HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil August 9 20111
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
August 9, 2011
CALL TO ORDER (7:00 :35 PM)
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Tony Larson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :02 :15 PM)
Crawford announced there was a presentation of the final report and
recommendations of the Lummi Island Ferry Task Force (AB2011 -187) during the
Special Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
Weimer moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through three.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 12, 2011
2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 19, 2011
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 26, 2011
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE FINALIZING A REVISED SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT FOR DEMING
DIKING DISTRICT NO. 2 (AB2011 -236)
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. According to the District's Commissioners,
the new system is very equitable.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH THE
WHATCOM COUNTY VETERANS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (AB2011 -257)
Ann Deacon, Health Department, stated the County Code allows the County to assign
a small percentage of the property tax millage to veterans. They have established the
Veterans Assistance Fund, which provides a regular amount of income annually, including a
reserve. The Veterans Advisory Board has reviewed and approve the Comprehensive
Strategic Plan. The Health Department has a plan to implement these services and hired a
veteran specialist staff person.
The County needs the Veterans Assistance Program for returning veterans who find it
difficult to find employment. The fund will provide temporary financial assistance to
indigent veterans. She described the new programs, including housing homeless veterans,
providing case management services, connecting veterans with the appropriate services,
and providing legal assistance. The program will provide reentry services to veterans who
are released from jail. Another program will help veterans reenter civilian life. They held a
statewide regional housing summit for veterans and established a new veterans service
office in the Health Department on Gerard Street. She introduced the County's new veteran
specialist.
Liz Bertowski, Health Department, stated she hopes to help veterans successfully
return to the community. She hopes to provide behavioral health services, training
opportunities and burial services. Make the office a safe place for all veterans.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he thanks Ann Deacon, Liz Bertowski, and all
the members of the Veterans Advisory Board for enhancing veterans programs. Whatcom
County serves its veterans better than any other county in the State.
(7:19:10 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Gary Lysne, Veterans Advisory Board Chair, stated the Board couldn't be happier
about this partnership with the Health Department. The Health Department has far
exceeded the Board's expectations.
Ed Simmers stated he is a veteran, military retiree, and Veterans Advisory Board
member. The County veteran programs are in good hands with the Health Department.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She thanked the Health Department staff
and Veterans Advisory Board members for their assistance.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
• Michael Chneider spoke on the issue of ferry leases with the Lummi Nation
(AB2011 -238).
• Joy Gilfilen spoke the issue of the myriad of issues in Whatcom County and
creating a community conference.
• Irene Morgan, Whatcom County Reentry Coalition President, spoke on
creating a community conference.
• Bud Jewel spoke on the issue of road safety measures on Slater Road and
the ferry leases with the Lummi Nation (AB2011 -238).
• Ken Carrasco spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Ken Carrasco requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available
on the meeting's audio recording.)
• Robert Rich, Protect Lummi Island Community (PLIC), spoke about the Lummi
Island Ferry Task Force.
• Lisa Wochos spoke on the issue of ferry leases with the Lummi Nation
(AB2011 -238).
• Jeff Margolis spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232) and a Marine Drive bridge and bicycle
projects.
• Max Wilbert spoke about local and global environmental and economic
concerns.
• Heather Cotoden spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the
South Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Dan McShane spoke on the issue of the resolution for the National
Conservation Area Designation (AB2011 -271) and the process of designating
mineral resource lands.
(7:59:59 PM)
• Virginia Naef spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Nick Guilford spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Suzanne Shull spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Jeff Martin spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South Fork
Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Chris Burnkey spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Paul Brass spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South Fork
Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Emma Martin spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
• Brad Barton spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Ellen Barton spoke on the issue of the County's Transportation Improvement
Plan.
• Joy Demitchell spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje spoke on the request for a mineral resource land
in the South Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Valerie Lloyd spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Jason Noteboom spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the
South Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Carol Follet spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Sue Halen spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South Fork
Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Holly O'Neal spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
• Nicole Brown spoke on the request for a mineral resource land in the South
Fork Nooksack Valley (AB2011 -232).
(8:43:42 PM)
OTHER ITEMS
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO CREATE A MINERAL
RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION AND ZONING OVERLAY OFF OF DORAN
AND BOWMAN ROADS IN THE SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK VALLEY, SOUTH OF
ACME (AB2011 -232)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated a
recommendation failed in committee. He moved to forward this ordinance to concurrency.
Brenner stated she has concerns regarding the water quality, water table, and
aquifer recharge in the area. Her concerns have not been answered. Wells in the area have
failed. The Council should have more environmental information. The Council should have
some discretion, but doesn't. All the name - calling that happens is offensive and makes it
hard to focus on the issue.
Mann stated he understands the company followed the plan in the Code. That
doesn't mean they automatically get approved. The Council must make a policy decision
about what is best for Whatcom County. This request will impact the community. The
burden of proof to show that it's good for the community to designate this a mineral
resource land (MRL) has not been met. The Council should be able to address concerns
through this process, not just through the project permit process. He will not support the
rezone.
Knutzen stated he was told that the size and scope of this pit would not be larger
than the existing pit, and that there would be reclamation before the new pit is started. He
asked if that is correct.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Joshua Fleischman, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it is not
true that the company must reclaim the existing site before expanding the mineral
extraction process. He spoke with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
regarding reclamation. The company has several ways to reclaim the land. If resources are
still available in the present area, the company would have to make a very strong argument
for expanding into another area. If resources have been extracted, the company has two
years to complete reclamation.
Knutzen asked if there is a developer agreement.
Crawford stated the permit would have conditions.
Knutzen asked if the existing 40 -acre mine would stay at 40 acres. Fleischman
stated the company couldn't have more than 40 acres permitted for mining. If the company
expands into one area, it would have to close another area.
Kershner stated the Council is not voting to permit a mine in this area tonight. This
area is zoned commercial forestry. People have said they are worried about converting
agricultural land into a mine. This isn't agricultural land. The County is required by the
Growth Management Act (GMA) to make these decisions. The decisions are never perfect
for everyone involved. She will support the request. She asked that the permit process be
thoroughly vetted through all the agencies involved. She asked the community members to
stay involved in that process to make sure their concerns are thoroughly discussed in that
process.
Brenner stated she would rather revisit the issue of MRLs and get more
environmental information for the policy decision. The longer they wait, the more
expectations there are. She would like more information about the water in the area and
the connectivity to aquifer recharge areas.
Mann stated Council approval of this request essentially approves the mining activity.
He doesn't understand how this Council can be worried about a park in the South Fork
Valley having too much impact on the community. Now they are talking about a huge
gravel mine. The imposition of a park would be much less than this operation. Similarly,
some of the councilmembers have expressed concerns about noise that wind generators
make, but are furthering a gravel mine in this pastoral valley. He doesn't understand those
inconsistencies. Also, some are referencing the State and GMA as justification for this
action, when they quickly and easily blame the State and GMA when it forces the County to
do other things. The GMA has become a convenient whipping boy, depending on what side
of the issue one is on. Reconsider approval, or it will be too late.
Weimer stated that if the Council approves the request, it gives a green light to the
mine. The County has not ever turned down a mining permit in an MRL overlay area. The
County has designated its 20 -year supply of mineral resources and is in compliance. The
County is supposed to review the designation in a few years. The economy has changed.
Their use of mineral resources has changed. The mineral resource advisory committee has
heard that it may be more economical to bring gravel in by barges, which hasn't been
considered. They are considering and discussing removing gravel from the river through
river management. British Columbia has an excess of gravel from the Frazier River, so
other gravel resources should be considered when they designate their next 20 -year supply.
The Council has heard from the rural community. The overwhelming majority of the
community think their rural character will be destroyed if this large mine goes into the
middle of it. He agrees there are too many unknown answers. There is no need for this
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
designation because it is zoned commercial forestry, which doesn't allow houses. The
company can hold on to the land and wait to see if mineral resources become more valuable
in the future. It's not clear that the community needs this at this point.
Crawford stated he is in favor of moving the ordinance forward. He understands the
concerns. He witnessed the Council wrestle with gravel extraction and agricultural lands in
the 1990's. It was decided to push gravel extraction into the foothills. The question is
where the resource will come from, if not from here. In this case, it's a matter of the
expansion of an existing pit instead of starting a new pit. It makes more sense to continue
existing extraction. Make sure there is a great reclamation plan for restoration back to a
commercial forestry use. One concern about gravel is that Whatcom County government is
the largest user of gravel resources. They must maintain the roads and keep the supply
available. Gravel is a low -cost, bulk product. Because the gravel is so low -cost, most of the
expense has to do with transporting it. It would be expensive to barge it in or bring it in
from another area. It makes sense to make sure there is an ongoing resource into the
future. He will be watching at arms length to see how this project goes through the
permitting process.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Nays: Brenner, Mann and Weimer (3)
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 9:06 p.m. to 9:09 p.m.)
CONSENT AGENDA
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through six.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner (out of the room)(1)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WOMENCARE SHELTER TO
PROVIDE HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, IN ASSOCIATION WITH
THE OPERATION OF THE WHATCOM HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,000 (AB2011 -261)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND INDUSTRIAL CREDIT UNION
FOR THE ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$111,000 (AB2011 -262)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW CONCRETE RAILROAD CROSSING SURFACE ON
SLATER ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,585 (AB2011 -263)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
PROTECTION AGENCY FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE AND
STABILIZE A PORTION OF SILVER BEACH CREEK FROM BROWNSVILLE
DRIVE TO EAST 16TH PLACE IN THE AMOUNT OF $510,824 (AB2011 -264)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT USING THE WASHINGTON
STATE CONTRACT FROM ALCATEL- LUCENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,758.94
(AB2011 -265)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING, PARTS AND
INSTALLATION AS PART OF THE ONGOING INTEROPERABLE
COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT FROM COSCOMM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$178,203.26 (AB2011 -266)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT AND SUBZONES BUDGET, REQUEST #1 (FOR BIRCH BAY
WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT), IN THE
AMOUNT OF $336,238 (AB2011 -258)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the resolution.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO
BECOME THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE FOR HOUSING AND ESSENTIAL NEEDS
PROGRAM (AB2011 -260)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND THE OFFICIAL COUNTY ZONING MAP TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES
RELATING TO COMPLETION OF THE 10 YEAR REVIEW OF THE URBAN
GROWTH AREAS REQUIRED UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
(FERNDALE UGA) (AB2011 -255)
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
DANNON TRAXLER TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2011 -268)
Knutzen moved to confirm the appointment.
Mann stated he has nothing against Ms. Traxlor personally, but he won't support the
motion. He's not sure what technical expertise she has other than law. She's frequently
here representing her clients. He's not comfortable having her on a technical advisory
committee when much of what she does is to get the Council to interpret the laws and
codes one way or another. He would rather confirm someone with actual construction
expertise, not lobbying expertise.
Brenner asked if Councilmember Mann thinks that land use attorneys shouldn't be
allowed to apply. The committee is very diverse.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
6. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO A "PRO COMMITTEE" AND A "CON
COMMITTEE" TO DRAFT STATEMENTS FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY VOTERS'
PAMPHLET RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO CREATE
A CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS (AB2011-
224B)
Brenner moved to appoint Jack Hovenier and Kevin Zender to the Pro Committee
and to appoint Shane Roth, Wendy Harris, and Sue Brown to the Con Committee.
Larson asked if someone has written the pro statement already.
Crawford stated someone wrote the text for the ballot measure.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated the ballot measure text is an
explanatory statement of 100 words. The pro and con statements are for the voters guide,
and are different. The ballot measure text is supposed to be neutral, and it goes into the
voters guide preceding the pro and con statements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: The Council continued discussion of this item later in the meeting,
below.)
7. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DESIGNATING BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LANDS IN THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS A NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
INCLUDING CHUCKANUT ROCK, LUMMI ROCKS, AND CARTER POINT IN
WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2011 -271)
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Crawford moved to approve the resolution and reported on this agenda item.
Brenner asked if this designation would cause the federal government to spend
more. There have to be major cuts in Washington D.C. It's sounds okay if it's just
designating a category that doesn't require any funding. She would like to take more time
with this.
Crawford stated there is a timeframe for this. The national legislators have already
had their public meetings on the San Juan islands. They're asking to add on these features
at the end of the process. The deadline for the wilderness designation is August 21. He's
not sure about the timeframe for national conservation area designation. He's satisfied that
these areas be included. It's important to conserve these areas.
Larson stated he would like to support it, but he would like more clarification about
what the designation means.
Crawford stated the effect is to make conservation of the land a top priority.
However, he believes that the long -term designations for the areas would not be made until
after the conservation area is designated. At that point, they have to do a management
plan, which includes an extensive public process over the course of a number of years, after
Congress designates the conservation area. At this stage, it's a matter of identifying the
appropriate boundaries for a conservation area.
Knutzen stated he wants to find out more about this. He doesn't know what the
possible impacts could be. There is no occupancy or any future plans for occupancy in any
of those areas. However, he shares concerns about possible restrictions.
Larson asked who owns the land.
Crawford stated the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns all the land.
Larson stated that if that's a fact, he doesn't have a problem with it.
Crawford stated he understands that any BLM land has an uncertain future. It can
be sold to the highest bidder. That's why he's concerned about and didn't include Eliza
Island. For these areas, he's confident there are no neighbors who would be opposed.
Weimer stated he supports the resolution. The areas are just conservation areas
right now, owned by the federal government. He's worked for the BLM, which has a
multiple use philosophy. They can sell properties not close to their offices. It's good to lock
these into a conservation strategy.
Dan McShane stated the Spokane office of the Bureau of Land Management wants to
develop an overall plan for their holdings in Washington State. These are the only BLM -
owned lands in Western Washington. They are orphaned properties being run out of the
Spokane office. The BLM supports this idea, because it creates a local planning program
were local people are involved. It would probably be less expensive for the federal
government. The plan will include local governments to oversee these areas rather than
relying on federal staff who have to come from Spokane.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Greg Brown stated he doesn't know what the conservation label implies and how
does it affect what they can do around it. It may affect water resources and the
transportation system out there. He asked what the impacts are.
McShane stated the designation would allow a local planning process. Some lands
could be strictly for conservation. Other lands can be recreational properties and historical
sites. Disrupting ship traffic would not be in their local interest. The sooner the County
approves this, the better. The County can indicate to the BLM that it is interested.
Larson stated what is in the community's interest can be questionable. He would like
to have this in committee to continue discussion.
Brenner stated she would like to have this in committee to get questions answered.
Knutzen asked if San Juan County already designating some properties to this.
Crawford stated a conservation group, not the San Jan County government, is
working with the Congressional delegation. The timing is in response to the BLM's review of
the cost and difficulty of managing these areas.
Brenner stated add a clause that the County's approval assumes that it won't create
any difficulties for the shipping areas.
Mann stated that was just one example that Mr. Brown came up with. Another
example could be that it may mess with fishing. If they establish a no wake zone. He's not
as concerned as Mr. Brown about the potential down side. Fisheries just sued the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over the Endangered Species Act on levee rules.
There could be unintended consequences.
Crawford stated he respects the Council's healthy skepticism. He's done some
research. It's a positive thing for conservation. It makes sense for the San Juan islands.
He can't imagine a scenario where they say traditional fishing, recreation, and shipping is
somehow impacted because they've designated a conservation area on two rocks on a point
of land. But that's up to each of them to decide.
Brenner stated she hasn't heard about a no wake zone lawsuit.
Mann stated that's the reason they're going through Title 17 right now. Fisheries
sued FEMA because the national flood insurance program is not protective enough. It's one
federal agency suing another. Mr. Brown's point is that someone could come along and sue
BLM, or BLM could sue the Coast Guard because they're allowing ships too close to this
conservation area. He doesn't buy into Mr. Brown's theory, but they haven't fully vetted
this.
Knutzen moved to refer this to Natural Resources Committee in September. He's
sure the Carter Point property is adjacent to private property.
The motion to refer to committee carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner, Crawford and Weimer (3)
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LESA STARKENBURG-
KROONTJE, ATTORNEY -AT -LAW TO ASSIST THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN
THE PREPARATION OF ITS LEGAL DEFENSE IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARING BOARD CASE BOARD 11- 2 -0010C (AB2011 -273)
Crawford stated the deadline dates from the Hearings Board are all before the next
Council meeting. The Executive's Office worked with the Council to make sure the budget
authority is there. The funds will come from the Council's budget. There will be a
supplemental budget request to backfill that money.
Kershner moved to approve the request.
Brenner asked if someone checked into the contractors client list to make sure there
is no conflict of interest.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated an attorney can't represent two
different interests in the same case. That's what conflict of interest is in court.
Crawford stated they are not hiring the contractor to be the lead attorney. The
Council's legal counsel will still be the lead attorney. The contractor will provide research
and support. These petitions have dozens of different items. Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje will
take on the items she hasn't been involved in.
Mann stated he will not vote for the motion. It seems unusual to hire an attorney
who is so actively involved with the Council regarding the rural element. There may not be
a legal conflict of interest or appearance of fairness issue, and he respects Ms. Starkenburg -
Kroontje. However, it looks bad. It would be better to hire someone not so clearly aligned
with political issues before the County Council. Find an attorney with a lower profile.
Kershner stated that if the County is going to spend taxpayer dollars on attorneys to
defend the County against all the briefs filed, the County would want to consider the most
qualified person who could work with the County to get through these court briefs. She's
not sure to whom there would be an appearance of fairness issue. The taxpayers have to
now go to court and defend a decision based on the very same person who is actually suing
the County. It's ridiculous that they need to defend their choice of attorney to help get the
rural element through the court system. These are the same people who have been fighting
the County the entire time. Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje will do a great job.
Brenner stated not many attorneys in the state are more high - profile than David
Bricklin. When hired, he was representing a local group against the County. It wasn't a
conflict. He got permission from that group. There's a reason people are high - profile,
because they are good.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Mann. They just went through a rural
land use discussion where Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje argued on the side of business and
development interests, which is the side she usually argues on, not on the side of farmland,
forestry, water resources, and rural character. There isn't a legal conference, but it's a bad
appearance.
Larson stated Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje argued on behalf of her client. When the
County hires her, she will argue on behalf of the County. She is extraordinarily competent,
very honest, and knowledgeable about the issues.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Brenner stated a good attorney will zealously represent the client with ethics,
knowledge, and intelligence, which Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje will do. People who don't
agree with the County's position won't want her on the case, but it shouldn't be personal.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
6. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO A "PRO COMMITTEE" AND A "CON
COMMITTEE" TO DRAFT STATEMENTS FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY VOTERS'
PAMPHLET RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO CREATE
A CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS (AB2011-
224B)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Crawford read the voter statement that would appear in the voters pamphlet, "The
County Council currently sets salaries for County elected officials. This proposal would
establish an independent "Citizens" commission on salaries for elected officials. If passed,
this commission would meet every two years and fix the salaries for the County Council,
Executive, Assessor, Auditor, Prosecuting Attorney, Sheriff, and Treasurer. The County
Council would no longer set salaries. Salaries set by the commission would still be subject
to other applicable laws and limitations."
Brenner moved to approve the voter statement that Councilmember Crawford read.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
Larson stated he asked the administration at the last Council meeting to repackage
the requests for two deputies for the remainder of 2011 and through 2012. He found out
today they have to introduce it. Because of the timing, it will be voted on September 13.
The agreement has the deputies starting on September 1. There's no way to make that
happen, which changes the costs associated with the previous introductory item. The cost
of Introduction Item four was $58,933. If they start on October first, the cost would change
to $51,633.
The projected budget shortfall in the next two years is $6.4 million. If they are going
to approve a supplemental that costs nearly $250,000, they should consider cuts.
Therefore, he moves to request the administration to:
1. Prepare an ordinance, or two ordinances if necessary, to amend the 2011 and
2012 budgets to eliminate premium pay for the period beginning October 1, 2011
and ending December 31, 2011,
2. Eliminate premium pay for fiscal year 2012,
3. Prepare the ordinance(s) for introduction on September 13, 2011, and
4. Include in the ordinance(s) the total amount saved in 2011 and 2012.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Crawford stated the premium pay is a mechanism for reimbursing employee
expenses. They can't tell employees that the County is not going to reimburse them for on-
the -job expenses. He's concerned about the language in the motion. They can eliminate
the current method of reimbursement designated as premium pay and replace it with direct
expense reimbursement through expense reports. He asked if there are limitations to how
the Council can amend the budget.
Larson stated he disagrees. The Council can request the administration to put
something out. There are several in the package tonight. He's not saying that employees
won't be reimbursed for their expenses. Premium pay is not a reimbursement requirement.
It is over and above salary and benefits. It's a lump sum for different employees. The
Council can decide to not provide that benefit. They are asking employees throughout the
County to make concessions. The projected shortfall over the next two years is $6.4
million. If they are adding new expenses, he expects the administration to set an example.
If the Council is going to add expenses, it ought to look at reductions.
Crawford stated the administration has asserted that direct reimbursement of all
those expenses will be greater than the premium pay.
Larson stated that's if the Council allows it. They need to look for reductions. They
are asking the employees of Whatcom County to make concessions. The top 28 highest
paid employees of Whatcom County can set a good example if they eliminate the premium
pay. Premium pay is not a reimbursement. Reimbursement require forms to be filled out
for costs.
Crawford stated the premium pay has been for mileage, telephone, and home
expenses.
Larson stated he is suggesting that they eliminate that. He requests that the
administration set an example by eliminating premium pay.
Crawford asked what Councilmember Larson wants to do if those people incur
vehicle, telephone, or home office expenses.
Larson stated he's not addressing that. If they pass this tonight, it will move
forward, and be introduced on September 13. At the following meeting, there will be a
hearing. At that hearing, they can discuss these issues and come up with solutions. The
item will be in Finance Committee once it's introduced. It will give the Council an
opportunity to look at these issues. Now is the time to look at the issues. Adding the
deputy positions is a good idea for decreasing gang violence. To do that, they need to look
at where they can save money, also.
Crawford stated that when the County shifted to a premium pay system, the budget
was reduced.
Brenner stated that's not accurate. She brought this amendment up last year at
budget time. Councilmembers are the lowest paid of anyone who works for government.
Councilmembers mostly don't ask for reimbursement.
Kershner stated she asked the administration to take a look at the premium pay last
fall. She would like to know if there has been a study or is any information that the costs
went down or that it is a more effective and efficient way to reimburse expenses.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is a relatively efficient way to
reimburse expenses. That's why it was implemented many years ago. To save money in
the general fund, this is not the place to look. Most of the premium pay is paid as a basis of
reimbursement for mileage. For many employees, that's paid out of the road fund. Many of
those employees used to have vehicles from the County fleet. The County government
reduced the number of vehicles, including the vehicles provided to department heads and
elected officials. The administration said that it would pay the employees to use their own
vehicles for a flat monthly fee in return. They review it every so often. One small addition
was provided for certain elected officials and department heads that is called supplemental
compensation. The amount is $38,000 annually in the general fund. He can share more
details of that. Part of the reimbursement is for vehicles. Some of it is for cell phone
reimbursement, and part of it is for supplemental compensation. The administration is
willing to have a discussion about how to cover the expenses that people have when they're
traveling around the county. It will make recommendations on how to address this matter.
Withdrawing the premium pay will not withdraw legitimate expenses that occur in the
organization or produce tremendous savings that can be used to pay for additional deputies.
Brenner stated the question is about the proof. She is bothered because the
government is supposed to be very transparent, especially about money. She wants to
know what County employees are spending. Everyone should have to fill out
reimbursement forms. The public deserves it.
Larson stated they ought to discuss it and have that information. The list from 2010
totaled $16,340 per month, which equals $196,000 per year. He would like to know from
what budget that comes. They may differ on which expenses are or are not reimbursable.
They will all agree that County revenues are less than expenses, and are projected out that
way for the next several years. At the last meeting, he was told the Council has discretion
for deciding what priorities to cut. That's what he's doing. He hopes the councilmembers
move this forward so they can look at it more closely. He hopes they will be able to see
exactly what the expenses are for last year, have a history of the expenses, and decide
whether or not they're appropriate.
Mann stated he looks forward to the ordinance and the hearing. He will support the
motion. He asked the administration to present some alternative reductions that it believes
may be more appropriate, so the Council has other ideas of what could work. There may
not be four votes to cut the premium pay, but they're interested in making cuts.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Weimer and Crawford (2)
Brenner moved to request the administration to provide other options for cutting
costs in the budget at the next meeting or sooner.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner, Weimer and Crawford (3)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Larson moved to accept Introduction Items one through five, including a substitute
version of item four. Item six is held in committee.
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT, UPLANDS LEASE
AGREEMENT, AND TIDELANDS LEASE AGREEMENT FOR LUMMI ISLAND
FERRY USAGE AT GOOSEBERRY POINT (AB2011 -238)
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2012
THROUGH 2017 (AB2011 -267)
3. ORDINANCE REVOKING ORDINANCE 96 -032 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
WHATCOM COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE REVOLVING
FUND (AB2011 -259)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,608 (AB2011 -269)
5. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIRST
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF 224,075 (AB2011 -270)
(Clerk's Note: The amount in the title of this item was corrected. It is $224,995.)
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 17, FLOOD DAMAGE
PREVENTION (AB2011 -242)
OTHER BUSINESS
Brenner moved to endorse the Community Opportunities Visionary Mastermind
Conference hosted by the Re -Entry Coalition. They are doing things to help reduce County
costs. It's a wonderful thing.
Crawford stated he will vote against the motion because he needs to learn more
about it. It was presented to be about coal trains, which concerns him. He has to learn
more about the agenda. He's not sure if it's appropriate for the Council to endorse it.
Brenner stated they received a large packet of information weeks ago. The coal
trains are an issue. They are not endorsing individual opinions. They are endorsing a
conference that brings people together to work on issues in a less accusatory and
confrontational way.
Larson stated he would like more time to look at the information.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Larson and Crawford (2)
Abstains: Kershner (1)
Whatcom County Council, 8/9/2011, 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
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Larson reported that good things are happening at the Northwest Economic Council.
The group seems to have a lot of energy. He encourages everyone to let business people
know the organization is in the middle of a membership drive.
Brenner reported that she is offended by people messing with the initiative process
before people get to vote on the red light cameras. She hopes councilmembers will get
involved in the issue. The initiative option is the only option left for people who feel
completely disenfranchised from their government. It was created for a reason. It's not a
good idea to let people do that to communities. She's donating money to that initiative to
keep it on the ballot. People should get involved, no matter how they feel about the red
light cameras.
Mann reported that he has met with Alcoa representatives. He wants to schedule a
tour and discuss their issues on September 20, 2011.
Brenner stated tours should be scheduled by the Council Clerk.
Knutzen reported on the wind energy tour on September 16, 2011.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on September 27 , 2011.
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, 8/9/2011, Page 16