HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 23 20101
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 23, 2010
CALL TO ORDER (7:01 :06 PM)
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Larson, Sam Crawford, Barbara Brenner, Carl Weimer, Bill
Knutzen, Ken Mann and Kathy Kershner
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7 :01 :31 PM)
Crawford stated there was discussion regarding a potential property
acquisition by the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (AB2010 -018) in
executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Kershner moved that the County Council authorize the Executive, acting on behalf
of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, move forward
with acquisition of one property in Marietta, as long as the purchase price doesn't exceed
the amount discussed in executive session.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford announced there was discussion regarding a draft ordinance
amending Whatcom County Zoning Code Title 20, the Official Whatcom County
Zoning Map, and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Maps, to
implement changes relating to rural land use planning (AB2010 -072A) during the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REVENUE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (AB2010 -277) (7 :03 :03 PM)
Jack Hovenier, Behavioral Health Revenue Advisory Committee Chair, gave a
presentation on funds collected through the one -tenth of one percent mental health tax.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
The committee recommends continuing to support the triage facility for detoxification. He
hopes to come back in six months with more planning on their fundamental goals. Discuss
their highest priorities with the administration and councilmembers. He wants to ensure
recommendations are consistent with priorities.
Anne Deacon, Health Department, explained the Behavioral Health Access Program
to provide mental health services to people who don't have access to those services. They
have put out a new request for proposals (RFP) to add new providers to the project.
Mann asked the number of current providers. Deacon stated they currently have
four providers. All providers must be treatment clinicians. They are going to expand by
five more providers.
Knutzen asked how the information flyers are distributed. Deacon stated the central
point of access is Whatcom Alliance for Healthcare Access (WAHA), physician offices, Health
Department, and various meetings.
2. COUNTY EXECUTIVE KREMEN WILL READ A PROCLAMATION FOR THE
BELLINGHAM BULLDOG FOOTBALL TEAM'S ACHIEVEMENTS (AB2010 -017)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
MINUTES CONSENT (7:11:48 PM)
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 26, 2010
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 26, 2010
OPEN SESSION 7:12:07 PM
The following people spoke:
• Bob Busch, 3612 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, spoke on the Public Works
Department work to keep roads clear for the last three or four days.
• Michael Schneider, 4285 Matia View Drive, Lummi Island, spoke on the Lummi Tribe
for lease of tidelands.
• Bruce Diele, citizen, spoke on traffic surveillance cameras in the City of Bellingham.
• Barbara Sternberger, 510 South State Street, Bellingham, Rural Avenue
Neighborhood Association, spoke about jail siting.
• Kay Sardo, Bellingham, submitted information (on file) and spoke on jail siting.
• Marion Henderson, Rural Avenue Neighborhood Association, spoke about jail siting.
• Jody Bierman, 1401 Marietta Avenue, Rural Avenue Neighborhood Association, spoke
about jail siting.
• Betsy Purnotto, 3112 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, spoke about the Women,
Infant, and Children (WIC) Program.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Betsy Purnotto requested that his /her testimony
not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available on the meeting's
audio recording.)
• Sean McCole, 2065 Seacrest Road, Lummi Island, spoke on the ferry.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 10.34, FERRY RATES,
AND THE CORRESPONDING 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB2010 -354A) (7 :34 :04 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Buffy Fox, 3789 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated she does not support option
6. Consider postponing the vote until after mediation. She supports an across - the -board
surcharge. She also supports forming a task force.
Michael McKenzie, 1983 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, submitted and read from
information (on file). He opposes option 6 and supports forming a citizen task force.
Fred Kinney, Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted and read from information
(on file). The County has not deposited the State motor vehicle fuel funds attributable to
the ferry into the ferry fund.
Mark Cross, 4189 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted and read from
information (on file). The revenue shortfall is due to increased costs, not revenue that is
too low.
Lisa Wochos, 3811 Constitution Avenue, Lummi Island, submitted and read from
information (on file) and stated she speaks on behalf of PLIC as a resident and an attorney.
Wait until mediation before passing an ordinance.
Stewart Rich, 3811 Constitution Avenue, Lummi Island, stated the Council should
approve the resolution to create a citizen task force. A short -term task force should not be
confused with the concept of a long -term ferry advisory board. The proposed resolution
provides for a balanced task force, charged with particular duties and responsibilities. The
composition of the task force is critical to its success. The community must offer up its best
citizens for the membership.
Dale Kinsley, 2744 North Nugent Road, Lummi Island, submitted and read from
information (on file). Postpone adoption until after the mediation process begins next week.
He supports option 1.
Art Thomas, 2620 Island View Lane, Lummi Island, stated this rate hike could cause
a 25 percent decrease in ridership. The ferry service has to work as a business.
Richard Frye, 2072 Granger Way, Lummi Island, stated none of the options will
achieve target revenue goals. The option to lower rates to increase ridership has not been
explored. Islanders make an economic decision each time they ride the ferry. Individual
decisions to live on Lummi Island were based on a 100 -year fare and schedule history.
Islanders have a reasonable expectation that transportation expenditures will remain
predictable. Each time fares rise, the County breaks a trust and forces islanders to cut back
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
on ferry use and other necessities. The question is the proportion of their incomes should
they pay.
Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Road, Lummi Island, stated it's unfair that one
group of people is paying a lot more than others in the county for the same service. Also
people have said that islanders can move off the island if they have to. His family has lived
there since the 1880's. He can't just move away. The islanders are busy dealing with this
issue and the negotiation issue. Postpone this decision. Now, Lummi Island is the most
expensive ferry trip in the state of Washington. He compared the Whatcom Chief route with
the Keystone -Port Townsend route, which has a fare rate return of 43 percent. Whatcom
County's is 45 percent. Something is not right. Delay decision until they have time to work
on it.
David Puckering, 2515 Taft Road, Lummi Island, stated the proposed fares doesn't
make any distinction between residents and non - residents. Now the Council is considering
fares based on teenage schoolchildren based on their address. It is fare discrimination on
the basis of address. If they use residency as a basis for charging fares, then they must
define residency. They will have to consider a fare for non - resident school children during
the school year. Don't discriminate based on residency.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
(8:10:26 PM)
Brenner moved to keep the written record open until they get through mediation.
They should not vote on this ordinance tonight.
(Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen moved to amend Council packet page 316, item two, to reduce the 2011
Passenger /Pedestrian Multiride rate from $140 to $120.
Kershner stated she doesn't support the motion. It makes the difference between
the car passenger fare and pedestrian passenger fare that much greater, which prevents
them from meeting their target revenue.
Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Kershner.
Knutzen stated they do need to take notice of the Islanders' requests. He met with
the Protect Lummi Island Community (PLIC) members. The current ordinance as written
doesn't give adequate discounts to the islanders, as opposed to the people who are visiting
the island.
Crawford stated he understood that PLIC wanted to close the gap by raising
pedestrian fares and lowering vehicle fares.
Knutzen stated he would propose to lower the fare for other motions.
Brenner stated the most important point brought up tonight is that adopting this
before mediation sends a message. It doesn't keep the County on equal footing, if they are
serious about mediation.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Larson stated he will not support the motion to amend. They must solve the mess.
This motion isn't the way to solve it.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Mann and Kershner (5)
Mann moved to amend the proposed ordinance with a $3.00 across - the -board
surcharge to all fares, per ride, excluding certain school children who ride for free now. This
would keep the needs -based fares and multi -ride discounts. It would make up some of the
projected deficit. Adopting this before negotiation doesn't send any message that they are
passing on raised rates to the islanders. The message he wants to deliver is that they are
in a serious budget crunch, and they need desperately to fairly make up revenue. He hopes
the $3 surcharge is temporary. If they establish a task force, they can explore all these
issues. They need to do something today to make up the shortfall.
Crawford asked how the surcharge would be applied and if there is an analysis of the
results of this motion, based on current use.
Mann stated his motion would be applied to each ride. Therefore, a 25 -ride card
would be an additional $75.
Brenner stated one reason they are considering increase is because of the interim
$200,000. She was clear that she only supported that as an interim. It isn't a starting
point. It is too high. This puts the County in the position of starting somewhere with the
meditation rather than working on what is actually fair. Another cost put on to the islanders
is the creative reconfiguration of what is capital and what is maintenance. Certain items
being charged as maintenance are really capital expenses.
Mann stated he has the same questions as Councilmember Brenner. They won't
answer those questions tonight. Establish the task force tonight, and the task force can
deal with those questions. This shouldn't be perceived as a permanent increase. For now,
this is a temporary measure they have to do.
Kershner stated she supports the motion. According to Public Works Director Abart,
the surcharge necessary to meet revenue goals is $3. She agrees that this should be a
temporary situation. She will also support a task force. She agrees with Councilmember
Brenner about holding adoption until later. Don't send the wrong message to negotiation.
Larson stated he is against the motion. They have no idea how these price increases
will impact behavior on the island. They don't know the elasticity of demand. There are
different ways to increase total revenue. It's a shot in the dark. He suggested having post-
graduate Economics students at Western Washington University (WWU) do econometric
modeling to test the price elasticity. For all they know, decreasing prices could increase
traffic and total revenue. Don't mess with a real complicated formula until they have
something more solid. He would support $2 across - the -board surcharge. The input from
PLIC and the islanders has been very solution- oriented. They must work together on a
long -term solution. Don't focus on the revenue gap now, in the short -term.
Weimer stated he is against the motion. The $3 surcharge is more than needed to
close the revenue gap. There are significant questions about the administrative overhead,
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
maintenance, and fuel costs, in addition to the ongoing lease. Form the ferry task force as
soon as possible. He would support a $2 across - the -board surcharge.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated a $3 across - the -board
surcharge would still leave the County a bit short of revenue, in the amount of about
$88,000. It would be close to closing the gap. They used the same formula they did with
the other projections.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to change the motion to amend to a
$2 surcharge.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated they haven't had a chance to vote on the $3 surcharge yet, and not
all councilmembers have stated their positions.
Kershner withdrew her friendly amendment.
Knutzen stated he disagrees that they are setting a bad precedent going into
negotiation. The Tribe doesn't understand how serious is the County's budget needs. They
can't wait any longer. The budget is hemorrhaging. They need to plug the holes. He
supports the motion in the amount of $3. He's sorry the islanders have to feel that burden,
but the County can't continue to operate at this deficit level.
Crawford stated he also supports the motion, reluctantly. Mr. Abart confirmed that
the $3 surcharge would get them close. Any cursory review of the numbers shows that
ferry revenue is driven by single vehicle and driver multi -ride ticket. There are many
laudable reasons for encouraging pedestrian use. Looking for transportation alternatives to
single - passenger vehicles is the future direction of transportation. However, he can't get
away from the fact that the multi -ride purchase of single driver vehicles is the primary
source of revenue. He had not thought of that in this context before. This will begin to
reduce the deficit.
Brenner stated she is not sure they have a deficit. The formula keeps changing. The
deficit might be on paper. It's not good to do that without getting better numbers. Put the
docks back in the capital improvement category, not in operations and maintenance. That
would take care of a big portion of the cost. Not having the $200,000 cost would also take
care of a big portion of the cost. They must have something fairer to the islanders.
Crawford withdrew his original motion to adopt the ordinance. He restated
Councilmember Mann's motion to amend the proposed ordinance with a $3.00 across -
the -board surcharge to all fares, per trip, excluding certain school children who ride for free
now.
Crawford stated that a vehicle and driver with one passenger over the age of 12
currently pays a $14 fare. With the change, there would be an additional $6 surcharge,
because there are two people in the car.
Larson stated they are focused on the revenue side of the equation. There are a
number of things they can deal with on the cost side of the equation with the task force.
Don't think that the reason for increasing the fare is to close the revenue gap. That doesn't
consider impacts to ridership. They must put together past numbers in a model. He prefers
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
a $2 surcharge because it was suggested by the Lummi Island community. Don't move too
far forward, because it may negatively impact the revenue.
Mann referenced in the memo from Mr. Abart dated November 3, 2010, on Council
packet page 309 and stated he also wants to clarify that multi -ride cards can be traded in
for credit for 90 days after the rate change, not 15 days.
Abart stated the administrative work and auditing that would require is a huge effort,
and he would rather not do that, although it can be done. He's not sure it will matter,
because the price of the actual ticket will stay the same. There will be an additional
surcharge for every ticket sold per trip. He doesn't anticipate creating new tickets, given
this scenario. The administration hasn't completely thought through this scenario for a
change. There will be at least 60 days after this is adopted, plus an additional 15 days
beyond that. So there are 75 days to use the old tickets, anyway. Even if the Council
adopted this tonight, it will be the end of January or February before they actively collect
any additional money. They may actually sell the regular, existing ticket with a change or
an additional ticket to show the surcharge has been paid. It will save a lot of money if he
doesn't have to change out the existing tickets.
Kershner stated she envisioned just issuing a surcharge ticket, so they don't have to
change all the existing tickets.
Crawford stated they need to clarify which motion is on the floor. It's best to start
from the beginning.
Mann withdrew his motion to amend.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann moved to amend the proposed ordinance to add a $3.00 across - the -board
surcharge to all fares, per trip, excluding certain school children who ride for free now.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Larson, Brenner and Weimer (3)
Mann moved to amend Exhibit A, section 10.34.020(M), "Multi -ride cards at
previous rates shall be valid for fifteen (15) days after the effective date of the rate change.
Any unused portion of the multi -ride card after this time period will be expiFed and void may
be credited toward the purchase of a new card for 90 days from the date of rate change,
and will be available at the Public Works Department administration offices.
exchanges will be giveff-."
Brenner stated that's not going to do a thing. It's not going to change anything.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment moved to strike section
10.34.020(M) in Exhibit A. They don't need it. A surcharge will go into effect immediately.
Ticket prices will remain the same. They would just have a surcharge card or mechanism
that would go into effect. They don't even have to worry about unused tickets.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford asked when the surcharge goes into effect.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Abart stated that as the proposed ordinance is written, the surcharge will go into
effect 60 days from adoption.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Weimer asked about the State motor vehicle fuel tax income being credited to the
ferry fund. Abart stated administrative and legal staff doesn't agree with that assessment
at this time. It would be a great question for the task force. This is a small part of a very
complex formula. Essentially, the money is to relieve pressure on counties with ferry funds.
He can bring forward a presentation on that topic at a future meeting. Administrative,
legal, and finance review does not agree with Mr. Kinney's assessment.
Weimer stated that is one reason for a $2 surcharge instead of a $3 surcharge. They
must resolve these major issues.
Brenner stated the mediation will interpret this as a reason for larger costs. Go into
mediation with everything left as is, so there is no misunderstanding that the County is
acknowledging that those costs should be higher.
Knutzen stated this doesn't take effect for 60 days. That isn't off the negotiation
table. They've got to realize how desperate the situation is. They can't continue to
subsidize this service as they are. They are subsidizing this service in an amount over $1
million.
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (4)
Nays: Weimer, Larson and Brenner (3)
OTHER ITEMS
14. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN'S TASK FORCE FOR THE LUMMI
ISLAND FERRY (AB2010 -405)
Kershner presented her resolution to the Council for approval.
Crawford expressed concern about language indicating this group would hold
hearings.
Kershner stated that language indicates that the task force would be interested in
hearing from the public as they go through their work. No County staff or resources would
be attributed to this task force. However, they've asked if a councilmember would
participate.
Crawford stated only the Planning Commission has a structure to hold public
hearings. Don't create confusion for folks that there is some sort of public process that has
that formality. He doesn't know how the task force would establish a structure for the
formality of holding public hearings. He asked if the task force would simply examine data
from Council public hearings.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Kershner stated the purpose of the language is to allow the task force to accept
information from other interested members, besides task force members.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to the resolution, "Public input from
Whatcom County citizens by means of meetings and other forms of
communications, as well as such expert consultations as deemed relevant by the task
force."
Larson suggested a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment, "Public
input from Whatcom County citizens and other forms of
communications, as well as such expert consultations as deemed relevant by the task
force."
Brenner accepted Councilmember Larson's friendly amendment.
Kershner moved to amend the language, "Publ+e +Input from Whatcom County
citizens and other forms of communications, as well as such
expert consultations as deemed relevant by the task force."
Crawford restated the motion to approve the resolution as presented, with an
amendment, "Publfe +Input from Whatcom County citizens
and other forms of communications, as well as such expert consultations as deemed
relevant by the task force." He asked how the people will get appointed.
Kershner stated people will apply to the County Council, who will select members.
They can start taking applications as soon as they pass the resolution.
Larson stated the recommendation deadline of the task force is August 2011. If the
task force decides to use students from WWU College of Economics, they will have two
quarters to capture that talent. Hart Hodges said he will coordinate that effort. They want
to get started at the beginning of the quarter.
Mann asked if they can appoint task force members right away, at the next meeting.
Crawford stated it seems optimistic to be able to appoint members at the next
meeting, have the task force meet over the holiday, and decide to coordinate analysis at
the beginning of winter quarter.
Kershner stated it's possible the task force can accept the help of the students
without them actually being sitting members of the task force.
Brenner stated give Hart Hodges a statement that the Council is doing this. He can
get the project ready for when the task force is approved.
Crawford asked if they can appoint in two weeks.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated it would be most fair to the public to
appoint the members at the Council's first meeting in January.
Kershner stated they can begin accepting applications.
The motion to approve with one amendment carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break at 9:08 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO THE Y-
SQUALICUM WATER ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS
PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND SECTION 9.30 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER, TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN WATER LINES AND
FACILITIES ALONG CERTAIN ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2009 -438) (9:11:36
PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen asked if a $1 million bond is standard for a water association. That amount
seems low. He asked who would be responsible for any amount above $1 million, if this
amount is not adequate.
Crawford asked why that amount should not be sufficient for a water line buried
under a road.
Knutzen stated there could be a terrible scenario where a -coli gets in the water, or
the line does water damage to someone's property. A million dollars doesn't go far. Most
businesses are required to have liability insurance in excess of a million dollars.
Larson asked if this is just renewal of the original agreement, and if anything has
been changed.
Mann stated the language says that the geographic scope is expanded. He would
like to know about that.
Brenner moved to hold the ordinance for two weeks.
Weimer stated he would like someone to clarify the expanded area.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated Whatcom County is insured above
one million dollars. If the County had to use its own insurance, it would sue them for the
difference. It's not going to come out of the County's pocket. The County's insurance
company would go after them or their insurance company for the remainder, assuming
they're solvent. The liability does not fall on the County. The million dollar bond would
cover the first million dollars. They are liable for anything else. If they didn't pay, the
County's insurance would take care of it. If the County's insurance had to take care of it,
they could bring a lawsuit against the water association to pay. If the water association
were insolvent, the County has insurance against that.
Brenner asked if they could just require a bigger bond.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor, stated a $1 million bond is standard.
If there is some major problem, the water association and the County would be sued,
because it's over County property. If the damage amounts to more than $1 million and the
County actually had liability, the County's insurance would pay, and the County could sue
the water association. The County would allege it's their problem.
Mann stated he supports the motion to hold in Council for two weeks. He needs
more information on the geographic expansion.
The motion to hold in Council for two weeks carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO
WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT — REQUEST #TR2010-
01 (AB2010 -388A) (9 :21 :34 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Weimer 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)
4. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO
WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT — REQUEST #TR2010-
02 (AB2010 -389A) (9 :22 :40 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Weimer 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)
S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2011 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB2010 -377) (9 :23 :01 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner moved to refer to the Finance and Administrative Services Committee.
She has a lot of questions and possible changes. It should go to committee. She has
questions about changes to Planning Department fees and the Executive fees, for instance.
She referenced animal control fees for livestock. The fee is the same, but there are
separate line items for small and large livestock. They haven't been told the reasons for
some of the increases. There was no justification for the cost of the septic system permit,
which was doubled.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Crawford asked if the administration outreached to the Building Industry Association
or other about proposed fee changes.
Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated they did
not go over the fees. Many of the fee changes are minimal. Building code fees did not go
up. There are increased fees for mechanical and plumbing complex systems, because they
did not have an adequate way to charge for those when they were stand -alone items. They
have been tracking their time on an hourly basis, which was very inefficient and costly.
They went back to base fees. She would be happy to explain the changes. There is about a
five percent increase for land use items.
Larson asked how they communicated these changes to the people who will be
impacted.
Crawford stated the only communication is through the usual public notices, which
most people don't pay much attention to. Ryan stated that usually when they do building
code increases, they supply advance notification. However, the building codes were not
increased, per se.
The motion to refer to committee failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner and Knutzen (3)
Nays: Kershner, Crawford, Weimer and Mann (4)
Brenner referenced Council packet page 350, line 1489, regarding onsite septic
(OSS) application and permit fees. That fee doubled two years ago. No reasons were
given. Many people getting those permits have said it's hugely expensive, but not much
time or work is done to justify that cost. The cost is punitive.
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated an increased cost was approved in 2009.
The staff looked at their cost to perform the service. The administration asked the staff to
recover fees for services. The fee is based on their calculation of $100 per hour, which is
the cost of an environmental health specialist to perform the service. It appears that an
OSS application and permit fees were to go to $750. That includes indirect overhead and
the time it takes staff to look at the application, do soil log analysis at the site. The cost
was proposed to go to $750, but they determined that the true cost is $950, based on the
time spent out in the field and to approve the permit.
Brenner stated she doesn't see any proof of that. There may be cases where some
people will need a lot more service. That should be billed by the hour. Raising this fee
across - the -board isn't specific. Wolpers stated they included costs such as travel time, fuel,
going to out to areas like Point Roberts or anywhere in the East County.
Brenner stated those are individual cases. For many people, they don't have to go
that far. It isn't that much. She doesn't support this fee. Wolpers stated the fee is based
on the average number of hours it takes to move a person through the application process,
issue the permits, a final inspection, and visiting the site more than once. They compared
these hours and fees with other counties in 2009. Thurston County's fee is $1,115 for the
same service. They do an additional wet season check of an additional $960. Kitsap
County's fee is $913, plus a wet season check of $109. The most recent fee for Kitsap
County is about $1,300. Yakima County is between $1,195 and $1,868 for the same work.
Only Skagit County is lower, at $650.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Brenner moved to amend to line 1489 regarding the OSS application and permit
fee from $950 to $450. Have a base permit fee. If the service is provided in Point Roberts
or other areas farther away in the county, charge extra. They have no way to know if this
is not just some figure they came up with. She doesn't trust it just because they say
something. She wants to see specifically the reason for the change.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Knutzen referenced line item 8301, the permit for fireworks stands. He asked if this
applies to the reservations. Ryan stated it is not applicable to the reservations.
Knutzen referenced line item 8248. It seems all the fees regarding natural resources
went up. He asked if it's traditional to take over six hours to do this service. Ryan stated
the fee also includes the follow up, after the delineation. Before, the costs were calculated
separately. Almost all the natural resource or current planning fees have a five percent
increase. They also had fees to decrease. For this item, the fee has been $600, plus $300
for the maintenance review, for a total of $900.
Knutzen stated the delineation review, item 8247, for 2011 goes from $300 to $315.
Ryan stated that is without mitigation. Item 8248 is with mitigation, which includes five
years of follow -up.
Knutzen referenced item 8270. The fee is going down. Ryan stated they didn't have
the legal means to not charge $300, and it wasn't equitable. They changed the fee to a per
inspection fee. Drayton Harbor, for instance, isn't a seasonal area, so they don't necessarily
need three inspections. They have at least three inspections per permit in Lake Whatcom,
Lake Padden, and Lake Samish.
Knutzen referenced item 8291 and asked why that fee went down. Ryan stated they
aren't doing the time - tracking they were doing before. They tried to figure out the real
cost.
Weimer asked about ferry fares being in the Unified Fee Schedule.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the ferry fares are
excluded.
Brenner referenced item 8128 and asked if they haven't been charging for this site.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated they had a
clustered area that has been designated separately. The past rate structure included a
group camp area and individual rates. Because different groups would camp, they wanted
to book an entire area. They changed from an individual rate to a group rate for the entire
area.
Brenner referenced the Bellingham Activity Senior Center. They have gone from a
per hour fee to a two -hour minimum. McFarlane stated they corrected the wording to
include the two -hour minimum. Many facilities already require a minimum of two hours.
They don't recover costs if open for an hour.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Brenner referenced Tennant Lake, item 9000, and asked if a different formula was
used. McFarlane stated that in the past, Tennant Lake was not available for rental. The
State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducting the interpretive program. That is no
longer being funded. They want to make use of the building. The public has asked to use
the building for smaller meetings and events.
Brenner referenced item 9031 and asked why someone must rent the lawn in
conjunction with the house. That is a huge amount. McFarlane stated they don't want two
groups conflicting. They do that also at the Roeder Home. If something is booked inside,
they must also book the outside. In most instances, these apply to weddings. There is only
one set of restroom. Often, they want to use the bathrooms or a changing room. They
can't book them both separately.
Kershner referenced a Be It Further Ordained statement on Council packet page 343
and stated it's the law that fees shall not exceed actual costs. She called the question.
They could spend hours discussing this. She is going to trust that fees are set according to
the services provided. They didn't even have any public comment on this ordinance. If the
public doesn't seem concerned about the fees, don't spend the rest of the night going
through this. They still have to get to the budget.
Crawford stated he agrees with calling the question. Councilmember Brenner can
meet with the appropriate staff.
Brenner stated they have had people complain about these things. They're not here
tonight.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2011 -2016) AND RELATED
AMENDMENTS (AB2010 -355A) (9:53:01 PM)
Crawford referenced the substitute pages. They must wait to adopt this item until
after they've adopted the budget. He opened the public hearing, and the following people
spoke:
Mel Monkelis, 2256 Yew Street Road, Bellingham, submitted and read from a letter
(on file). He is opposed to removing Bay -to -Baker Trail from the Capital Improvement
Program list.
Joseph Garcia, 11061 Whistler Lane, Glacier, stated he is opposed to removing the
Bay -to -Baker Trail from the Capital Improvement Program list. They have pending State
and federal grants for several miles of trail. They have been working on this for five years.
Removing the trail from the plan would undermine the community effort. The community of
Glacier, the poorest community in the county, is raising matching funds. Other
organizations are donating time and money. This trail is very important to the community.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance, after they adopt the budget.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Brenner asked about the grant funds. Garcia stated the grant they have not yet
received is in the amount of $250,000. The community match is $50,000. The funds are
for engineering, right -of -way access, and preliminary planning. They can't get to the third
level of funding from the federal government without completing this second round of
funding. This is one of 16 proposals from the State to the Federal Highway Administration.
Once it's approved, they can apply for the actual construction funds, in the amount of $1.2
million to $1.6 million.
Mann stated that to get from the Douglas Fir Campground to downtown Glacier, one
has to go over the river. Garcia stated they are redoing the bridge. Originally, they weren't
going to include an extra eight feet for the trail, but they have added it. The community
had to battle for it.
Mann asked the number of miles for the Bay -to -Baker Trail. The committee
recommends including the trail in the CIP. He asked the total miles.
Brenner asked if this information was presented to the Planning Commission.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated it was not. One
individual spoke against the excessive cost for seven miles. Other cities and community
groups working on trail sections made it prudent to include the trail, but the Planning
Commission decided to remove it. The section specific to Glacier was not mentioned. They
aren't asking for a budget, just to keep it in the plan so jurisdictions can find funding.
Mann asked if these eight miles is sufficient to empower Mr. Garcia's group or any
other group. McFarland stated it is.
Crawford stated the Parks Foundation considered a revised concept of the Nooksack
Loop Trail. He asked if that fits in with the Bay -to -Baker Trail. McFarland stated segments
are the same. The Bay -to -Baker Trail is part of that Nooksack Loop Trail.
Brenner moved to remove the South Fork Regional Park, item 31 on Council packet
page 413 in the amount of $395,000 and item 36 on Council packet page 415 in the
amount of $775,000. It's one of the most controversial issues in the South Fork Valley.
The community tried to work out changes. Nothing happened. They can always put
something into the CIP at any point. It would be incentive for the Parks Department and
community to find common ground. Don't include something that controversial.
Knutzen stated he supports the motion to amend. The community includes 300
people. Of those, 200 sent letters of opposition to the Parks Department. The highway is
already stressed in the summer time. Over a million dollars is allocated for this project.
Forcing it on the community that doesn't want it is the worst type of government.
Kershner asked what happens if the park were taken out of the plan, and if they can
ever include it if they come up with a plan that meets everyone's needs. She asked if they
can continue to work on the park if it is not in the plan. McFarland stated the County
already owns the land. It is identified in other plans and is a priority of the Parks
Commission. Money in the Parks Improvement Fund is specifically set aside for the park.
There isn't a plan to bring it forward. They have a conceptual plan only. He is meeting with
the community on the conceptual plan. They need to do something. There is an historic
structure and buildings there. A caretaker lives there. They need to do restoration work on
those buildings.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Mann stated they will run into problems if they assume the 200 angry neighbors
represent the 200,000 people in this community. They are not the Acme Parks Board. He
understands people are upset about the park. They are talking about having a public
hearing with all of them in January to hear their opinions. However, this is a regional park
for the entire community. They are saying this is good for the entire county. It's been on
the books for awhile. They must continue planning for it. Also, removing this out right now
is a backroom way to kill the project. This is not the way to go about that. Have an open
process.
Knutzen stated there have been numerous public hearings. None of the comments
have seemed to matter. The scope of the project is 287 acres they are going to reconvey
from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). They are going to put many trails
into this. Everyone who has come to these hearings feel they haven't been listened to. He
agrees with them. The Hutchinson Creek Park project in that area turned into a nightmare.
McFarland stated the Hutchinson Creek Park was not a County park. It was a DNR park.
Knutzen stated they are planning to put trails and horses through elk habitat. It is
right next to the river. It is not a good project.
Brenner stated there were lots of community meetings, but nothing has changed.
Any plan should have more buy -in from the community. The community came up with lots
of ideas, but none were addressed. They have available public facilities to deal with
restoration work. It doesn't have to be in the CIP. She's okay with restoration, if it were
separate. They should be concerned that two - thirds of the people in the immediate area
are upset about it. They must respect the people in the community. They can reinsert it
anytime they want.
Weimer stated he heard that the community wants a lower- impact, differently -
designed park. He didn't hear that the community doesn't want any park. If they remove
the park from the plan, it says they don't want any park. That's not what the Acme
community is saying. They have spent their own money to hire people to help design the
park they want. They are moving forward with public meetings to incorporate what the
community wants. He supports some of their ideas, but they're done talking about it if it's
removed from the CIP.
Brenner stated it's not a matter of choosing one or the other. They can move ahead
on conceptual plans whether or not it's in the CIP.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner and Knutzen (3)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (4)
(Clerk's Note: The Council voted on this item after the budget.)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, ON AN INTERIM
BASIS, TO ALLOW FOR A ONE -TIME ECONOMIC HARDSHIP EXTENSION OF
LAND USE PERMIT EXPIRATIONS (AB2010 -180A) (10:21:14 PM)
Crawford stated he proposes that the Council reintroduce this item later tonight, with
modifications. For instance, rather than make it retroactive, make it effective from
December 5, 2010 to March 1, 2012. The folks who wanted to do this with previously -
expired permits have had plenty of opportunity to do that.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Crawford opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke.
Roger Alsmkaar, 1300 W. Axton Road, Ferndale, submitted and read from
information (on file). He's working on five applications for which this won't work. Extend
the period for two or three years. He suspects many people don't yet know about this and
haven't used it. Also, they could shorten the application period, and try to get the word out
to people. It's a compromise.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford stated he is against the motion to adopt the ordinance, because he would
like to introduce his modification.
Kershner asked Mr. Almskaar to clarify his comments. Almskaar stated that a
person used to have five years to finish the project, once the preliminary approval is
granted, which includes building roads and installing water systems. Now, someone only
has two years to do those things.
Crawford stated that Mr. Almskaar is suggesting that the extension of the time
forward would accommodate those who would fit into that window. He understands that it's
not fair for the older guys who are suffering the same financial hardship because they can't
get money from the banks anymore, while they address the newer guys. He would like
additional time to consider this further. It is challenging for the Planning Department to
continue these permits that are limbo. He tried to clean that up by having the ordinance
look forward only. This may be an issue of fairness for those folks in another conundrum.
Larson moved to refer to committee. He'd like to understand the impacts better.
Crawford stated the current interim ordinance expires on December 5, 2010. If the
committee makes any changes, they won't be able to pass them that night. Since this is
just an extension, the only effect is someone would not be allowed to apply for this for a
month or more during which an ordinance isn't in place. Folks who want this between
December 5 and when a new one is adopted wouldn't be able to apply for it during that
time.
Brenner stated one option is to adopt an emergency ordinance to continue the
existing ordinance.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated it may not qualify as an emergency,
according to the County Charter.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to refer to committee. It would be cleaner to
just vote this item down, and move forward with Mr. Crawford's new proposal, which is a
much cleaner version.
Larsen withdrew his motion.
The motion to adopt the ordinance failed by the following vote:
Ayes: None (0)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
CONSENT AGENDA (10 :41 :05 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WOMENCARE SHELTER FOR
PROVISION OF CRISIS SUPPORT SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,000
(AB2010 -394)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FOXGLOVE LLC FOR
OPERATION OF THE PLANTATION RIFLE RANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000
PER YEAR (THIS LEASE REFLECTS ONLY A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP — ALL
OTHER TERMS REMAIN THE SAME) (AB2010 -395)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #10 -83
AND ENTER INTO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH LOW BIDDER,
HYTECH ROOFING, INC. FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF ON THE
BUILDING LOCATED AT 3720 WILLIAMSON WAY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$75,309.85 (AB2010 -396)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC
FOR ASSISTANCE WITH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR
STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $128,992 (AB2010 -397)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. FOR ASSISTANCE WITH DESIGN OF
STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $113,545 (AB2010 -398)
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF ONE FLOOD -
DAMAGED PROPERTY IN MARIETTA IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$107,400 (AB2010 -399)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
SOUTH WHATCOM FIRE AUTHORITY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES FOR
WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS
AND EQUIPMENT LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE ESTABLISHED
BOUNDARIES OF SOUTH WHATCOM FIRE AUTHORITY (AB2010 -400)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CORRVIS, INC. FOR ]AIL
WORK CENTER VISITATION VIDEO EQUIPMENT PARTS, SHIPPING AND
TRAVEL COSTS FOR SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,180 (AB2010 -401)
9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HANDEL INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM SUPPORT
OF THE RITE TRACK XP MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$18,000 (AB2010 -402)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM BALANCE FOR THE FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUND TO MAINTAIN AS AN EMERGENCY AND
OPERATING RESERVE (AB2010 -392)
This item was moved to Introduction Items.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
SEVENTEENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $388,375 (AB2010 -380)
(10:42 :00 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.92, HEARING
EXAMINER, REGARDING APPEALS TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2010 -385)
(10 :42 :53 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the substitute ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED 2011 -2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET
(AB2010 -376A) (10 :44 :02 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. Any motion
to adopt the ordinance would include those technical corrections.
S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE
BIENNIUM 2011 -2012, AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN
FUNDS THEREIN (AB2010 -376) (10 :44 :43 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Kershner moved to adopt the ordinance, including the technical corrections to the
budget and the positions as submitted by the administration (on file).
Kershner moved to amend Council packet page 488 to change language in the
ordinance, "Finance and Persennel Administrative Services Committee" in the third, fourth,
and fifth Whereas statements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to eliminate premium pay, called supplemental compensation
allowance in the amount of $165,000.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the approximate numbers are about
$77,000 from the general fund, $90,000 from the road fund, and $11,000 from the
administrative services fund. The administration will have to figure out how to address
these expenses.
Brenner stated there's no way for the Council or public to know what the money is
being used for. All employees should have to fill out the forms for reimbursement.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. This item has been used in both good and
bad economic times. It's developed as part of compensation. They would have to develop
a new financial compensation structure to reimburse those employees. As a result of this,
they would see many more requests from these employees for County vehicles and home
access to the internet for doing work at home. This compensation does away with those
issues in a way that is cost - effect. He suspects the County will spend more money in the
long run to cover each reimbursement.
Brenner stated she's not sure why they would set someone up with internet access
at home. That's not one of the things that is reimbursable by this allowance. They have
never had an economic time like they have right now. The allowance does not provide an
economic incentive to be careful with how the money is spent. County councilmembers
travel and work a lot. She rarely requests reimbursements. Councilmembers are the
lowest paid public servants. If the Council can submit reimbursements, the higher paid
employees can also submit reimbursements. It's about public trust. This money isn't
scrutinized. It's an extra salary.
Larson asked about the premium pay. Desler described the history and purpose of
the program. If they eliminate this system, the administration will have to develop a
different system. He hasn't thought through what that would be. It would be a system to
properly support the people they expect to do the County's work, and cover their out -of-
pocket expenses.
Brenner stated the employees can be reimbursed for vehicle use. It wouldn't have to
be a new formula. The formula already exists. The Council uses the formula.
Kershner asked if there is a formula used to set the premium pay rates. Desler
stated the Executive negotiates the amounts with the employee or department head. There
isn't a strict formula. The Executive uses his judgment and discretion. The amount has not
been adjusted for some years.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Kershner asked if supplemental pay is newly- negotiated with each new hire that
qualifies for the program. Desler stated it is.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that when he became County Executive, the
Executive position had a car. He didn't think it was good to provide cars to most of the
elected officials. It was less costly to give a car allowance, depending on the position and
how much the employee drives. He gets $400 per month for the allowance. In Skagit
County, each Commissioner gets $800 for a car allowance and an additional 50 cents per
mile for any miles driven outside of Skagit County. The County used to supply him with a
phone. Now, he supplies a $60 stipend to each department head for their personal phone
costs. The County saves money by doing that. The system works well. If they change it,
they will have to supply phones, reimburse costs at 50 cents per mile, and spend an
inordinate amount of time calculating and administering the program. Continue the system
that is working well.
Larson stated now is the time to look at every expense, especially in the general
fund. They are bleeding money out of the general fund. They have been running a deficit.
From a County government standpoint, they need to look at everything. They have been
talking about not funding the Food Bank, which is people who need food. That's where they
are. They must face that reality. They must look at expenses. Every dollar counts.
Knutzen stated this item has been a struggle. He understands they may have to
make concessions to recruit quality staff. Some of these staff receiving premium pay are
worth more than they are getting. On the other hand, it doesn't sit well with the taxpayers
to give someone making six figures an extra $800 per month. He doesn't know what he's
going to vote on this. He wishes for an argument that would convince him one way or
another.
Larson stated he wishes the employee names weren't on the list and that he didn't
know how much they made. The issue is the premium pay. The question is whether it's
effective. It may be. However, they need to look at everything. Rather than have a flat
fee, he would prefer to make things reimbursable and have managers decide what is and is
not reimbursable.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Crawford, Weimer and Kershner (3)
Abstain: Larson and Knutzen (2)
Knutzen asked if the administration would agree to review premium pay and adjust
some of the people on the list. He's uncomfortable taking $600 per month out of some
people's pay.
Kershner stated the administration should understand there is a lot of angst about
the supplemental /premium pay. She hopes the administration would do whatever it can to
implement a system for the next budget cycle, so they don't have to talk about it again.
Mann moved to remove the Senior Services Manager position and allocate that
money to the Council on Aging for contracted senior services staff, in the amount of
approximately $91,000.
Knutzen stated the Council on Aging didn't agree to take on the contract, even
though they recommended it would take an extra $65,000 to hire four coordinators.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Council packet page 467 shows they are retaining three positions in 2011 and relinquishing
them in 2012. He suggested a friendly amendment that they increase the contract
amount by only $65,000.
Mann agreed that they should not specify the Council on Aging. He amended his
motion so that the extra amount would go to the contracted service agency, whoever that
is. He did not accept the friendly amendment.
Brenner stated the motion should be bifurcated.
Mann stated this amount would just be added to the $175,000 that is already
allotted for contracting the service.
Weimer stated he is fine with adding the additional $65,000 to help an agency hire
four people. He asked if the Senior Service Manager would still be in charge of the four
small senior centers.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the reason the
three positions are shown to carry through 2011 is because the positions would end in
March. It's not for a full year. It's just to transition into the contracts. The Senior Services
Manager position oversees the three small senior centers, the Roeder Home, the new East
Whatcom Regional Resource Center, and any contract for the four large centers. Someone
still has to run the food programs for the small centers and the Resource Center.
Desler stated this is an important, but not mandated, service. They had to look at
every service. The plan would work. The Executive is committed to not letting those
centers close or fail. The budget allotted for the new center won't last the entire year.
They have to work that out. Given as late as it is, it's not good policy to eliminate staff
from the budget. The administration has tried hard to work with the Council to adjust the
budget. This amendment would be painful to the public and the organization. If they want
the position gone, give the administration more time to work out these issues with the
senior services.
Brenner stated that if the administration had brought forward consolidation, as the
Council requested in the Spring, the Council wouldn't have to pick out individual positions.
Mann stated $65,000 was the bare minimum requested. It's important to fund as
fully as they can. His motion is a reasonable equivalent.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. The County is already taking big steps in
losing the coordinator positions. Don't lose the oversight of these programs.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner and Mann (3)
Nays: Weimer, Knutzen, Kershner and Crawford (4)
Brenner moved to consolidate the Parks Department:
• senior services go to the Health Department,
• maintenance and operations services go to the Public Works Department, and
• planners go to the Planning Department
The Council said in the Spring that consolidation was very important. This is not
personal. She's supposed to work for the public. If they want to provide frontline park
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
services, they can't just keep having the same top -heavy structure. This would allow front
line services and reduced costs.
Kershner stated she doesn't support the motion at this time. The idea is worthy of
further consideration. If the budget situation doesn't improve in two years, it would be
appropriate to consider it. At this late hour, she can't approve something as large as this.
Larson stated he likes the concept, but he wouldn't make a major decision like this
without more consideration of the consequences.
Brenner stated this is not coming up at the last minute. She submitted this with the
budget packet on October 15, which is the deadline according to the County Charter. The
Charter doesn't say they couldn't get the budget sooner than that. This is the most
complicated budget they've ever had. This is the most dire economy they've ever had. A
biennial budget doesn't allow an important change like this.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Knutzen moved to increase the allotment for senior center contracts from
$175,000 to $240,000, an increase of $65,000.
Mann asked if there is an offsetting reduction to the budget.
Knutzen stated he hopes the administration will find the money for the program.
Desler stated the administration will come back to the Council during the first half of 2011
with a slightly different plan, given the input from the Council and seniors. They will try to
make it budget neutral or find savings. The administration is prepared to work with them to
solve these issues.
Weimer stated he supports the motion. During the last meeting, the Council added
$150,000 for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program services that they now no longer
need. Put that money toward this. They are still saving over $80,000.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Brenner moved to change positions in the Health Department. Combine the
community health specialist position and the disease emergency response manager position
as one full -time equivalent (FTE) position, and use that extra funding to restore the current
number of WIC providers. The disease emergency response manager and community
health specialist could be two chores of one position.
Crawford stated they can approve a budget, but they can't tell the Executive how to
allocate positions.
Brenner stated these are two new positions being requested.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the community health
specialist is an existing position. That position was slated to be eliminated when they
retained a nutritionist position to be paid for from the general fund.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Brenner stated that's the same thing. It was slated to be eliminated. Now it's
requested. Delahunt stated that's correct, because they are retaining two nutritionist
positions, which is adequate for the WIC Program.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree to do it that way. Combine the two things.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. The Health Department has been put on an
emotional rollercoaster the last several months. He appreciates Ms. Delahunt's work and
recommendations. He's going to take her recommendation.
Mann stated the original proposal was to outsource WIC. At the last minute, it was
partially reinstated at a cost of $150,000. Now they have received additional money from
the State. Delahunt stated the additional money allows a service level that all direct and
indirect costs will be funded with federal dollars through the State.
Mann asked what additional money would be required to run the program at its
current full strength. Delahunt stated it would be the cost of the clerical position and the
nutritionist position. The State recommends a staffing ratio for WIC Programs. The current
WIC Program exceeds that ratio by quite a bit. They propose to remain within the staff
ratio recommended by the State. It's adequate staffing. It's a good proposal for the
program they need to run in this community. The staff are well- trained and will provide
quality service to the community.
Crawford restated the motion to combine the positions of the community health
specialist and disease control and emergency response manager, and use any cost savings
for a nutritional provider for the WIC Program.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann and Brenner (2)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Mann moved to restore $20,000 for the green building program.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Kershner and Brenner (3)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer and Knutzen, (4)
Brenner moved to amend the budget to have an annual budget process and to
remove all budget references to 2012.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Crawford moved to exempt elected officials from the new policy to pay for parking
in County lots.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen, Larson and Kershner (4)
Nays: Mann, Weimer and Brenner (3)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Desler stated the policy did not apply to all elected officials. At one time, they talked
about councilmembers contributing a smaller amount. The proposal was that all people who
have been assigned parking must pay $35 per month. That doesn't apply to County
councilmembers, who don't have assigned parking spots.
Crawford stated they received a memo saying the policy would apply to all elected
officials. Kremen stated his intent is for all full -time elected officials to pay the same
amount that employees have been paying for parking. It was never intended to apply to
County councilmembers, because they are not full time and they don't have specified
parking spots. All the full -time elected officials should pay, just like everyone else.
Knutzen moved to reconsider the last motion.
The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Crawford moved to exempt elected officials from the new policy to pay for parking
in County lots.
Desler explained the current parking spot fee policy and to whom it does and does
not apply.
Knutzen stated all those elected officials earn a premium pay.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson and Crawford (2)
Nays: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (5)
Mann moved to decrease the general fund by $543,000 and increase the
conservation futures fund by $543,000. Investing in the future, preserving valuable land,
doing the purchase of development rights (PDR) program, and protecting agriculture is one
of the most important things they can do. They must respect the will of the voters. Don't
raid the fund to patch a budget hole.
Brenner stated she agrees with not raiding funds. When this came up last time, she
supported limiting the conservation futures fund, but she didn't support increasing the
general fund to do it. They had plenty in the conservation futures fund at the time. There
was a good reserve, so she didn't mind doing that. Don't take money out of somewhere to
put into somewhere else. The vote was about retaining the conservation futures fund.
They're not getting rid of it. That was done by the last council. It's not new. They don't
have staff to do things that would have to be done for the PDR program projects, to use the
money they have. If they get low, they can look at it then.
Knutzen asked how much of this was going to the reconveyance.
Mann stated none of it is.
McFarland stated they don't have future funds allocated to the reconveyance. The
$300,000 they're using now is slated to be paid from conservation futures funds.
Mann stated they already voted on that earlier in the year and allocated that money.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
51
52
Knutzen asked how much they will spend on the reconveyance in 2011.
Mann stated they will spend nothing.
McFarland stated that if the reconveyance is approved, money would be spent from
the general fund, but they would reimburse the general fund.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. A significant number of the community
have communicated about this issue. However, these are challenging times. They've had
to backfill last year with a portion of this. It's reasonable to do that again this year. When
they get back to better times, they will probably want to look at the levy. Now, there is a
hole in the budget that needs to be plugged. This is an appropriate use of the money.
Mann stated one reason for the past conservation futures levy shift was because it
was directed toward the reconveyance, in the spirit of the conservation futures fund. Now,
in 2011, there is no reconveyance expense that justifies tapping into that voter - endorsed
fund.
Weimer stated he will support the motion. He voted against this in 2010.
Conservation futures is important for park and farmland protection. Another idea from Bob
Kelly was to reimburse farmers for protecting riparian areas along creeks. There are lots of
good uses for this. He's not sure this money is still needed for the general fund. They just
found $450,000 a couple of weeks ago.
Brenner stated the change in the fund level was not this year. It was last year. The
reason for the shift last year was because they were having hard times. It was a majority
vote. She voted to limit the conservation futures, but not to put it into the general fund.
The people are concerned about the Council raiding from one fund to another.
Larson asked if there has been any discussion with administration about where else
that money could come from. Desler stated the general fund projection handout shows that
not doing the shift will create a fund balance of about $6.9 million at the end of 2012, as
opposed to a little over $8 million. He submitted a fund projection handout for the
conservation futures fund (on file).
Larson asked if there are any other funds available that weren't specifically approved
by the voters. Desler stated the voter ballot was advisory. It's not a bad program. The
administration supports. They propose to continue what the Council approved last year as
it attempted to balance the budget for 2010. They are proposing to do something with the
flood fund and real estate excise tax (REET) II money. They are not proposing a transfer
between the road levy. There aren't a lot of choices.
Kremen stated that when they initiated the shift, the conservation futures fund
balance was substantial. They are adding about $500,000 per year. They have used that
fund very wisely and effectively. They have acquired for posterity vast, special places for
Whatcom County. The Council may want to consider reducing the amount. Instead of
$543,000 per year, shift only half of that. Therefore, they would still wind up with a ten
percent balance in the reserve. Anything less than a ten percent reserve would not be
prudent.
(12:00:39 AM)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
53
Larson asked if there is an obligation to have a ten percent reserve. Kremen stated
it is a policy of the Council and administration. The industry standard is a reserve of 8.66
percent. Ten percent is more conservative.
Larson stated he will support the motion. Transferring the money is legitimate.
Under normal circumstances, he wouldn't challenge it. However, voters wanted the money
allocated to the fund. The reality is that they are basically transferring money between
funds. If they continue to do that, they will create the perception they have money that
they really don't. They have a spending problem and lack of revenue problem on the side
of the general fund.
Knutzen asked if the County's bond rating will decrease if they allow the general fund
dip below a certain level. Projections for 2012 indicate the reserve will go down to $2
million. That's not healthy for the bond rating. Desler stated changing the levy is a
legitimate policy. It's not illegal. They also are obligated to fund important things from the
general fund. The money in the general fund can be used for anything in County
government. Money in the conservation futures fund can only be used for specific
purposes. They should maintain maximum flexibility for using the money. Industry
standards for maintaining a fund reserve are changing. People realize that in a declining
economy, they have to have a higher fund balance and reserve to weather storms. The
bond rating organization was pleased to see the County's ten percent reserve commitment.
It allows the County to have better debt rates.
Kershner stated she won't support the motion. The conservation futures fund is
managed by County staff, including the Treasurer's Office, Assessor's Office, and Planning
Department. All of those services cost money. It makes sense to move the money into the
general fund to help fund those services.
Mann asked if part of the conservation futures fund is used to reimburse for those
services, and if 15 percent of the funds can be used for property maintenance. Desler
stated they can use up to a certain portion of the money to maintain property they've
acquired. They can also use some of the money to pay for acquisition costs.
Mann stated this is why the prior Council set this up as a different fund and got the
endorsement from the voters. They knew a time would come when it would be very easy to
shift this money. They need to make hard decisions. Don't enable that shift. They are
stealing from the future to avoid making painful decisions today.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Mann and Weimer (4)
Nays: Crawford, Kershner and Knutzen (3)
Brenner stated she made motions for budget cuts to offset the motions she
supported. No one voted for her motions. No one supports doing an annual budget. The
majority of this Council are new councilmembers who haven't spent a lot of time with the
budget. It takes time to figure it out. She hasn't figured it all out. According to the
Charter, the Council is supposed to check and balance the administration. The County
produced an annual budget up to four years ago. The biennial budget process hasn't
worked. They need to be creative. She won't support the budget.
The motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Brenner and Kershner (2)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
Abstain: Larson (1)
6. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE
PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 2011 (AB2010 -371)
(12:12:46 AM)
Kershner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they need to adjust these numbers.
Crawford moved to amend Council packet page 503, "$1,000;000 $457,000" in
subsection (C) of the ordinance.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated also add a new whereas
statement between the current fourth and fifth statements, "Whereas, the County Council
chooses to restore the conservation futures fund levy, which reduces the general fund levy
by $543,000." This would explain the Council's action.
Crawford accepted Mr. Bennett's proposed Whereas statement as friendly
amendments to his motion to amend.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (5)
Nays: Kershner and Crawford (2)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (6)
Nays: Kershner (1)
7. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2011 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY
(AB2010 -372) (12:21:28 AM)
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated they will need to make
changes to this ordinance. Add "Whereas, the County Council chooses to restore the
conservation futures fund levy, which reduces the general fund levy by $543,000." Amend
the amount "008;090 $457,000" in the Now, Therefore statement. He will have to
recalculate the percentage.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann moved to amend to add "Whereas, the County Council chooses to restore the
conservation futures fund levy, which reduces the general fund levy by $543,000" and to
amend the amount "$000;000 $457,000" where appropriate and recalculate the
percentage.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (5)
Nays: Kershner and Crawford (2)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (5)
Nays: Brenner and Kershner (2)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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
8. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF 2011 PROPERTY TAXES FOR
COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES (AB2010 -373) (12:24 :10 AM)
Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
9. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2011 ROAD FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY
(AB2010 -374) (12 :25 :01 AM)
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
10. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR CONSERVATION
FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2011 (AB2010 -375) (12 :29 :14 AM)
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann moved to amend to add "Whereas, the County Council chooses to restore the
conservation futures fund levy, which reduces the general fund levy by $543,000" and
amend the Now, Therefore statement, "shall be limited to the amount of 2010 taxes, plus
$543,000, and increased for the addition of new construction ... and any increase in the value
of state - assessed property, is hereby authorized for the 2011 levy in the amount of "
$543,000, which is a percentage increase of 8% (correct recalculated percentage) from the
previous year."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Brenner, Weimer and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner, Crawford and Knutzen (3)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer and Mann (5)
Nays: Kershner and Knutzen (2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2011 -2016) AND RELATED
AMENDMENTS (AB2010 -355A) (12 :33 :12 AM)
Knutzen moved to amend Council packet page 415, item 37, the Lake Whatcom
trails reconveyance lands, in the amount of $900,000. By the year 2016, they need 82
more acres to reach the Comprehensive Plan's level of service. This reconveyance is over
8,000 acres.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the level of
service is for trail miles, not acreage for park areas.
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, 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 they are allocating $500,000 to working through the paperwork with
the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Mann stated they've already paid for that.
Knutzen stated it's still being paid for. They are continuing to fund it. Stop the
project. It isn't justified. The 8,000 acres is under the management of DNR.
Crawford asked if the cost of $900,000 is to build the trails, assuming the
reconveyance goes through. McFarland stated that is correct. They are considering
abandoning many miles of roadways in the area. Some of those roads will be converted to
trails.
Mann stated this is the wrong way to go about it. He understands that
Councilmember Knutzen doesn't like the project. They should have a hearing and talk
about it. Have some dialog with the public.
Brenner stated she will support the motion. They don't get to change this for
another two years.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen, Brenner and Larson (3)
Nays: Crawford, Mann, Weimer and Kershner (4)
The motion to adopt carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
OTHER ITEMS
12. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2011 BUDGET FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND SUBZONES (AB2010 -379) (12:40:39
AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Knutzen asked if the Dozer hole repair is allocated in this budget.
Weimer stated he doesn't know. He doesn't think the emergency repair is included.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department, stated he doesn't know if it's included.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstain: Larson (1)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, Page 30
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
11. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR THE WHATCOM
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) FOR 2011 (AB2010-
378) (12:44:17 AM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Kershner moved to approve the resolution.
Weimer stated they are fooling themselves with this switch from the flood fund to
the general fund. He will vote in favor of it this time, but remember this when it comes up
in two years. They are propping up the general fund with other peoples' money.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Nays: Mann (1)
Abstain: Larson (1)
13. NOMINATION AND POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE
WHATCOM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (ALTERNATE, AT- LARGE) —
APPLICANT: MARY JANE ANDERSON (AB2010 -391) (12 :45 :37AM)
Brenner moved to appoint Mary Jane Anderson.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS (12:45:58 AM)
Brenner moved to accept Introduction Items two through six, including substitute
pages and additional introduction items five and six.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Larson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE PLAN (AB2010 -381)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
EIGHTEENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $252,203 (AB2010 -404)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S OFFICIAL TITLE 20 ZONING
MAP, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 770 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE BIRCH BAY
UGA FROM RURAL ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRES (R10) TO RURAL ONE UNIT PER
FIVE ACRES (R5) (AB2010 -403)
4. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND SHORT SUBDIVISIONS IN
RURAL AREAS (AB2010 -383A)
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, Page 31
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
5. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM BALANCE FOR THE FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FUND TO MAINTAIN AS AN EMERGENCY AND
OPERATING RESERVE (AB2010 -392)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, ON AN INTERIM
BASIS, TO ALLOW FOR A ONE -TIME ECONOMIC HARDSHIP EXTENSION OF
LAND USE PERMIT EXPIRATIONS (AB2010 -180B)
OTHER BUSINESS (12:48:22 AM)
Crawford stated he is scheduling a special executive session meeting on Monday,
November 29.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (12:49:52 AM)
There were no reports or other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 11/23/2010, Page 32