS) system for Whatcom County.
Linville stated the City and County will work well together. They've received a lot of
positive feedback.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 2
1
2 Louws stated the administration's goal is to respect the people who have done a fine
3 job providing EMS service to residents of the county, while looking at what they can reasonably
4 accomplish, with an eye on the Council's 2010 resolution identifying its concerns. The proposal
5 includes:
6 • A Medic One Oversight Board to work with a contract administrator. He described
7 the proposal for the Board.
8 • Approving a separate contract with City of Bellingham for system administration.
9 • A Technical Advisory Board that would decide day -to -day operations.
10 • Approving separate contracts with Fire District 7 and the City of Bellingham to
11 establish staffing units.
12
13 There should be no change to level of service or who provides service to citizens. They
14 are going to develop the first contract for four units, serviced by the City of Bellingham, and
15 one -half a full -time unit contracted with District 7. They are able to do that within current
16 financial constraints. Allow the administration the opportunity to develop the contracts and
17 interlocal agreements to create the Medic one Oversight Board and the Technical Advisory
18 Board to set the course for the future. All the other options cost more. The service is
19 excellent. It must continue with broader oversight than it has had in the past. Approve the
20 resolution. They will develop contracts through the rest of 2012 and start partial
21 implementation in 2013. The vision will be fully implemented at the beginning of 2014.
22
23 Linville stated a unified system means unified training and supervision and equal
24 response. They talked about having a separate administration, but the cost was prohibitive.
25 The main issue is making sure they have trained staff doing the job with oversight from
26 everyone. The City Council and County Council retain authority. Final approval of any
27 contracts and the resolution are in their hands. They're not creating another separate
28 governing authority.
29
30 Mann asked whether the actual service providers, including the paramedics of District 7
31 and City of Bellingham, agree to the proposal. Linville stated she focused on level of service
32 and cost. There isn't an option to keep things the way it was. There were varying levels of
33 loss of workforce and loss of service delivery. The City of Bellingham providers are overjoyed
34 with having a different setup. They believe this is the best option.
35
36 Mann asked if there will be a price difference between the Ferndale and Bellingham
37 providers. Louws stated the goal is to have the units provide long -term service under the
38 agreement. The County will continue to grow. The oversight board will work on the financial
39 aspects to make sure they live within the available revenue sources.
40
41 Linville stated a reason for the component contracts is to provide performance
42 accountability, regardless of who the provider is. She hopes they all focus on the service.
43
44 Crawford moved to approve the resolution. This is different from what he envisioned
45 a year ago. This addresses the five components of the Council resolution. Legal counsel
46 reviewed this proposal and said it doesn't fix any of the problems that occurred in the past.
47 However, this contract has a framework to deal with the problems, including the oversight
48 board that is independent and can make recommendations to the City Council and County
49 Council about how to deal with the problems. They also can analyze whether components are
50 performing effectively. This framework will work because the system administration must
51 address concerns to the oversight board. Both sides were positive about the new
52 administrations and compromised. A question is whether the City and County administrations
53 can live with the new EMS administration. They've all compromised. He's optimistic about the
54 proposal. The resolution resolves to bring proposals for the contracts forward to the City
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 3
Council and County Council. Working through those contracts will be tougher than approving
this framework. They want those contracts to be in place by the end of the year. The
Oversight Board and Technical Advisory Board will begin at the start of 2013, and will have a
full year with the new contracts. They won't have to develop and approve the contracts. They
have a lot of work left to do. This proposal is an important step to build the framework.
Kremen stated he supports the resolution. He commends Mayor Linville for her
perseverance, tenacity, and skill in working with the County and with the City staff. He tried
for a number of years to get to where they're headed now. Unfortunately, the previous mayor
wasn't as willing and capable as Mayor Linville, who is willing to look out for the greater
community of Whatcom County, not just the Bellingham residents.
Knutzen stated he also commends the Mayor and Executive for getting to this point. He
has concerns about training and implementation of new paramedics. He asked to make sure
they will cooperate and not have different certification requirements. Make sure they don't
have problems with ride -along training or local certification. Louws stated the wording about
certification requirements was directly lifted from the County Council's 2010 resolution. They
are planning to create a unified training system and equal response system. Neither he nor
Mayor Linville can speak for Labor. They've done the best job they can to respect the job
Labor has done to build the system over the years. District 7 will be able to fully- integrate.
He's committed to respecting Labor as an integral partner.
Linville stated the City has a very professional Chief and fire staff who will adhere to the
highest professional standards as they put this system together.
Brenner stated she appreciates Mayor Linville and Executive Louws. She would like to
hear public comment before voting on the resolution.
Crawford withdrew the motion. Last year, they made it clear that this wasn't about
knocking Bellingham out of the system. It was about coming up with a system in which
County Fire Districts could participate and develop their advanced life support (ALS)
capabilities in a way that best meets the community. If the City and County had gone their
separate ways, the City would have lost money spent in training their staff, and the County
would have had to spend similar amounts of money to train their staff. The nice thing about
this system is that they keep the trained employees, and don't have to invest in training new
staff.
Louws stated he thanks others who were involved, including the members of the EMS
Policy Group and the EMS Business Model subcommittee.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued later in the meeting.)
MINUTES CONSENT
(7:53:05 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Mann suggested a friendly amendment to amend page 545, line 5, "they just don't
agree."
Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 4
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 8, 2012
2. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 15, 2012
OPEN SESSION
(7:54:27 PM)
The following people spoke:
• (Clerk's Note: The first speaker requested that his /her testimony not be included in
the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Yoshi Revelle spoke on the issue of pollution. Money pollution,
gets in the way of our
relationships.
• Terri Wechsler spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Shane Roth spoke on the issue of limiting comments at open
session.
• Bob Aegerter spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Jim Groves spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Paul Anderson spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Bob Landon spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Jill MacIntyre Witt spoke about World Environment Day and
a green economy.
• Duane Jager spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Lisa McShane spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Dan McShane spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Thelma Follett spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Jackie Pettit spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Bob Johnston spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Michelle Luke spoke about the business model for emergency medical services
resolution.
• Patrick Darling spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• David Stalheim spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Carole Follett spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• John Munson spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
• Andrew Ingram spoke on the issue of the contract with
CH2M HILL regarding the
Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 5
1 . Patrick Alesse spoke on the issue of the contract with CH2M HILL regarding the
2 Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
3 • Greg Brown spoke on the issue of the contract with CH2M HILL regarding the
4 Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process, the Lake Whatcom reconveyance, and the
5 business model for emergency medical services.
6 • Brooks Anderson spoke on the issue of the contract with CH2M HILL regarding the
7 Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
8 • Jeff Margolis spoke on the issue of the contract with CH2M HILL regarding the
9 Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping process.
10
11 (8:50 :44 PM)
12
13
14 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
15
16 2. PRESENTATION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND
17 WHATCOM COUNTY ADOPTING THE JOINTLY RECOMMENDED BUSINESS
18 MODEL FOR COUNTYWIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (AB2012 -191)
19
20 Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
21
22 The motion carried by the following vote:
23 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
24 Nays: None (0)
25
26 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 8 :52 p.m. to 9 :02 p.m.)
27
28
29 CONSENT AGENDA
30
31 (9:02:05 PM)
32
33 Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to
34 approve Consent Agenda items one through ten.
35
36 The motion carried by the following vote:
37 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
38 Nays: None (0)
39
40 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
41 REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF A VESSEL TRAFFIC STUDY AS REQUIRED
42 BY THE GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (AB2012 -179)
43
44 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
45 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FIRE
46 PROTECTION DISTRICT #11 TO UTILIZE THE COUNTY EMS FUND TO PROVIDE
47 A 20% FMA GRANT MATCH FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW AND STANDARDIZED
48 GURNEYS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000 (AB2012 -180)
49
50 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
51 LAND LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ROB RIENSTRA
52 OF BACKYARD BEES, LLC TO ALLOW ACCESS ONTO A PORTION OF COUNTY
53 PROPERTY FOR PLACEMENT AND SERVICING OF BEE HIVES (AB2012 -181)
54
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 6
1 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
2 AGRICULTURAL LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH COLDSTREAM FARM, LLC FOR
3 ACCESS AND REMOVAL OF HAY ON THE SOUTH FORK COUNTY PARK -
4 GALBRAITH FARM PARCEL (AB2012 -182)
5
6 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
7 AMENDMENT TO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
8 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY — NORTHWEST STRAITS
9 PROJECT TO EXTEND THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD TO JUNE 30, 2013 AND ADD
10 AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $70,000 TO THE AGREEMENT, FOR A TOTAL
11 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $106,500 (AB2012 -183)
12
13 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
14 INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
15 SKAGIT COUNTY TO PROVIDE MUTUAL ASSISTANCE OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT,
16 OR MATERIALS ON MINOR PROJECTS ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS FOR ROAD
17 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 (AB2012 -184)
18
19 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
20 INTERLOCAL LOAN AND GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
21 AND THE CITY OF EVERSON, UTILIZING EDI PROGRAM FUNDING FOR USE
22 TOWARD THE CITY OF EVERSON PHASE 3 MISSION ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
23 PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,350 (AB2012 -185)
24
25 8. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP NO. 912002 AND REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR
26 THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE
27 LOW BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. FOR THE HANNEGAN ROAD
28 STRUCTURAL OVERLAY, SCOTT DITCH BRIDGE TO LYNDEN CITY LIMITS, IN
29 THE AMOUNT OF $463,720 (AB2012 -186)
30
31 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #11-
32 21 FOR PAINTING OF THREE STRUCTURES ON THE ROEDER HOME PROPERTY
33 TO THE LOW BIDDER, HENEFIN CONSTRUCTION LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF
34 $41,306 (AB2012 -187)
35
36 10. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT ALL BIDS FOR
37 ANNUAL SUPPLY OF QUARRY ROCK, GRAVEL AND OTHER MATERIALS FOR USE
38 AS NEEDED FOR VARIOUS COUNTY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS, AND SELECT THE
39 APPROPRIATE VENDOR AS DICTATED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF
40 EACH PARTICULAR JOB, IN AN AMOUNT TO EXCEED $35,000 (AB2012 -188)
41
42
43 OTHER ITEMS
44
45 1. REPORT ON PRESENTATION REGARDING GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL
46 PROJECT PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON EIS SCOPING PHASE AND
47 COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND
48 DEVELOPMENT, U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON STATE
49 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CH2M HILL (AB2012 -068B) (9:03:16 PM)
50
51 Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to
52 approve the contract between the County and CH2M HILL as presented in the Council packet.
53 He moved to approve the substitute version of section 36.2 regarding conflict of interest. He
54 read the substitute section,
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 7
"36.2 Conflict of Interest:
If at any time prior to the commencement of, or during the term of, this
Agreement, Consultant or any of its employees involved in the performance of
this Agreement shall have or develop an interest in the subject matter of this
Agreement that is potentially in conflict with the Agencies' interest in developing
an EIS that is unbiased, fair and impartial, then the Consultant shall immediately
notify the County of the conflict. The notification to the County shall be made
with sufficient specificity to enable the County, Department of Ecology, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (for NEPA purposes) to make an informed
judgment as to whether or not the EIS preparation may be compromised in any
manner by the existence of the conflict, actual or potential. Thereafter, the
County may require the Consultant to take reasonable steps to remove the
conflict of interest. The County may also terminate this contract according to
the provisions herein for termination.
Consultant team must be an independent third party during preparation
of the EIS. The prime contractor, CH2M HILL Engineers Inc., has no current or
pending contracts, nor will they engage in future contracting with either PIT or
BNSF, in the joint - applicants' proposed project. During the execution of scope
under contract, the required disclosure and subsequent judgment of potential
conflict by the Agencies, as outline above, will be required for any pending
contracts or negotiations withCH2MHILL Engineers Inc. and PIT or BNSF. In
Section 3.13 of the RFP this Consultant and subcontractors were required to
disclose any current or expected future contractual relationships with the
following entities:
•PIT including parent company SSA Marine Inc.
*BNSF
*Local Indian Tribes
*Federal agencies with trustee status for marine or near -shore resources
*State agencies with trustee status for marine or near -shore resources
-Environmental NGOs.
Consultant submitted its Disclosure Statement in Section 3 of its
proposal. This statement is also included in this contract as Exhibit D."
Kremen stated the amendment addresses the conflict of interest issues. It does not
address the 120 -day extension, which is appropriate. He suggested a friendly amendment
to amend bullet three, "Local indian Native American Nations or Tribes.
Mann accepted Councilmember Kremen's friendly amendment.
Weimer stated he still has concerns with the conflict of interest language, particularly
the sentence, "The prime contractor, CH2M HILL Engineers Inc., has no current or pending
contracts, nor will they engage in future contracting with either PIT or BNSF, in the joint -
applicants' proposed project." This sentence narrowly defines the conflict if they're contracting
in the project at Cherry Point. The language doesn't preclude the contractor from working with
either proponent on an unrelated project elsewhere. Broaden the language to prohibit all
contracts with PIT and BNSF. He suggested a friendly amendment to delete language,
"The prime contractor, CH2M HILL Engineers Inc., has no current or pending contracts, nor will
they engage in future contracting with either PIT or BNSF, in the jeint applieai9ts' pFepesed
pi=ejeet during the term of the contract."
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 8
Mann did not accept the friendly amendment. The language in the next paragraph
requires disclosure of any contract and agency evaluation. It's a reasonable compromise.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated CH2M HILL is a worldwide engineering company.
It is a quality company. This will be a drawn -out process. They have work all over. The
suggested friendly amendment isn't reasonable. It goes beyond what the County can expect
with any contract, even locally. Someone working on their own needs to continue to develop
their business. It's unreasonable to preclude themselves totally from that. The company does
have to disclose those contracts.
Brenner asked if the scoping documents are public and if the public can comment on
the environmental impact statement (EIS) when it's done.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there are a
number of different times for public involvement during the process of EIS development. This
contract is only for the first phase of that process, which is the scoping phase. The scoping
phase will end with a final scoping report, which is a document by the agencies that indicates
each agency opinion after considering all the scoping comments that have been submitted.
There won't be specific comments on that document. That document, in association with the
methodology document in the scope of work, shows how the studies will be prepared for the
draft EIS. After this phase is done, they move into the draft EIS process, which is when the
scientific review and studies are prepared. When the draft EIS is issued, there will be public
comment associated with the draft EIS.
Brenner asked if comments on the draft EIS are considered. Tyler stated they are.
After the draft EIS and its associated comments, there is an entire other round of comment
review before issuing the final EIS.
Brenner asked if the scope can be expanded during the draft EIS process. Schroeder
stated the scope could be expanded. It's up to the comments that are submitted. This is the
first phase, which is the scoping phase, of the EIS development. There are a number of
different public comment times when people can be involved as they move forward.
Crawford asked if the $961,000 is just for phase one. Schroeder stated it is.
Schroeder stated tonight's action is just to approve the County's contract with CH2M
HILL. It's the only action that is over the $35,000 discussed in committee. The other contract
is a straight reimbursement from the companies to the County, which only requires Executive
approval. The motion applies to the third item in the packet, which is the contract.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Crawford moved to amend:
• Council packet page 59, page seven of the scope of work. Amend the second
paragraph to add a sixth bullet point, 'The time period for public comment on the
scope of the EIS shall not be less than 120 days."
• Council packet page 39, the term of contract, ", vengbeF 39, z012 January 31,
2013"
• Council packet page 53, third paragraph, "The following scope will commence in +
July 2012 at date of signature and is project to carry through Ge-tebe December 31,
2012."
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 9
• Council packet page 54, task 2.4 in the table, "Task 2.4 Scoping period (June -JH+y
July- October)"
• Council packet page 54, task 4.1 in the table, "Task 4.1 Within 2 months of close of
scoping period. (eft Nov /Dec)
• Council packet page 57, "Deliverables: up to monthly media and comment updates,
but only 3 5 months of updates...."
• Any other minor changes to implement the changed timeframe.
The administration's biggest concern is that the County is not the unilateral decision -
maker on this contract. The other agencies may have their own timeframes. Additionally, the
contractor may have full -time staff assigned to this project. If the project is two months
longer, it may impact the contractor's cost to perform the contract. His motion is to respond
to the citizens. It's the Council's job to represent those people. The administration will see if
the amended contract works for the other agencies. If it doesn't work, it can come back
before the Council.
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment to amend Council packet page 60, the
first full paragraph below the bullets, "During the Scoping Process ... The online scoping meeting
will be open for y 120 days and will include:..."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to include language, "Any changes
necessary to be consistent with a minimum of a 120 -day timeframe."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment as direction to the administration on the
Council's intent.
Knutzen asked if the administration is comfortable with the changes. Louws stated he
agrees. If they can get CH2M HILL to approve, the changes will be great. It's the will of the
people. There shouldn't be a problem. He desires that they be as open and transparent as
possible. The community wants a bit more time to be involved in the scoping process. Allow
the community that opportunity. He will present the changes and advocate for their approval
to the contractor.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer moved to amend the deliverables item at the bottom of Council packet page
60, " Deliverables: Public notice including one display ad, one postcard mailing, one media
advisory, text for web site /email distribution for each Scoping meeting"
Louws stated an assumption listed is that CH2M HILL will print and mail up to 20,000
postcards. The postcard will include a list of all six meeting. The motion would require six
mailings.
Weimer stated they need more than one display ad, unless it's one ad posted in six
different newspapers. Louws stated the ad will be posted in six different newspapers, and the
online information would include all the meetings. The postcards would include information for
all the meetings. The motion will start meddling with the dollar amount for the contract.
Weimer withdrew his motion.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 10
1 Crawford moved to amend the deliverables item at the bottom of Council packet page
2 60, Deliverables: Public notice including one display ad, one postcard mailing, one media
3 advisory, text for web site /email distribution"
4
5 The motion carried by the following vote:
6 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
7 Nays: None (0)
8
9 Brenner asked if the applicant will pay for the total cost of the Hearing Examiner
10 process. Schroeder stated this contract is for preparation of the EIS and associated costs. It
11 doesn't go to the Hearing Examiner. At the very end of the process, there will be a final EIS.
12 That final EIS will be integrated into the staff report recommendations to the Hearing
13 Examiner, which is a separate part of the process and would have to be negotiated.
14
15 Crawford stated they will deal with that down the road when they get to it.
16
17 Brenner asked if there will be another opportunity at that point. Schroeder stated there
18 would have to be another contract for that staff time. They could negotiate that contract in
19 the future.
20
21 Kershner stated this contract that the Executive will negotiate goes through November
22 2012, which would have been the original dates. If they extend the scoping period, they may
23 want to extend that timeline. Schroeder stated that contract has an automatic one -year
24 qualifier. He will look at that timeline.
25
26 Weimer asked why the Council isn't allowed to vote on the contract among Whatcom
27 County, Pacific International Terminals (PIT) and BNSF for reimbursement of county and
28 consultant costs and fees. The amount is over $15,000 and is a professional services contract.
29 Louws stated the contract amount is for the receipt of money, not expenditure.
30
31 Weimer stated the Code is silent about whether the contract amount is an expenditure
32 or revenue.
33
34 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated Whatcom County Code
35 (WCC) Chapter 3.08, the County purchasing process, addresses Council awards. It's pursuant
36 to the competitive bidding process in the Council awards section of the code. The County Code
37 does not deal with the receipt of revenues. If an award to a contract exceeds $15,000 for
38 professional services, the administration needs Council approval for that award.
39
40 Brenner stated the contract doesn't include all costs for the Hearing Examiner process,
41 which is another step. The cost could be more than $15,000. Bennett stated the agreement
42 they're talking about is the agreement that establishes that the applicant will reimburse the
43 County for EIS preparation. He's not sure how the Hearing Examiner fits into that process.
44 That is a different process that happens in the future. This contract ends when the scoping
45 contract ends.
46
47 Crawford stated it's premature to be concerned about the Hearing Examiner process.
48 However, he asks that the Executive work with the Clerk of the Council regarding additional
49 costs when the process gets to the Hearing Examiner.
50
51 Weimer stated the County should charge for indirect costs, not just direct costs. Over
52 the course of this contract, the people of Whatcom County will subsidize this effort in the
53 amount of $200,000 or $300,000. He's interested in changing the contract to include the cost
54 for indirect costs, which the County normally builds into contracts that deal with the homeless
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 11
population, the developmentally disabled, jail, or any criminal justice contract. The County
always takes its ten to thirty percent of indirect cost. The County isn't doing that with this
contract.
Brenner stated this contract is different because permits are involved. There are
charges received from permits that the County doesn't get when contracting for homeless
housing. It's a different type of contract.
Weimer stated that's true. The Unified Fee Schedule used to include a fee of $100 per
hour when the cost exceeded a certain amount. That fee covered the County's indirect costs.
The Executive's Office and Planning and Development Services Department knew before this
proposal was submitted that the problem existed. They had a chance to fix the problem, and
didn't. This is another chance to fix the problem and make sure the people of Whatcom
County aren't charged $200,000 to $300,000 to process this permit.
Louws stated the contract is for $961,000. The sub - agreement is that staff time will be
charged to and reimbursed from Pacific International Terminals for the scoping portion. He
anticipates that charges for this portion for the contract that go beyond $16,000 will be
$30,000 to $40,000 total. He's not sure where the estimate of $300,000 number comes from.
For the term of this contract, staff time won't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The
money received will go into an escrow account and reimbursed to CH2M HILL. It's direct pass -
through money. He will also charge for the County's staff time for the County's involvement.
Weimer stated he agrees, because this money is going into escrow. The cost will
probably be tens of thousands.
Crawford asked the billing rate. Louws stated they are going to charge the direct
amount for the people involved throughout the organization. It won't be a flat $100 per hour,
but it will be the direct cost. This is how they take care of it with other applications, according
to the Planning Department Director. They're doing the best they can. They're recouping
direct costs incurred throughout the organization. It's not a perfect system, but it's fair. The
County has a responsibility to the applicant to process this application just as they do for any
application.
Mann stated the cone of silence the Council has taken on is uncomfortable and
frustrating. Now that the County has a contract, everyone knows more about this than he
does. The Council heard testimony that he can't fairly judge because he's not informed on the
subject. He asked about the transparency of the selection of the contractor, including the
information provided to the public on the website. He asked if all the proposals are available
for the public to review. Schroeder stated the Planning and Development Services Department
(PDS) has strived to have an open and transparent process from the beginning, especially
regarding the web site. That's something PDS hasn't done in the past. The Planning
Department web site is updated daily to provide information to the public. The contract
process has specifically been between the County and the applicant for that contract. That has
not been made public, because it is a negotiation process. In normal situations, those
contracts aren't publicly available until they're signed and approved. In this case, the contract
became publicly available when presented to the Council. Other EIS contracts haven't done
that in the past. This contracting process is more open and transparent than other historical
EIS contracts.
Mann stated a comment was made that the scope isn't broad enough.
Crawford stated the scope hasn't been determined yet.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 12
Schroeder stated Councilmember Crawford's motion addresses a lot of the public
concerns he's heard in the last four or five days. The scope and the scoping process isn't yet
determined. It will be determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology, and County as
they move forward through the process. This contract is just to start that process. The scope
of work that is in there is for budgeting purposes, and is a preliminary idea about where that
scoping process will go, so there can be a firm contractual amount of information and monies
behind that. All of the comments he's received have also gone to staff at the State
Department of Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers. After this contract is signed, they will
make those scoping decisions internally by those agencies as they move forward.
Knutzen stated he's frustrated. At the last Council meeting was a decision on the
largest land acquisition proposal in Whatcom County history, with no EIS. There was a lot of
public comment that the process wasn't open and was pushed through. Now, they're asking to
get an EIS done, and they're talking it to death. The same people last month who tried to
shove this through without any more public comment or an EIS are the same people who are
today saying this needs to be drawn out longer.
Weimer stated this is important, and they need to get it right. His questions and
comments aren't against CH2M HILL or anyone else. The Council needs to create a good
foundation. One comment received is about geographically enlarging the scope area. He
asked if they should scope the region, not just statewide. He also hears comments that the
Army Corps is considering a programmatic EIS, which would include multiple programs that
may include the entire region. He asked how this proposal would interface with a
programmatic EIS. Schroeder stated there have been preliminary discussions about the
geographical scope of the EIS. No decisions have been made about that yet. Those will be
made after this contract is signed, so they can move into those discussions and make some
concrete decisions on the appropriate levels of the scope and locations of the meetings.
Weimer asked if the cost of the contract will change, requiring an amendment, if they
decide that Montana and Idaho will be included. Schroeder stated it would require an
amendment, however it's a scoping decision that is part of the scope of work. It's not part of
the contractual agreement that the Council is voting on. He'd have to talk with the
Prosecutor's Office about how to handle changes to the scope of work as the agencies move
forward.
Weimer referenced Council packet page 53, a sentence in the second paragraph, "This
Phase will not include the development and screening of alternatives outside of what is
provided by PIT through Whatcom County." He asked what that sentence means. Schroeder
stated that talks about the information provided by the applicant for the development of the
alternatives in the purpose and needs section of the contract. It gets to the technical
discussion that prepares the notices of the purpose and need in the different documents as
they move forward. He referenced Council packet page 59. A number of reports are listed
that will be reviewed by CH2M HILL as they move forward. As it moves forward to the
screening of alternatives in the phase two section, Council packet page 66, it includes
discussion of the development of the draft EIS, alternatives analysis, public hearings, and final
EIS. Those actions will happen in the next phase of the contract.
Brenner stated she would like to know about how the Council has to stay out of this and
won't know about the scoping. She asked if the Council will have an opportunity through the
EIS to request a broader scope, if the Council doesn't feel the scoping is broad enough.
Schroeder stated the Council will have an opportunity to review the EIS as presented through
the permit review of the local land use permits.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 13
Brenner asked if that's also part of the EIS. The Council is out of the loop regarding the
scope. The EIS will be developed. The Council may look at the EIS and feel like something
else should have been included. Schroeder stated the EIS is an administrative document. It's
a function of the executive branch to prepare the EIS. As the process moves forward, the EIS
will be presented to the Council. There will be a review of the applicable regulations for either
approval, denial, or approval with mitigation based on the information in the EIS. If there are
deficiencies to the EIS for the Council to make a decision, the Council could require additional
information through the permitting process. That is additional information he would like to
provide to the Council as they move forward through the process, and provide guidance to the
Council as appropriate regarding decision - making.
Brenner asked how the Council would address comments on the draft EIS regarding a
regional scope. Schroeder stated that if there are questions on the scope, there will be
discussions on the draft EIS about why additional information should be in the scope. He will
have to work with legal counsel on a decision about the Council's involvement in the EIS
process.
Brenner stated she wants an answer on the question of how the Council would make
comments if the Council feels that the draft EIS was not broad or adequate enough. She
understands that everyone, including the Council, can comment on the draft EIS. She is a
citizen. Louws stated the councilmembers are quasi - judicial judges in this process. The
administration will facilitate this process. The Council will be involved in the process when
legally appropriate. At the end of the day, the Council will have a complete body of work that
has come through the Hearing Examiner for Council decision. At the very end, the Council
makes a decision based on the body of work presented.
Mann asked about screening alternatives. He asked if the applicant screens the
alternatives that are in the EIS. Schroeder stated PIT submitted information to Whatcom
County. That information, as well as other studies provided by PIT for peer review and use
during development of the EIS, will be reviewed. It doesn't include any other information
associated with it.
Weimer stated that's not what it says.
Mann stated this language makes it sound like the applicant gets to screen the
alternatives. That seems odd. Schroeder stated the language provides guidance about what
will generally happen through the first phase, and what will be further refined in phase two,
which is part of the contract and scope of work that is not in this document except for
reference at the end. The rest of the scope of work further defines and gives more clarity to
that sentence in those sections.
Mann asked where the screening alternatives come from. Schroeder stated the first
phase will not include development and screening of alternatives, outside of the information
that is already on the record. In phase two of the contract, there will be a lot more
information and time spent by CH2M HILL. To start to develop those alternatives. In phase
two, the agencies will direct CH2M HILL on alternatives analysis and alternatives creation.
Kremen asked if there are going to be several other federal and state agencies, such as
the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Department of Health, and others that will all be scrutinizing this project, even if
they're not co -lead agencies with the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology, and
Whatcom County. Schroeder stated a key component of the EIS preparation is the agency
input associated. All of those state and federal agencies will have a chance to discuss the
scope and preparation of the EIS.
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 14
1
2 Kremen stated the Council adopted all the comments about the timeframe and about
3 making sure the County doesn't pay for the process for the proponent. He compliments Mr.
4 Schroeder for his effort to be impartial, professional, and have integrity with no agenda. Mr.
5 Schroeder has fielded a plethora of constituent contacts with grace and poise. Mr. Schroeder
6 has helped the County Council to better understand a very complex and difficult issue. He
7 thanked Mr. Schroeder for his service to the community.
8
9 Kershner stated she's pleased that comments received were specific and solution -
10 oriented. The Council was able to take care of concerns about the extended public timeline for
11 the scoping process. She will support the amended contract.
12
13 The motion to approve the contract as amended carried by the following vote:
14 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
15 Nays: None (0)
16
17 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
18 KENNETH KIESNER TO FILL THE DISTRICT 2 POSITION ON THE PARKS AND
19 RECREATION COMMISSION (AB2012 -192) (10:12;46 PM)
20
21 Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
22
23 The motion carried by the following vote:
24 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
25 Nays: None (0)
26
27
28 OTHER BUSINESS
29
30 DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
31 COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
32 MAP AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO
33 IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012-
34 193)
35
36 Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to refer to
37 a special Committee of the Whole meeting on June 12, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
38
39 The motion carried by the following vote:
40 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
41 Nays: None (0)
42
43
44 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
45
46 (10:15:15 PM)
47
48 Brenner asked that item five be scheduled in committee before a public hearing is
49 scheduled.
50
51 Crawford asked the reason that Introduction Items one and six are being introduced
52 now. They will both require significant changes before a public hearing.
53
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 15
1 Dana Brown- Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated it's better to have the items officially
2 before the Council as the Council works on them. The Council can re- introduce an amended
3 version at a later date.
4
5 Brenner stated schedule item five in the Public Works Committee, and then have the
6 public hearing at a later meeting.
7
8 Jack Louws, County Executive, stated there is no rush on item five, so the Council can
9 delay approval. This item is a recommendation from the Ferry Task Force to make the ferry
10 rates balance. It's not time sensitive.
11
12 Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items.
13
14 The motion carried by the following vote:
15 Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
16 Nays: None (0)
17
18 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
19 WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
20 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
21 RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193)
22
23 2. ORDINANCE REGARDING CHANGING SPEED SIGNING FROM "WHEN CHILDREN
24 ARE PRESENT" TO "WHEN FLASHING" AT TWO LOCATIONS (AB2012 -194)
25
26 3. ORDINANCE REGARDING REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON PORTIONS OF
27 HAXTON WAY (AB2012 -195)
28
29 4. ORDINANCE REGARDING CHANGING THE SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF
30 BIRCH BAY LYNDEN ROAD AND PORTAL WAY (AB2012 -196)
31
32 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 10.34, FERRY RATES
33 (AB2012 -197)
34
35 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 20.51
36 LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2012 -117)
37
38 7. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO CONTINUE FINANCING
39 OF THE CENTRAL PLAZA BUILDING (AB2012 -198)
40
41 8. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN TO CONTINUE FINANCING
42 OF ASSESSOR TREASURER SYSTEM (AB2012 -199)
43
44 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, NINTH
45 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,4,000 401,987 (AB2012 -200)
46
47
48 OTHER BUSINESS
49
50 (10:18:37 PM)
51
52 Crawford referenced the discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amending
53 Whatcom County Zoning Code Title 20, the Official Whatcom County Zoning Map and
54 the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Maps, to implement changes relating
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 16
1 to rural land use planning (AB2012 -193) and asked for a color copy of the rural element
2 document that includes the version reviewed by Hearings Board, with staff changes in one
3 color and Planning Commission changes in another color. He would like to see the whole
4 process in one document. He hopes to have the document before the weekend, so
5 councilmembers have time to work on the document before the meeting.
6
7 Kershner stated the Council has several advisory committees. The Lummi Island Ferry
8 Advisory Committee is meeting and setting its own direction and trying to move forward on
9 projects. It would be helpful to have a councilmember liaison with the committees to give
10 direction regarding their work.
11
12 Brenner stated each committee chair is responsible for talking to the Council.
13
14 Kershner stated the liaison should be someone who the committee can connect with on
15 the Council. It may not be fair to expect a citizen advisory committee chair to know the
16 process for connecting with the Council.
17
18 Crawford asked the concern. He's never sensed that any committee has any problem
19 communicating their concerns or questions. The committees have full access to all the
20 councilmembers. Any councilmember can bring up a topic for a committee.
21
22 Kershner stated her concern is that the Council take responsibility for its own advisory
23 committees. The administration should be able to do its work. If the Council wants
24 information to go to an advisory committee, the Council should be responsible for that. She
25 doesn't expect the administration to manage Council advisory committees. The Council should
26 do more than just set up an advisory committee, let them fumble around, and then ask the
27 administration if it has sent information through the Council's advisory committee.
28
29 Brenner stated the Council can send a statement to every advisory committee to let
30 them know what the rules are.
31
32 Crawford stated it's a great idea to have a guideline for the committees. He's confused
33 about the problem.
34
35 Kershner stated County staff was asked if it sent a proposal to the Ferry Advisory
36 Committee.
37
38 Crawford stated that's how it's supposed to work. The Council asked the administration
39 to send a proposal to the Council's advisory committee.
40
41 Kershner stated she would work with the Clerk to come up with a list of the
42 committees. She would appreciate any councilmember who volunteers to be a liaison with the
43 committees, just to touch base and make sure the committees have direction from the Council.
44
45 Weimer stated there are 45 or 50 committees. He's only heard from ten of them the
46 entire time he's been on the Council. He hopes to review those committees before the budget
47 process to see if they don't need them anymore.
48
49
50 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
51
52 (10:21:03 PM)
53
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Crawford stated he congratulates the Council Chair Kershner for being elected to the
Washington State Republican Convention to be a delegate to the Republican National
Convention in August in Tampa, Florida. It's quite an honor.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 24, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Whatcom County Council, 6/5/2012, Page 18