Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 20 20121 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 Regular County Council November 20, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL (7:01:11 PM) Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :01:44 PM) Kershner announced there was a strategy planning discussion and positions to be taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2012 -306) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole. MINUTES CONSENT (7:02:23 PM) Knutzen moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 18, 2012 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 23, 2012 3. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 24, 2012 OPEN SESSION Kershner moved to hold the open session before the public hearing items. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 53 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) (7:03:29 PM) The following people spoke: • Marion Beddill spoke about ballots and water. • Yoshi Revelle spoke about what society is teaching children about alcohol and drugs. • Ellen Baker spoke about public records requests and the availability of public documents. Brenner asked for more information from the Executive. Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the request was turned over to the County attorney, who responded to Ms. Baker. Baker stated the attorney general decided there is no injury to full disclosure. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he will look into it. • Greg Brown spoke about Consent Agenda Item six (AB2012 -367), Introduction Item 1 (AB2012 -369), and interlocal agreement funding (AB2012 -353). • David Stalheim spoke about Gateway Pacific project. • Matt Paskus spoke about impacts from the airport. Brenner asked if there are legal ways to extend the 20 -day decision time on the Gateway Pacific project. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the process may allow for the Council to extend that period of time. If something is in the official record, they can look at the official record. The problem is with comments made outside the official record, such as at open session and in correspondence. That material is not a part of the official record. Brenner asked about a ten percent contingency in contracts. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated there isn't a contingency in the contract. There is a contingency in the budget. Theoretically, if something comes up, they will have to come before the Council for a contract amendment, but they won't necessarily have to do a budget supplemental if it's handled within the budget. Kershner stated some contracts have contingencies built in. There isn't a standard percentage. She asked if the Council can review comments that come in now. Frakes stated the comments that come in are not a part of the official record. At some point, she foresees that they will make those comments part of the official record. Brenner asked if Tyler Schroeder can give the Council the comments officially. Frakes stated that because he is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official, comments he receives are made a part of the official record. They can discuss the process further. Mr. Schroeder is in a very preliminary process. It's unclear whether they will need to review this part of the process at this time, unless the SEPA determination is appealed. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 Weimer stated there is an the website with comments. He thought the Council could change correct. PUBLIC HEARINGS official record. There is a link to where the agencies have asked Ms. Frakes to check on the 20 -day deadline. He that part of the code. Frakes stated she believes that's 1. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2012 -343) (7:27 :25 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: David Stalheim stated ongoing expenses exceed the revenue in the budget by $1.5 million. The Planning and Development Services Department budget is subsidized by the general fund in the amount of almost $2.5 million. About $1.5 million of that is for development review. Fees are not keeping up with the review of development permits. In 2007, fees kept up with development review and the general fund contribution for 2007 was only $1 million. They've reduced 30 employees, which is 40 percent of the staff, and now the general fund contribution increased by 65 percent because the fees have not kept up with the cost of services. Set targets to make sure general taxpayers, which are City residents who contribute 50 percent of the property taxes, don't subsidize county development. Raise fees to cover expenses. The highest fee they're billing for the Gateway Pacific Project is $100 per hour for the Health Officer. Most people are in the range of $50 to $60 per hour. However, the Planning Department will charge $100 per hour for a secretary to scan a document. Gateway Pacific is getting a great deal for their costs of services. Fees for scanning documents and special reports should be at the level it costs to do the service. The major project permit fee for Gateway Pacific is $2,625 for the application. The fee for filing a short -plat is $2,500. There is a difference between a short -plat and a coal port facility. Set those fees at $20,000 or $100,000. Ellen Baker stated many fees are high. Fees for someone to better their home or septic system used to be low. Now, the fee schedule is an impediment for people who want to do minor improvements. The public interest is poorly served by these high fees. She would rather pay more general tax to the department so fees will be lower. Linda Twitchell stated some increased fees are reasonable. She's not hearing complaints from her members. Be aware of fees that get a lot higher. One reason people aren't building in Bellingham is because of the impact and other fees. She thanked the Council for keeping fees reasonable. Construction is a major contributor to the economy. Keep the construction industry going. Patrick Alesse stated the County has impact fees someplace. Fees should reflect the cost and should be equitable. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. (7:35:13 PM) Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 Mann moved to adopt the ordinance with substitute Appendix A. Crawford moved to amend the ordinance to remove item 2792 on Council packet page nine, the Operations and Maintenance (O &M) fee of $19. He is opposed because it represents a tax increase, even though they're calling it a fee. It generates $400,000 to hire more staff in the Health Department and do more septic enforcement. The Council was judicious, and appropriately addressed this several years ago when they started the system of self- inspection. Continue to look at the issue surrounding onsite septic systems. Continue to monitor that issue. He's not received a response from the Health Department when he questioned whether or not there has been any public health effect caused by onsite septic systems. They've identified failures. The Health Department continues to work with folks to correct those failures, and are getting them corrected. He's not aware of an incident in which any of these issues actually led to a situation of endangered public health. Respect the financial situation of property owners. County folks should have an opportunity to vote on anything that amounts to a property tax increase. Brenner stated she supports the motion to remove the fee. It's a tax. She's not received a response from the Health Department about how much it costs to have the classes, how they're letting people know about information, and what information is being distributed. The classes are amazing, and they were full. People had an interest in their own systems either for health or home equity reasons. People aren't finding out about the classes. Also, it's not clear whether the department needs $400,000. The fee amount doesn't accurately reflect what it costs the department to accept a homeowner's paperwork. Charge a penalty for not doing something. A fee should reflect the actual cost. They don't know how much it costs to process the paperwork. Don't approve the fee. Also, change the fee in place. Mann stated he is against the motion to remove the fee. Failing septic systems and sewage in drainage ditches or streams do pose a health hazard. When the County audited the self- inspected systems, they found that the results were incredibly at odds with the objective analysis. People audited those systems and found that systems reported as successful where actually failing and had never been inspected. The County needs an actual program. The honor system is not good enough. They tried that. He's sad to say that, because he prefers an honor system that works. The $19 per year fee for everyone who has a septic system is fair. Otherwise, all the County does is punish the folks who do obey the law by inspecting their systems and pumping their tanks. It's important to have working septic systems in Whatcom County. This is a fair fee. It's not exorbitant. It's better than what they had before. He doesn't like having to be in favor of adding to someone's tax bill, but it's better than what they had. Brenner stated she doesn't disagree with a lot of the comments. She agrees that people should keep their septic systems working. She doesn't believe that most failing septic systems cause any public health problem, but there are reasons it's a good idea to do it. This isn't going to do anything except create and fund this program that's not working. Don't punish people who do it right. Reduce the permit fee. The County must remind people of the classes. When people don't do it, charge them. This is not better than what they have. It will cost more for some people who are doing the right thing. The staff will just have more money to do stuff. The fee should reflect what it actually costs. Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Mann. It's a reduction for people who are obeying the law. He asked if the fee system reverts to the more expensive fee system if the Council removes this fee. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the other fees have been removed. If this fee is removed, it would be publicly wise to reinstate the other fees. The City of Bellingham will end about $100,000 of funding for the program. The State will also eliminate about $120,000 in funding, for a total reduction of $220,000 in funding. This proposal is the most reasonable alternative to keep the program going. They would eliminate the pumpage fee and the fee on the permit. This $19 would replace those fees. If the Council decides to remove the $19 fee and reinstate the other fees, there will be a hole of $200,000 to $300,000 in the general budget. Brenner stated that if this passes the way it is, county residents should be prepared for the County to set up something and call it a fee whenever County government is low on money. Kershner stated that during the budget work sessions, the Health Department Director described this program and stated that State law requires the County to have a program of OSS systems. When asked if there is any way to run the program any less expensively than described, Director Delahunt stated there was a way, but staff could not do the enforcement of sensitive areas, including Drayton Harbor and Lake Whatcom, which the Council asked for. This is a program that will keep the County in compliance with State law. She was disappointed to find out about the low rate of compliance. When people don't turn in their inspection paperwork and pay the $35 fee, the program does not get the funding it needs to operate. This seemed a fair and smart way to not punish people who were complying by making them pay for the entire program and to fund the required program. She is against the motion to remove the fee. Brenner stated she doesn't want to punish people who are doing it. This system is the same as the one the County has now, which isn't working. They are charging everyone, whether or not they comply. There is no incentive for anyone to participate. Many people will feel like it's not fair. The County should be saving money, and the classes are now online. Kershner asked how it's not fair for people with septic systems, who have to comply with this state requirement, to pay for the program that makes sure they comply. Brenner stated the State only says that they have to assure it. That can be done through them taking the class and participating that way. This isn't going to do anything more to promote people's understanding of how important their septic system is. They've been doing heavy- handed enforcement in the past. The County should do the preventative part of the program. There is a charge on a transfer of property. Eventually, everything will come into compliance. In the meantime, put effort into the classes, not enforcement. This is an arbitrary amount. Approving this now allows staff to continue not answering the question. There is not a lot of publicity about the classes. They did great in the watersheds because there was outreach. Knutzen stated his concerns have not been addressed. The current system is set up so that the people who comply pay a fee, and the people who don't comply don't have to pay anything. Now they're going to assess a fee on everyone, but there isn't a reward for good behavior. He'd hoped property owners who comply receive a reduction on the fee that they're charged. Crawford stated he realizes that this motion requires the Council to analyze what costs of the program need to be compensated. It's appropriate to deal with these issues during budget time. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 The motion to amend to remove the fee failed by the following vote: Ayes: Crawford, Brenner and Knutzen (3) Nays: Kremen, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (4) Crawford referenced item #8272 regarding the major project permit fee structure and the change to add an hourly fee. They've recently been assured that the County has a compensation mechanism to cover all the County's costs for the Gateway Pacific project. He asked if that's still correct, and if this change is sufficient to address any future applications. Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the change was made to address future applications. Previous fee schedules had a base charge instead of an hourly fee, but it wasn't enough. They are going back to a base fee plus an hourly fee to cover costs for future projects. Crawford asked if a major project permit fee of $2,700 reflects something close to the end cost, or if they should set the fee so it's more commensurate, to set expectations. Ryan stated they can get the fees they need by adding an hourly fee to the base fee. Weimer asked if it's accurate that the County is not recouping its costs for the coal port, because the County is only charging $40 to $60 per hour. He asked if the public is subsidizing the cost if the real cost is $100. Ryan stated that's not accurate. Weimer asked why they are charging $100 per hour if $40 or $60 covers the cost of the coal port. Ryan stated the fee is prorated on who's doing the work. The entire goal of the contract was to recoup all the costs. Weimer stated the contract says the fee for the Health Director's time is $107 per hour. Everyone else is $40 to $70 per hour. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the $100 hour fee includes a car and provisions for travel to the site. The fees charged for staff working on the environmental impact statement is for their hourly wage, adjusted to include benefits and compensated time off. The fee is calculated from the cost of a position divided by productive hours. Weimer stated it seems there is quite a difference in the amount the County will be reimbursed from them versus what they're going to ask from future applicants. Crawford moved to amend Council packet page 139, item 8272 for the major project permit fee, the 2013, "$262S 8000 base + $100 /hour after 2-9 80 hours." The amount they're charging up front is not commensurate with anything close to the real cost of getting such a project done. This has nothing to do with Gateway. It's simply to set expectations about what it takes to go into a proposal. Brenner stated it's going to be $100 no matter what. It isn't a need. Crawford stated he agrees there is no need. It's a matter of perception and setting expectations, which is why they have different fees for different things to begin with. Kershner asked what kinds of projects are major projects. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 Crawford stated the estimated construction cost, exclusive of land value, must be at least $5 million. The size must be 75,000 square feet or more if retail, 200,000 square feet or more if office or industrial, 300 dwelling units or more if residential, or 200 units or more if a hotel /motel. The number of employees would be 250 or more. Kershner asked if the jail would be a major project. Ryan stated it would. Brenner asked if any major project permit could take less than 80 hours. Ryan stated she doesn't know. Brenner stated she can't support the change. An application may take less than 80 hours. There isn't a need to change it. The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5) Nays: Knutzen and Brenner (2) Crawford moved to amend Council packet page 131, item 2074 regarding the Hearing Examiner appeal fee, $750 to $250. This is the only recourse for citizens and property owners to ensure a decision follows the letter of the law, once staff makes a decision. Make that bar low. He realizes an appeal takes considerable staff time. However, under good management and good exercise of administering land use laws, it's an incentive for the administration to make good decisions and keep appeals to a minimum. Brenner stated the fee can be a hit to people who are found to comply. She would rather there be a time charge, with a refund if a person prevails. Crawford stated Hearing Examiner decisions are rarely a win -lose decision. There is no good mechanism to identify a winner or a loser. Usually, the decision addresses all the concerns creatively. Brenner stated the Hearing Examiner has upheld an applicant in a number of cases. For other cases, the charge should be the actual cost per hour. Kershner asked if it's possible for the someone to appeal only a portion of a decision, so the parameters are narrower and money isn't wasted to review an entire decision. Crawford stated the Hearing Examiner reflects a code interpretation of the code that the County Council adopts. He's not aware if the State allows any alternatives. He proposes the decrease to $250 while acknowledging that the County incurs more than $250 in cost. He's trying to be respectful to citizens who can take issue with code interpretation. Allow them an extra step to have that tested. This fee goes to the Planning Department to cover staff costs. Weimer stated he likes the reasoning, but doesn't support the motion. The general fund already subsidizes the Planning Department, which is supposed to be self- supported. This would make the subsidy greater. Kremen stated a lower fee will encourage more appeals. He agrees that $750 is a bit pricey for someone to have an opportunity for redress before the Hearing Examiner. The existing $750 is a deterrent to appealing a decision to the Hearing Examiner. He asked if there can be a program where an initial cost is $250, and someone who doesn't prevail would have to pay a penalty in the amount of the staff time used on the appeal. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 Crawford stated he's uncomfortable tasking the Hearing Examiner to make a decision knowing that the outcome will have a financial repercussion. The decision needs to be unfettered with any concern about finances. The code is complex. The bureaucracy in the land use rules is very layered. Code interpretation is tough. The Hearing Examiner process is costly. His intent is simply to allow a lower cost, while knowing they won't recover costs. It's part of the complex system they must live with. When the Council makes regulations, it must consider that it's adding to internal County costs in terms of enforcement and code interpretation challenges. Knutzen stated they could charge a base fee of $250 and then add a fee per hour for each additional hour beyond some time threshold. Brenner asked if the County can legally charge a fee that doesn't cover a cost. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the County can. Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to change the fee to $500 from $750. Crawford accepted the friendly amendment. The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Weimer (1) Kershner referenced Council packet page 131, item 2765 regarding code enforcement penalties, and asked if it's a new fee. Ryan stated it's not a new fee. It's been in effect, but it hasn't been in the unified fee schedule. It was in the compliance section of the code. It's the maximum fee per day that can be charged. Knutzen referenced ferry fees on Council packet page 144 and asked if the Council can change these fees after receiving feedback from the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee. Brenner stated the Council wants the County to be able to swipe credit cards on the ferry as soon as possible, which could reduce some of the charges in the fee schedule. Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 139, item 8435 regarding the critical area variance /reasonable use Hearing Examiner application fee, "$2,100 per applieatien $100 per hour." This is something that happens through no fault of the applicant. The cost should be reasonable for people who just want to build a house. Brenner stated this is not for the Hearing Examiner. It's for a variance to the critical areas ordinance. It's a big deal, and must be decided by the Hearing Examiner. This fee is just for the Planning staff to process and prepare for it. It's not for the Hearing Examiner to do the work. Brenner asked if 21 hours is reasonable for this. Crawford stated he's never received any feedback that it wasn't reasonable. He doesn't know how many critical areas variances the Hearing Examiner does. It's not a burning issue. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 49 50 51 52 53 Brenner withdrew the motion. Kershner stated the cost for the Council packet is a bargain. Brenner referenced Council packet pages 136 and 137, items 8414 through 8420. Fee shouldn't be based on square footage. Instead, the cost should be a base fee plus a per hour fee. The permit fees are based on square footage or valuation. Kershner stated it's based on the cost, not on square footage. Crawford stated the Building Industry Association testified that they are generally alright with these fees. Unless there is a constituency that brings up an issue with inequity, he's not prone to changes. Brenner withdrew the motion. The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: Brenner (1) 2. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE YEAR 2013 (AB2012 -344) (8:36:45 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance and asked if there is no increase in the levy other than the additional new construction in the past year. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated that's correct. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 3. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2013 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY (AB2012 -345) (8:38:17 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. He asked if there is no increase in the levy other than the additional new construction in the past year. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated that's correct. Kremen stated this will be the 17th year in a row that Whatcom County will have accomplished this feat. No other county in Washington State can claim that. The County should be proud and the taxpayers should be thankful. Brenner stated she disagrees. A majority of the Council passed a number of fees that are really taxes over the years. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 9 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 motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 4. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF 2013 PROPERTY TAXES FOR COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES (AB2012 -346) (8 :41 :08 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Greg Brown stated the County is taking $706,000 from the road fund and giving it to the general fund to pay for traffic. Don't shuffle money around. The people passed a road levy, and they're paying for the roads. Don't use it to pay for traffic. Change the budget elsewhere. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Mann stated it's legitimate to use road funds for law enforcement. They've done that for several years. Brenner asked if it is legally necessary to divert the funds to the general funds to use for traffic enforcement. Dewey Desler, Special Projects Manager, stated the County doesn't pay for sheriff deputies out of the road department budget. This conforms with State law. The County government has done this for many years. Whatcom County diverts one of the lowest amounts of all the counties in the state. Cost of traffic policing is $2.3 million. They have to divert the funds to the general fund, because they pay for the deputies from the general fund. Kremen stated they can't pay them out of the road fund, legally. Crawford asked why the county isn't diverting more. Desler stated it's a matter of setting priorities for using the road fund monies. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) S. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2013 (AB2012 -347) (8 :46 :31 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Paul Schissler stated he supports the ordinance. He is also a volunteer on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee. It's an important revenue stream for the county. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 10 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 asked why they don't limit the fund, as they do on the other ordinances. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated ordinances confined to only one fund are just about levying the fund. The limiting language makes sense. The general fund is the only fund with a separate limiting ordinance, because it also levies a lot of special purpose districts and State assessed utilities. The limiting language wouldn't make sense in that ordinance. The title of the ordinance doesn't matter. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM 2013 -2014 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB2012 -332A) (8:50:44 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: David Stalheim stated don't charge $100 per hour for a secretary to scan documents. The fees for Gateway Pacific are $40 to $80 per hour. There is no charge for administrative staff. The County isn't compensated for those dollars, and the reason for the deficit. There is also no compensation for the Hearing Examiner system, who will get the Gateway Pacific project in 2014. Think ahead and get subsidized for costs involved. They are not getting the amount of time allocated in the dollars for the expenditures and revenue the County really deserves. Three thousand comments have been received on the scoping process. The Council and Executive will rely on staff to provide recommendations and analysis of this project. There must be dedicated staff, including an attorney, to do this work. The County needs contractual services that are paid for by Gateway Pacific in the amount of $100,000. The County will have to defend itself in court. Make sure they're covered in the budget. Dana Hanks, Blaine Senior Center Director, stated she thanks the Council for its support of the important services provided by the senior service centers. Services provided at the centers include health, nutrition, education, assessment, and community building. These elements support the concept of aging in place, which keeps seniors living in their own homes. The City of Blaine has cut its funding by $10,000 due to the closing of the Semiahmoo Resort. She asked for confirmation that the funding level from the County will continue. Veronica Wisniewski, Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee Chair, stated the Committee asks for $100,000 from the conservation future fund to pay for 1.5 full -time equivalent (FTE) staff for the PDR program. Currently, they have less than .25 FTE. It's difficult to accomplish much. To pursue a program to retire rights in the agricultural area, they need staff to structure such an initiative. Funding could come from the conservation futures fund, because this activity is eligible for that fund. Patrick Alesse stated he agrees with David Stalheim. Growth needs to pay for growth. Many people showed up at a hearing he attended regarding the coal port. The Council will have to deal with it. They can't deal with it just on a weekend. Paul Schissler, Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee Vice - Chair, stated he agrees with comments from Veronica Wisniewski. They are not seeking general funds, only conservation futures funds, which has a healthy fund balance. This is in accordance with Council- approved priorities and policies. Find a way to Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 11 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 strengthen the program and provide adequate staff support. The fund is allowed to pay direct expenses for staff and for implementing the program. John Steensma, Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee, stated he agrees with previous speakers about needing staff help for the PDR Oversight Committee. Rod Erickson, Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Oversight Committee past chair, stated he also supports staff for the Committee. They are trying to preserve farmland, which all councilmembers supported when running for election. Provide staff for the committee. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Weimer moved to amend to add $100,000 to conservation futures expenditures and 1 FTE to the Planning staff for each year, 2013 and 2014. People can get frustrated with the program. The PDR Committee has come up with ideas to make the process more efficient and targeted, but it needs staff help. Brenner stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee is working on PDR and transfer of development rights (TDR) issues. The Planning staff person who has worked with them was recently removed from working with that group. Don't take away the person who has the knowledge and bring someone else up to speed. Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated staff has been added to the Agricultural Advisory Committee. They are switching the lead staff person for the Agricultural Advisory Committee from Samya Lutz, who is transitioning to the PDR Oversight Committee, to Josh Fleischmann and Peter Gill. Brenner asked why Josh Fleischmann and Peter Gill don't staff the PDR Committee and leave Samya Lutz with the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Kershner stated allow the Planning Department manage their staff. The question is whether the PDR Committee needs more staff. Kremen asked if Samya Lutz is the best staff person to work with the PDR Oversight Committee. Personious stated Samya Lutz has the most experience working with the agricultural community. Kremen stated it's important to abide by separation of powers and the staffing decisions of the Executive branch. Crawford asked if the plan is to give the PDR Committee more support. Personious stated that's correct, but they've testified it's still not enough support. Brenner moved to amend the name of the committee to the PDR /TDR Advisory Committee. Weimer stated his motion makes more money available to support both programs by using money from the conservation futures fund. They all say they want to protect agricultural land, but they are reducing staff who work on agricultural. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 12 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 Kremen stated there is greater potential for a TDR program, but the two should not mingle. The people who are on the PDR Committee are focused on agriculture. The County needs a different group of individuals to work on the TDR program. He agrees that the TDR Program has even greater potential than PDRs. Knutzen stated they are already working on parcel reconfiguration. A TDR program would be a perfect match with what the Agricultural Advisory Board is working on. Brenner stated split the money between the PDR Committee and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The County doesn't have the money for another advisory committee and staff. The PDR Committee can do both. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he doesn't know if State law allows them to comingle the money and the processes. He cautions against making this last minute, complicated change. In the last few years, they've been budgeted $50,000, but they've billed only $15,000. He won't object if the Council makes the PDR Committee a higher priority. Just make sure they don't allocate more money they don't need for the program. Crawford stated transfers of development rights hasn't been successful in farmland preservation nationwide. Whatcom Farm Friends and other advocates are reforming the discussion to get away from the concept of transfer of development rights and are suggesting that various resources have rights, and that there may be a broader resource marketplace. The County has a purchase of development rights program in writing. Changing it to add TDRs creates more questions than answers. They will probably get out of the TDR language anyway, and begin talking about whether there are other items of value that can be used in some sort of tradeoff. Take caution in this proposal at this time. Brenner withdrew her motion. Weimer stated the State law is clear that the program is for the purchase of development rights. Transfers is unclear. Funding work on purchase of development rights with conservation futures funds may free staff time to work with the Agricultural Advisory Committee on other issues. Kremen stated comingling the PDR and TDR programs would dilute the original intent of the motion. He asked the fund balance of the conservation futures fund and how much revenue the County receives annually. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, submitted a handout (on file) and stated the annual amount approved is $990,647 in 2013 and $1,886,000 in 2014. The fund balance at the end of 2012 will be $3.369 million. At the end of 2013, not including any additional expenditures for PDR staff, the fund balance will be $4.2 million. Mann stated he supports the motion. He attended the committee meeting when the PDR Oversight Committee asked for staff help. At that meeting, the councilmembers agreed and told the Oversight Committee to tell the Council what they need. Now they are telling the councilmembers that they need more staff to focus efforts, locate properties, and do outreach so the program is implemented more effectively. He appreciates what they're doing. It's appropriate to use the conservation futures fund. Kershner asked if the administration would hire staff to support the PDR program if the Council approves this $100,000. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 13 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 Louws stated he doesn't know yet if there is enough work for one person to spend full -time on the PDR program over a year. A lot of it depends on whether the Council continues to fund the program and whether there are federal matching funds. If they can't put things together, the County may end up spending $100,000 next year, and not buy any property if they can't put things together. The Council is making a commitment to the program. He would like to see up to a full —time position and a $100,000. Ultimately, the administration will only be able to expend an amount of time up to what is possible. He's committed to upholding the wishes of the Council. If they find that a lesser amount of money or staff time provides tremendous coverage in the program, he will limit the spending. The PDR program is not his favorite program. It costs too much to benefit too few people. There are better ways for the County to spend its money. However, the majority of the County seems to be in favor of the program, so he will fulfill the Council's wishes. Kremen stated he's been disappointed in the County's achievements in the program. He will support the motion, and hopes to see a much better return on the investment. Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to add up to $100,000 to conservation futures expenditures and 1 FTE to the Planning staff for each year, 2013 and 2014. Weimer accepted the friendly amendment. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5) Nays: Crawford and Knutzen (2) Brenner moved to amend page Council packet page 197, section II, item (D) to add language at the end of the paragraph, "...within the General Fund and between accounts and cost centers within other County funds, by Executive Order or if authorized by the County Council." As it is, the language says that once the Council adopts the two -year budget, an Executive can move the money around any way he or she wants. That's not what the Charter intended. Desler stated the Executive never used that authority for many years. They sought to use it at the end of the year when the Superior Court overspent its budget, and the County had to transfer money at the end of the year to make their decisions whole. Brenner stated something like that can be taken care of with an Executive Order. The language as is, is too broad. That kind of language doesn't belong in the ordinance. Order. Kremen stated he doesn't see the point of the motion if it's allowed by Executive Brenner stated an Executive Order is done by emergency. Kershner asked why the Executive would not request authorization from the Council to move money to cover the Superior Court budget. Desler stated there is not a Council meeting at the end of the year. Kershner stated the Council can authorize the administration to move money to cover budget overages at the December meeting. Councilmember Brenner has a good Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 14 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 point. The language gives quite a bit of authority to the Executive. She supports the motion, but without the language regarding an Executive Order. Knutzen suggested a friendly amendment to amend page Council packet page 197, section II, item (D) to add language at the end of the paragraph, "...within the General Fund and between accounts and cost centers within other County funds, if authorized by the County Council." Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. Louws stated he is not opposed to the amendment if it is allowed by the County Charter. The only challenge will be between the last Council meeting on December 4 and the end of the year. The Council and County could have a financial imbalance going into the first of the year. He will firmly hold the departments to their budgets. He does not anticipate doing anything without Council approval. However, he will reserve the right to review the Charter and make sure the Council isn't taking over powers it isn't authorized to under the law. Brenner stated Councilmember Kershner addressed that. It's a motion the Council can make at the end of the year. She restated the motion to amend page Council packet page 197, section II, item (D) to add language at the end of the paragraph, "...within the General Fund and between accounts and cost centers within other County funds, if authorized by the County Council." Louws stated the administration transfers items inter - departmentally and by line - item. He asked if that's restricted. Brenner stated this is the appropriation authority, not the transfer authority. The transfer authority is covered in subsection (A). The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5) Nays: Crawford and Kremen (2) Kershner stated they can work out details about the small amounts or daily transfers between funds. The Council could give a general authorization at the beginning of the year. The Council seems concerned that $1.1 million isn't taken from one fund and put into another fund without the Council knowing about it. She asked if the technical corrections and changes the County Council made in the work session have been incorporated into the budget before the Council. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated they have been included. The substitute attachments to the ordinance submitted earlier included the technical corrections from the meetings. Desler stated the attachments also include the changes the Council made during the work sessions. Kershner asked if the Blaine Senior Center funding is included in the budget. Staff indicated it is. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 15 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 Crawford moved to remove the emergency medical service (EMS) budget portion from the Executive's 2013 -2014 budget and request the administration work on responding to the following issues: 1. Request the City of Bellingham to describe how a $400,000 annual reduction in the City's cost would impact service delivery, 2. Request the administration to ask the City of Bellingham to fast -track reductions in cost in 2013 by eliminating Medic 6 as of January 1, 2013, 3. Allow the County Council to meet with its attorney on December 4 to discuss its obligation to continue the interlocal for 2013, and 4. Request the County administration to ask the County fire districts how they would address and ramp up for Countywide (exclusive of Bellingham) ambulance provision on January 1, 2013, if necessary. Mann stated this motion was discussed in Finance Committee and recommended for approval 2 -1. Weimer asked if the Council will have to introduce something else this evening if this is pulled, or else the County won't be able to pay its bills on January 1. He asked if Councilmember Crawford is prepared to introduce an alternative. Crawford stated he is confident the County can work with the City of Bellingham to come up with a resolution. If that infers that ambulance service proceed on January 1 without a specific Council action, he has no qualms that they would retroactively approve it soon in the new year. He doesn't want to allow a fiscal year change to force the County into not analyzing all the options available. He's confident the County will continue to provide nonstop and uninterrupted EMS service to the folks of Whatcom County. In two weeks, they will know whether or not the County will move forward with the City of Bellingham. If the Council does not actually approve the budget item on January 1 does not mean they or the City stop providing service. Louws stated he discussed the matter with the Mayor of Bellingham. The draw down is a concern of his and the Mayor's. The Mayor asked the Fire Chief to look into questions about Medic 6 and the $400,000 increase and prepare an answer within the next couple of weeks. The City plans to phase out Medic 6 at the end of 2013, but is not likely to decrease cost by $400,000. The federal and state governments are reducing reimbursements, and they are catching up on two years of union agreements. He and the Mayor are working to bring the system closer into financial balance. He can't guarantee they will do that completely. He recommends that Council approve the item as it is this year. The County is still under contract and obligated to pay for one more year. He had a conversation this afternoon with Gary Russell of Fire District 7 about how ready they could be to take over the county on January 1, 2013. Mr. Russell told him there is absolutely no way to take over on January 1, 2013. Rural Whatcom county will require three full -time medic units. It won't be financially or feasibly possible to get that to happen so quickly. Leave the appropriation in the budget as presented, and give him, the Mayor, and the Fire Chiefs countywide an opportunity to put a new system together. Brenner stated she wants to support Crawford's motion but isn't comfortable with it since the County is under contract. Knutzen stated it was disconcerting to find out there aren't any councilmembers on the committee. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 16 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 Kershner stated she is on the committee, but didn't attend. She takes responsibility for not getting a replacement. Kremen stated he concurs with Councilmember Brenner, and understands Councilmember Crawford's frustration. He would like to see a resolution that continues a unified system that is affordable and also provides excellent service. Costs have become prohibitively expensive. Whatcom County pays a majority of the costs to fund the system, yet has little or no meaningful input. Hopefully that will change. However, it is not in good faith to not honor the contract, so he will oppose the motion. Kershner stated the contract doesn't specifically indentify a contract amount, so the Council could reduce the amount by $400,000. She asked the language in the contract that holds the County hostage to spending all the money in the EMS fund by 2015. Louws described the contract. In good faith, the County gave over authority for program management to City of Bellingham Fire Department. Now, they are trying to get the County a seat at the table for deciding service levels and financial responsibility. If they don't negotiate a new agreement, this agreement ends at the end of 2013. If the County goes on its own, it will spend more than it spends today. Kershner stated the Council previously voted to remove funding for EMS in 2014, and asked if that includes the general fund amount. She had withdrawn a motion to remove the appropriation from the general fund, because the Executive wanted the money there as a placeholder. Desler stated the amount of $2.663 million includes funds for EMS and also for law and justice. Marianne Caldwell, Administrative Services Department, stated the EMS fund includes a criminal justice appropriation of $700,000 and also $1.9 for EMS. In the technical corrections, the administration proposed to also appropriate the increase request for 2014. The Council removed the additional funding shown in the technical budget, but left the base budget. The Council discussed the structure of the revenue and expenditures of the EMS fund for EMS services. Crawford stated there is an increase of $400,000 that isn't going to be reimbursed from Medicare. In addition, there is an increase of $500,000 to $600,000. He asked where that money is going. The ratio of advanced life support (ALS) to basic life support (BLS) has dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent, with a flat overall call volume. He asked where is the proposal from the City that reflects that efficiency. That's a huge efficiency. Salary increase were granted. He asked how many County employees got raises in the last few years. He asked at what point the councilmembers think that enough is enough. The City may have the County locked into a contract, but they must have the discussion. The lost Medicare reimbursement is legitimate. A discussion about that lost reimbursement should be an isolated discussion. Put that aside and ask how they are accounting for over a half million dollars for less output on the part of the ALS branch of the system. It sounds like the Mayor is working with the Fire Chief about those answers. Delay this approval a couple of weeks to sort through that information. Brenner asked if the Council can remove this part of the budget and table it for two weeks, or table the budget. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, 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 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 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the Council cannot do that. Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. It's significant that the County must honor its contract, but the Fire Department is holding the County hostage. It's not in good faith to require the County to pay a huge price increase. The County is not being at all dishonest. It is sending a message that this increase is not right or fair. Kremen stated this is a pattern Whatcom County has endured for at least 17 years. He is just as frustrated. However, they have to be responsible. He moved to amend the total EMS expenditure requested from the EMS fund in the budget so that it reflects the amount requested, minus $500,000 for which the County has no accounting and is attributable to the reimbursement rate. Louws stated he recommends the Council to leave it as it is. The County has a contract obligation for one more year. He understands the concerns related to the costs, and has articulated that concern to the Mayor and the Council many times. However, the reserve is $4 million. Because of a doubling up of labor contracts, a reduction of federal reimbursement reduction, and other items, the County must use about $1 million of the reserves. He asked if the Council is willing and confident to risk people's lives for one year for an amount of about $400,000. They can make a political statement and wait for two weeks. The Mayor of Bellingham and City are working in good faith. It's in the best interest of the County to continue to provide this service into next year, with the understanding they need to fix the system in the next few months. Kremen stated the County Council has not escalated the cost of this system to astronomical figures. The individuals across the street arbitrarily and unilaterally raised the rates and their costs, without any consultation with the County. He questions who is really not bargaining in good faith. He tried to be collaborative and professional for years. Costs have skyrocketed mostly because of arbitrary decisions made by those decision - makers. The County Council has every right and reason to feel it must make a statement. Crawford stated there is not going to be an accident in Glacier on January 1 where no one shows up. They will work through this. They can work on getting something that works. If the City is intractable, the councilmembers will have to decide at the half million for the rest of the year. Either way, they will ensure service continues, whatever it takes. Two more weeks allows the Council to make a more informed decision. If necessary, the Council will meet the week between Christmas and New Year. Brenner stated the County screwed up when it signed the contract, but this is what the County must do. Knutzen stated he has a problem with not honoring a contract it's signed. However, there was agreement for the Medic One system. The problems started when the County tried to implement that agreement. The contract has already been signed and broken. He will begrudgingly support this contract going forward. He's concerned about the direction. A year ago, they were preparing an exit strategy if this didn't work out. There are still a lot of costs that keep escalating, and it seems like they have given up on an exit strategy and aren't preparing a worse case scenario. He encourages someone to address his concern. They must have an exit strategy. Crawford withdrew his motion to amend. Kremen withdrew his motion to amend. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 18 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 won't support the budget. She made many motions, including one about consolidating departments. It hasn't been done or discussed. Kershner asked about setting aside $100,000 for unplanned legal actions regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. Desler stated the Council has the ability to address the budget at the end of 2013 for the year 2014. They will know better at that time what may happen. Kershner asked if they can write that potential cost into the fees and permitting process. Desler stated there are authority and policy issues the administration would like to explore, and come back with recommendations. Fees can be adjusted mid -year if necessary. Weimer stated upcoming programs they know about aren't included in the budget. He asked if there is money in the budget for the aquatic invasive species program, a jail planner, and investigating the possibility of a stormwater utility district. Desler stated the Council will hear more about the jail on December 4. He can't talk about the invasive species issue. The Council is able to make adjustments because the fund balances are there. There is no need for a placeholder in the budget tonight. Brenner referenced the coal port application and stated they were told that all costs would be covered. Louws stated the County can collect for the time accrued before the contract was signed, in the amount of about $16,000. Additionally, the County is billing them anywhere from $3,000 to $8,000 per month right now, which are for direct labor costs. After the first of the year, when they get into the scoping process review, there will be more hours. The County can, by contract, be reimbursed. They aren't getting administrative costs above that amount. The County learned a lesson. They aren't substantially behind. The State is taking care of a lot of the bigger expenses. They are and will continue being reimbursed for direct staff time. Kremen asked the expiration date of the contract. Louws stated he believes it goes as long as the initial phase of scoping in the contract with CH2MHill. Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there is an automatic contract extension from November 12 for six months, and then they look at it again. Weimer stated if the County will get another contract to cover the cost of the process after the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, such as the costs for the Hearing Examiner. Louws stated the process includes three phases. The CH2MHill is contracted for the first phase. They will have another contract. With the new fee structure, the County will be able to receive costs beyond just direct labor costs. He will look into the question. Kershner moved to transfer $9,500 per year from the Planning Department to the Council Office for preparation of the Planning Commission minutes. The Planning Commission discusses items in detail, which could be helpful to the Council so it wouldn't have to discuss those items in detail again. Ryan stated a Planning staff person is prepared to try to work the detailed minutes into her work schedule. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 19 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 put the money into the Council budget. They've brought this up repeatedly. There is always a reason why they can't get them done. She appreciates that staff will try now, but she doesn't want to wait anymore. She has to spend a lot of time talking to Planning Commissioners about what is going on. This isn't more money. It's to make sure it gets done. Kershner stated she is inclined to let the department attempt to do more detailed minutes. If it doesn't, the Council can do this later. She withdrew her motion. Brenner stated she's been repeatedly told that they can't do a supplemental budget, although the Attorney General told her they can. Kershner stated that if the Council takes the money from the department, it won't have the money it needs to attempt to do the minutes. Regarding the final budget, the bargaining units are still negotiating, so they don't have a final number. The Council is passing the budget with the understanding that it may have to make adjustments. Louws stated he would like the Council to revisit Council packet page 197, section II, item (D) to delete "between accounts and." He needs the authority to transfer funds between accounts to deal with minor daily operations. Kremen moved to approve the Executive's suggested language to amend Council packet page 197, section II, item (D) to amend language, '...within the General Fund and between aeeeunts -and cost centers within other County funds, if authorized by the County Council." The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Mann stated that in response to concerns brought forward tonight, he is in favor of growth paying for itself in terms of roads and infrastructure. However, the public gets a benefit from the permit and development reviews. He's comfortable with the balance they have right now. Councilmembers and the Executive individually commended and thanked each other and the Executive and his staff, who did a great job on the budget. The motion to adopt the ordinance, as amended and with the additional information, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Brenner (1) 7. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES FOR THE YEARS 2013 -2018 (AB2012- 327) (11:10:58 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 20 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 motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Brenner (1) S. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FOR 2013 (AB2012 -348) (11 :12 :11 PM) (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors.) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 9. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013 BUDGET FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND SUBZONES (AB2012 -349) (11 :13 :04 PM) (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors.) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 10. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY DRIVE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 1 FOR CRP #907001 BIRCH BAY DRIVE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY (AB2012 -340) (11 :13 :56 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Barney Yorkston submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated there are serious right -of -way issues that need to be dealt with. Greg Brown stated the County doesn't own or have rights to all this property. He would like to know what's going on. Patrick Alesse stated start the pedestrian walkway at Alderson Road. Also, the County must increase parking. Kathy Berg stated she thanks this and the previous councils and executives for working 12 years on this matter with the Birch Bay community. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 21 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 Sonny Brown stated the community has an agreement with the Executive to support maintenance once this takes place. Claudia Hollad stated she is concerned about the right -of -way issue that involves a 60 -foot right -of -way between Bay Center and Shintaffer Road, and beyond. There are speeding issues in that area now. Increasing the width of the road will now slow down cars. It will take 30 feet out of her yard. County staff have worked with the property owners in the past. Gary Vogt, Edgewater Trailer Park, stated he is concerned about taking away beach rights to install a berm. He is also concerned about right -of -way issues. The road is fine now. There will be more problems if the County widens the road. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Crawford asked about delaying this issue. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated Civil Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Gibson has done a preliminary review into the right -of -way issue. The citizen concerns need to be resolved. This item is not to commit to a construction project. It is just to establish a project -based fund where the money will go. The administration is aware of property owner concerns and will work to resolve them. Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner asked if staff have been talking to the property owners recently. Louws stated Roland Middleton continues to be engaged. He doesn't know at what stage they are at. They are working their way through the concerns, and the Council will be involved in the decisions. If the County doesn't have a legal right, the Council will have to decide whether or not the County will proceed with the project. Brenner stated she will not support eminent domain. Louws stated he's already instructed staff to look into the right -of -way issue. Crawford referenced Council packet page 287 and asked how much right -of -way they're talking about. Louws stated he doesn't know that yet. There will probably have to be a legal ruling. The County will have to obtain some portions for right -of -way. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 11. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY - LYNDEN ROAD /PORTAL WAY SIGNALIZATION /IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 1 FOR CRP #901011 "BIRCH BAY LYNDEN ROAD /PORTAL WAY" SIGNALIZATION AND IMPROVEMENTS (AB2012 -341) (11:31:44 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Claudia Hollod stated that intersection now is a big problem for people trying to cross. She supports the ordinance. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 22 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 Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 12. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE POTTER ROAD -SOUTH FORK BRIDGE NO. 148 REPLACEMENT PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 1 FOR CRP #998027 POTTER ROAD -SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK RIVER BRIDGE NO. 148 (AB2012 -350) (11 :33:43 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance. Mann stated he can't support this project. It's too expensive for too few people. They need a bridge there, but there doesn't seem to be a genuine effort by Public Works Department staff to come up with a smaller design. Also, they were given some assurance that they would get the Nooksack Tribe to contribute. That hasn't come through. If they go ahead and approve the $2 million, there isn't incentive for the Nooksack Tribe to help pay for it. He can't ever approve this project. Brenner asked why the Public Works staff would work on something that would cost the same. A smaller bridge would result in lost federal funding, so the cost will be exactly the same. Mann stated he doesn't know that to be true. Brenner stated the Nooksacks didn't get the funding. That doesn't mean they didn't apply. Mann stated they did apply. But an application can be followed with phone calls and arm twisting. Brenner stated they don't know what the Nooksacks did or didn't do. That bridge is dangerous and needs to be replaced. The County allowed people to build there. Brenner stated they are looking at an expenditure of $1.9 million for a County bridge, when the County just spent $3 million on the last item to get a signal. It would be hard to get a bridge of that size for under $2 million. Kremen stated it's not a bridge to nowhere. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6) Nays: Mann (1) 13. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE RURAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM PROJECT AND PROJECT BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 1 FOR CRP #911017 "RURAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM" (AB2012 -351) (11 :39 :10 PM) Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 23 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 Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner asked where the money is coming from and why they must transfer money out of the road fund instead of using road fund money. There are also federal funds. Kershner stated it is a project -based fund so the Council can more easily track expenditures. The Council requested the administration to plan out and break out big projects, so they can see them. Brenner stated they don't need to set up a special fund. They also talked about getting rid of funds. Kershner stated they would get rid of this fund when the project is done. This is a way to track the project. Brenner asked if they can't track a project through the road fund. Kershner stated this process was a request of the Council. Crawford stated it's probably required by the federal contract. Brenner asked if there is something in the federal language that says the County has to do it this way. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the Public Works Department project -based budget means that the appropriation lasts the life of the project. It's difficult to track these. If there is a biennial budget and a project budget within the same fund, separating what's been approved in the project -based budget versus what's been approved in the biennial budget is difficult. It's much clearer to everyone if the money is in a separate fund. It's also difficult to keep track of the cash if it's all comingled. Kershner asked if there will be fewer administrative requests for authorization to put money not used in the previous budget into the new budget. Bennett stated that's correct. That's the downside of the annual or biennial budget with these projects that take four or five years. They do the budget six months before the end of the year, which means they have to estimate where they're going to be at the end of the year to plan for next year. They end up budgeting several times what the project ultimately cost because it went from year to year, and they were always budgeting it again the following budget cycle. It inflates the budget numbers and makes it difficult to project how much the fund balance will be. It interjects a lot of static into the system that makes it more difficult to have a good picture of where they are. Knutzen stated there is $16,000 in right -of -way, and they've already spent $269,000. He asked the purpose of the projects that have already been done. Bennett stated he understands that it's various improvements to eliminate hazards at various sites that are prone to accidents. Brenner stated she won't support it. She likes the way they do it, and that it keeps coming back to the Council. It reminds the Council what they're doing and why they're doing it. There are costs to creating funds. This isn't necessary. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 24 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 Kershner asked if projects that come from this fund won't come back to the Council for approval, or if the projects still have to be approved. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the contracts that meet the criteria for coming to the Council will continue to do that. That doesn't change anything. It gives the administration an opportunity to add everything up within this one category and to see what the overall costs are. Earlier, the Council was concerned about how many things came back to them. Also, he wanted the Public Works Department to dedicate money into these funds and reduce their opportunity for the huge budget lapses that they've had over prior years. The goal this year was to bring their budget lapse down to 15 percent. In two years, he wants to tighten that up even more. From an operations standpoint, they will be more accountable than they have been in the past. The audits are clean, and nothing is underhanded. It's his philosophy that they should be able to estimate a project so the administration can put the money in the fund. It gives them a better opportunity to determine how much of the undedicated funds are apportioned out in future years. Everyone will appreciate these project -based funds as they get used to working with them. Brenner asked how much it costs to manage the fund. Louws stated that once they are in the computer system and the cost is established, it doesn't cost any more than anything else. Brenner stated they've been told there is a cost to managing separate funds. Bennett stated it costs less in terms of manpower and effort. With the old system, to determine the balance, they have to pull reports and figure out the balance themselves. Now, they just call up the balance of that fund on the computer. If it's not in a separate fund, they have to look at how much they've spent in past budget years and deduct that from the total. It's a manual exercise to figure out where they are in one point in time. Brenner stated that is an argument in favor of creating lots of funds. She asked why the administration wanted to clean out these funds because they cost money to manage it. Bennett stated they don't want to unnecessarily create funds. However, if there's a good reason to create a fund, it can save time. Knutzen asked for an explanation of the amounts given. They don't seem to agree. He referenced the amount in the ordinance language. Bennett stated that number seems to be incorrect. Louws stated he suggests the Council amend the whereas statement on Council packet page 295. Kershner asked if they need to add a whereas statement that it will be funded with $16,000 from the road fund. Bennett stated that amount is scheduled to be transferred to this project. The Council may add it to the ordinance if it wants. They don't have to have it. Knutzen moved to amend the third whereas statement, "...the project will be funded with $1.325 $1.299 million in federal grants." The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 25 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 Brenner asked if federal law requires the County to show money from the road fund in this specific fund. It seems like federal grant money covers more than everything. She asked why they are transferring road money now. Kershner stated it's right -of -way money that isn't covered by the federal grant. Bennett stated the actual total estimated project cost of the rural safety program is $1,315,000 and the total estimated project revenues are $1,315,000. The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 14. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SHERIFF'S RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT FUND AND THE PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR PHASE 1 OF THE SHERIFF'S RECORD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT (AB2012 -352) (I1: 55:55 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Steve Harris stated he hopes this won't become a controversial issue. It will be expensive on an ongoing basis. It will be helpful to a lot of different departments. While in the field, there is no easy way to know about prior contacts. This system allows them to go to a call knowing someone else has been out there the previous day or the previous week, for example. It's an immense asset for deputies in the field. He strongly supports this item. Greg Brown stated he is in favor of the ordinance. Claudia Hollad stated she is in favor of the ordinance. They've been working with the Sheriff on speeding issues. He's done a really good job of catching speeders and robbers. Having access to this information is very important. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance. Knutzen asked where the funding comes from. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated funding comes from the general fund, partially from savings in the equipment rental and revolving (ER &R) fund and other found money. It's in the best interest of the County to approve this. Mann stated he supports this ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 26 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 CONSENT AGENDA (11:59 :59 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) I. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT SUN LIFE STOP -LOSS POLICY FOR INSURANCE PROTECTION FOR THE SELF - INSURED MEDICAL PROGRAM FOR 2013 (AB2012 -362) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH FIRE DISTRICT #18 FOR A 30 -YEAR TERM FOR THE FIRE HALL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3250 SOUTH BAY DRIVE (AB2012- 363) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DANIEL DONOGHUE TO LEASE THE NESSET FARM CARETAKER HOUSE AT 6176 SAXON ROAD, ACME (AB2012 -364) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #12 -76 TO THE LOW BIDDER, CLK CONSTRUCTION LLC FOR ELECTRICAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE COURTHOUSE DATA CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,833.16 (AB2012 -365) S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT COMPUTERS USING A CITY OF EVERETT BID THROUGH VENDOR, DATEC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,241.01 (AB2012 -366) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 FOR ON -CALL SUPPORT FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY BRIDGE PROGRAM (WWC NO. 201102005) IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,200, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,700 (AB2012 -367) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CDW GOVERNMENT LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,280 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO ASSIST WITH COUNTYWIDE EMAIL SYSTEM UPGRADE AND POST - IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT (AB2012 -357) OTHER ITEMS 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE, LYNDEN, NOOKSACK AND SUMAS CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 27 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 UPDATE AND URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW, IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,000 (AB2012 -353) (12:00:38 AM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. Brenner moved to amend to clarify that none of the money for this is to be spent for population projections. Mann stated that's not feasible or necessary. The Council made it clear that it doesn't want to spend a lot of time on anything other than the numbers from the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Anything more official opens them up to complaints about process. Also, the consultant will need to roll that in formation into employment projections and other things part of this process. He agrees with the intent of the motion, but will vote against it. Kershner asked how the $140,000 amount was determined and if there is a budget for that money. Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the budget is laid out on page two. The staff put together a cost estimate. Kremen asked how significant the population projection task is. Personious stated it's not significant. It's a given part of what they will look at. If they take the middle OFM projection, they won't have to do a lot of projection work. Most of the work is in the allocation process, the employment projection, and the environmental impact statement (EIS). Knutzen asked the problem from removing the population projection from the scope of work. It should theoretically lower the cost and make the process much easier. Personious stated the first thing they have to do is establish a population projection. This is a cooperative process with the cities per the interlocal agreement. Don't presume they have a number before this process. Kershner stated the original interlocal agreements with the cities set the population projection at the medium OFM projection. That was changed for the final interlocal. She asked if that was changed for all the cities. Personious stated he believes it was changed for all. Brenner amended her motion and moved to amend Council packet page six, section 1, "Countywide population projections and allocations to urban growth areas using the OFM medium projection." The County is supposed to focus on things they can actually do, given reduced revenues. Kershner stated she is not comfortable voting on this until she sees the budget breakdown of what they're paying for. Mann stated this just provides budget authority. The actual contract will reflect the Council's preferences for the scope of work. Kershner stated this is an interlocal agreement with the amount in it. She moved to postpone to December 4. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 28 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 motion to postpone to December 4 carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (4) Nays: Crawford, Mann, and Weimer (3) Kershner stated she wants to see the cost breakdown. They can schedule it in the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. 2. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY LODGING TAX COMMITTEE'S APPROVED REQUESTS FOR FUNDING THROUGH HOTEL /MOTEL TAX FUNDS FOR 2013 (AB2012 -361) (12:13:06 AM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 3. UPDATE REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN WA STATE HEALTH PATH STRATEGY 2 DEMONSTRATION (AB2012 -368) (12 :13 :36 AM) Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee and stated the Council does not need to take action. 4. RESOLUTION CLARIFYING ACCESSORY USES IN THE RURAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL (RGC) AND RURAL INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING (RIM) ZONES (AB2012 -373) (12 :14 :02 AM) Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) S. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL "STANDING" COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR 2013 (AB2012 -359) (12 :14 :51 AM) Kremen moved to approve the 2013 special meeting dates. Crawford asked if the schedule for the surface water work sessions was proposed by the Public Works Department staff. Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated she worked with staff to work around the regular meeting schedule and other meetings. If necessary, they can cancel meetings. Crawford stated that a few years ago they agreed to reduce these meetings to every other month. Kershner moved to have surface water work sessions every other month, with the first meeting in January. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 29 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 Knutzen stated there are too many issues coming up, including invasive species and Lake Whatcom. It's easier to cancel than try and schedule special meetings. Crawford asked if the Clerk prefers to schedule meetings that can be later cancelled. Brown -Davis state she does. Kershner withdrew her motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) INTRODUCTION ITEMS (12:17:3 7 AM) Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the changes to items two and three. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FOURTEENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $665,728 (AB2012 -369) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP IN THE SMITH ROAD /GUIDE MERIDIAN AREA FROM RSA TO R10A AND APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AB2012 -370) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.20, WHATCOM COUNTY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT (AB2012 -371) 4. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (AB2012 -372) 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300) 6. ORDINANCE SUPPORTING 2012 PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST #3, FUNDING FOR THE EAST WHATCOM REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 (AB2012 -374) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 e REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (12 :18 :12 AM) Knutzen reported that he took his family to Mt. Baker High School for Veterans Day. He thanked all veterans for their service. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:19 a.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012. The Council approved these minutes on January 15, 2013. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Please contact the Council Office to obtain an official, signed copy: 360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us Whatcom County Council, 11/20/2012, Page 31