Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 10 20011 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council July 10, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Dan McShane Marlene Dawson Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Absent: None STATE OF THE COUNTY ADDRESS BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN (AB2001 -017) Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated Whatcom County is prepared and eager to meet the challenges of the years ahead. Whatcom County is fiscally stable, organizationally sleek, and blessed with talented and enthusiastic employees. Government operations have experienced challenges in the past year, including the closure of the Georgia- Pacific pulp mill in which 420 employees lost their jobs. Community efforts found solutions to retain 300 of those jobs. Also, Alcoa Intalco confronted a major employment crisis. They were able to overt a catastrophic loss of jobs for 930 employee. The community united to effect the best possible outcome. There will still be an impact to Intalco service providers and subcontractors, and to the local economy. Energy issues are a major concern. Record low rainfall and snow pack have exacerbated this problem. Whatcom County has initiated energy- saving methods. Simple methods can realize large benefits. Rolling black outs are possible this winter. The County will be ready to respond, should the need arise. He encourages residents and businesses to take part in energy- saving measures. Whatcom County citizens are actively involved in County government and decisions, through their participation in many committees, commissions, boards, and groups. This depth and breadth of citizen participation has been growing. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 1 These citizens that have been engaged have contributed significantly to the principles of efficient, responsive, and productive government. Citizen involvement is embraced by this administration and by the County Council. Whatcom County has a great team. Because of the cooperation and hard work of the elected officials and department heads, the County has been able to meet the challenge of voter - approved revenue losses from statewide initiatives. For example, Auditor Shirley Forslof conducted many elections this past year, administered two mandatory recounts, and tallied in excess of 250,000 ballots, all handled effectively and efficiently. Sheriff Dale Brandland's office received state accreditation. The department has met over 200 mandatory standards to reflect their professionalism and effectiveness in law enforcement. Prosecutor Dave McEachran, Public Defender Jon Ostlund, and Sheriff Brandland continue to represent a high degree of competence in law enforcement and criminal justice. Treasurer Barbara Cory increased interest earnings by twenty percent in the last year through improved technology. That is an increase of $549,000 for the County coffers. The County's performance in the year 2000 represents a 52 percent increase over the income received five years ago. That is a $1.15 million benefit to Whatcom County. Assessor Keith Willnauer implemented a new computerized document storage and retrieval system that provides instant access to information, documents, maps, photos, and diagrams for staff and the citizens. The County Council promoted standards for better accountability for all government operations. They are a successful team and share equally in the credit of their many accomplishments, including the recently won Friend Of The Taxpayer Award from the Washington Institute Foundation. This award was given to Whatcom County for holding property taxes to less than the rate of inflation. In fact, Whatcom County has not increased its property tax levy in the last five years. They can be proud of their actions. Today, they are still able to finance the key programs of Whatcom County government. Whatcom County provides key leadership and support to addressed critical water resource issues. They've established the central organizational elements from the goals of the Comprehensive Water Resources plan. Whatcom County is active in protecting the health of an indispensable resource, Lake Whatcom. In partnership with the Whatcom Land Trust, they've sponsored the acquisition of almost 700 acres of land in this watershed, which will remain undisturbed for generations. There are many other projects underway that will provide a lasting impact on the quality of their primary drinking water source. However, they must continue to diligently seek the solutions to challenges they face in water quality and quantity, instream flows, and fish habitat issues. Public safety and the administration of justice are critical to the quality of life. They revitalized a Law and Justice Council made up of citizens, mayors, law enforcement, executives, judges, and others to work on projects to improve the administration of justice and ensure a safer community. The Superior Court, through superior case management, reduced the number of domestic relations trials by 46 percent. Over 5,000 citizens last year were aided through the do- it- yourself process of divorce, child custody, and child support matters. The newly formed drug court has an 82 percent success rate. These 18 graduates are now contributors to the community, instead of a Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 2 1 drain on the community. 2 3 Whatcom County will be one of eight programs in the country to receive a 4 department of justice drug court program award, amounting to $500,000 over the 5 next three years. Under the leadership of Judge Moynihan and assisted by Superior 6 Court Clerk N.F. Jackson and drug court coordinator Margaret Clark, this grant will 7 enable the local drug court program to triple the number of clients served. 8 Notification of an additional congressional grant of $330,000 will also build on their 9 nationally recognized program. They should all be proud of this major 10 accomplishment. 11 12 The County Council increased the number of deputy sheriffs by 20 percent 13 and increased corrections officers in the jail. New programs have been 14 implemented in the law and justice departments as a result of the actions 15 recommended in Whatcom County's Law and Justice Plan. They will evaluate the 16 success of these initiatives in the coming months using that information to forge 17 new projects to provide a safer and more secure community. 18 19 This spring, he announced the formation of a new agreement for the delivery 20 of Medic One services, which will allow proper response to the increasing demand 21 for emergency medical assistance and set the stage for preparing a long -term 22 strategic plan for these services. 23 24 Among the many challenges is planning for the future of County government. 25 With the population growth, their needs have increased and changed. They will 26 address appropriate County government space and facility needs through a facilities 27 master plan. Important priorities will include additional jail space and the 28 consolidation of many departments and operations that are currently geographically 29 dispersed throughout the county. With the County Council's assistance, they will 30 lay the groundwork for projected capital facilities need so that current and future 31 needs would be addressed. 32 33 Whatcom County is one of three counties in the state that received the 34 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award and the Certificate of Achievement for 35 Excellence in Financial Reporting. These awards represent the highest recognition 36 of budgeting and financial reporting in the entire country. 37 38 Whatcom County maintains positive relationships with the unions that 39 represent all of their employees. They are the backbone of the County 40 government. They are currently negotiating new contracts with these unions. The 41 challenges ahead require the County to balance the cost of maintaining a stable 42 workforce with the rising costs of being competitive in the labor market and the 43 ever - increasing costs of benefits. 44 45 He is pleased with the progress being made in technology and computer 46 applications. Whatcom County has been a consistent leader in the effective use of 47 this technology and the internet. They encourage the citizens' use of County 48 services online. They've implemented Ezgov for payment of taxes. New Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 3 1 applications provide information online to the citizens. Computer applications and 2 equipment dramatically and accurately speed up the delivery of service. New 3 communication methods improve efficiency and operation. This area will continue 4 to be a major focus for County government, and it will take working as a team to 5 bring about this success. 6 7 This administration and the County Council have worked positively together 8 over the past year to enhance the quality of life for all the people in the community. 9 Their relationships are built on trust, communication, and a shared commitment to 10 earn the respect and confidence of the citizens of Whatcom County. His 11 administration will continue to collaborate with the Council and the other members 12 of this team to maintain high quality and efficient service for all the people in 13 Whatcom County. 14 15 16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17 18 REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 26, 2001; SPECIAL COUNTY 19 COUNCIL (BUDGET RETREAT) FOR JUNE 26, 2001; WATER 20 RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR JUNE 19, 2001 21 22 Dawson moved to approve. 23 24 Motion carried unanimously. 25 26 Crawford stated that the adjourn time for the June 26 regular County Council 27 meeting needs to be changed, "The meeting adjourned at 8:15 ap.m." 28 29 The Council concurred. 30 31 32 OPEN SESSION 33 34 The following people spoke: 35 36 Mike Kaufman, Utility Planning Committee Chairman, stated the Williams 37 pipeline is proposed to go from Sumas to Cherry Point. They currently have two 38 pipelines running to Cherry Point. A conglomerate of different people own them. 39 There isn't a good answer as to whether or not those pipelines are adequate for the 40 proposed power plant. There are no good answers from Williams Pipeline about 41 why they want to put in the new pipeline. He questioned why they would not rip up 42 one of the 16 -inch lines and build a bigger line. A bigger line moves tremendously 43 more gas at a lower pressure. A lower pressure would make the line safer, so the 44 community would win. The industry says that it cannot coordinate such an activity. 45 46 He thanked the County Executive for questioning the power exchange with 47 Bonneville Power Administration. Put ideas on the table and keep talking about Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 4 1 them. The committee asked to be interveners in that process. They have made 2 some progress. 3 4 Brenner questioned when the Utility Planning Committee would finish its 5 work and bring recommendations forward to the County Council. Kaufman stated it 6 might be in September or October. 7 8 Andrew Lore, Nooksack, stated he is an electrical contractor. He is not a 9 building contractor. He applied for a permit to build a house in Sudden Valley. He 10 is having a problem with the newly enacted rules regarding water resources. It was 11 enacted July 1, 2001. In the Lake Whatcom area, one is not allowed to have a 12 concrete driveway. His parcel would be allowed 50 percent of impervious surfaces. 13 That would allow him 3,000 square feet to build on, which is the minimum amount 14 allowed. Another regulation states that pervious materials are required for 15 driveways. He wants to cover 2,600 square feet total, 2,200 square feet for the 16 house and 400 square feet for the concrete driveway. He cannot do that. 17 However, he could build a 3,000 square foot house. 18 19 Brenner stated she did not recall not allowing concrete use in the Lake 20 Whatcom watershed. 21 22 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the ordinance clearly 23 states that concrete cannot be used. The staff recommendation and Planning 24 Commission recommendation was to encourage the use of pervious surfaces. The 25 Council Planning and Development Committee changed the language to require the 26 use of pervious surfaces. That was two years ago. 27 28 Brenner questioned whether that change was brought up at the full Council. 29 Goodwin stated Councilmember Crawford looked in the minutes, and did not find 30 that discussion. She remembered the discussion. It was at the end of the year in 31 1999. A text amendment would be required to change it. 32 33 Crawford stated he would propose an ordinance amendment. Because of the 34 timing of the work they do for concurrency, there is a timing issue. He questioned 35 whether there is a possibility of introducing this as an emergency ordinance. 36 Goodwin stated the deadline to initiate it as a Council- initiated amendment was 37 June 30, two weeks ago. The next opportunity is next year. There are two ways to 38 work on it now. First, the Council can initiate an emergency ordinance, which takes 39 a two - thirds majority. The other option is a citizen - initiated amendment, which 40 requires an application and a fee. 41 42 Crawford stated he would like to introduce this as an emergency ordinance in 43 two weeks, and then put it to a vote two weeks after that. 44 45 Nelson questioned whether the Council could introduce an emergency 46 ordinance during this meeting based upon the limited criteria to meet the intent of 47 the Council. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 5 1 Hoag asked to take this issue up again during Other Business. 2 3 Goodwin stated an emergency amendment needs a resolution approved by a 4 two - thirds majority. 5 6 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the criteria for an 7 emergency to exist are that the action is necessary for the public's welfare and 8 safety, or for the economic welfare of the County or region. He didn't see how 9 either of those is fulfilled. 10 11 12 PUBLIC HEARING 13 14 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.25, 15 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND FUND (AB2001- 16 217) 17 18 Nelson stated the proposal is to allocate 50 percent of the Conservation 19 Futures funds to agricultural lands. 20 21 Dawson stated it is for the development rights for agricultural land. She 22 attended a convention in Skagit County four years ago, and heard about Skagit 23 County's program. Councilmember Hoag has referenced that same program. 24 Recently, visitors from the Netherlands spoke to the Economic Development Council 25 and the Port of Bellingham. Eventually, they anticipate development running 26 together from Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia. They encouraged the County 27 to create an oasis as a tourist area for these larger cities to come to. The 28 leadership to do this needs to come from the County Council to ensure the history 29 and culture of the resource industries are preserved. John Gillies and Henry 30 Bierlink are supportive of this idea. The farmers are also supportive. There may 31 also be some federal money available for counties that are protecting their 32 agricultural lands. 33 34 Hoag stated the agricultural industry is the largest industry in the county. It 35 supplies hundreds of millions of dollars of revenues. The farm gate values are in 36 the hundreds of millions of dollars. Farmers pay more in taxes than they use in 37 services. The farmers support the rest of what the County does. For every dollar a 38 farmer pays in taxes, he or she uses only $.45 in services. That is in contrast to 39 residential development, which uses $1.25 in services to every dollar paid in taxes. 40 It is in the County's best interest economically to support the farm and agricultural 41 community. 42 43 When the Conservation Futures fund was approved by taxpayers, it included 44 the ability to purchase farmlands and development rights. The County has been 45 using the funds to purchase parks. The County has not used the funds to acquire 46 development rights in farmland. Skagit County uses their funds to establish a 47 buffer between development and agriculture. It is a win -win situation. The County 48 benefits from the agricultural industry, and the farmer can't sell land for Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 6 1 development. This is a goal of the Conservation Futures fund. However, because 2 those funds are not earmarked for agricultural use, they are all being used for 3 parks. The County needs to do things with agriculture, and needs to have a 4 program that will be fully funded. In order to do that, they need to earmark these 5 funds for agriculture. 6 7 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public 8 hearing. 9 10 Hoag stated that the only two counties in Washington now are Skagit and 11 King that have programs in place that utilize the purchase of farmland 12 development. They are getting federal funds to augment those programs. If the 13 County sets aside the money and puts a program in place, it can use federal funds. 14 There are hundreds of acres now that are zoned to be developed, but should be 15 maintained as agriculture. 16 17 Hoag moved to adopt the ordinance. 18 19 Crawford questioned whether the Council is within its legal rights to assign 20 distribution amounts on something the public approved by vote. 21 22 Dave Grant, Senior Deputy Prosecutor, responded in the affirmative. 23 (Inaudible. Mr. Grant's affirmative response was confirmed by Mr. Grant to the 24 Clerk of the Council). 25 26 Imhof stated this would add a burdensome cost to the farmland. In 1976, 27 there were eight vegetable processors in Whatcom County. There were 535 farms. 28 Now, there are no food processors. There are some private label berry processors. 29 Water regulations and the pressure of growth are chasing the dairy industry to 30 Eastern Washington. The pressure will continue on the price of agricultural land. It 31 has to be competitive, and it isn't when compared to the advantages of Eastern 32 Washington. Agriculture, as they know it, will not be here indefinitely in Whatcom 33 County. Things are changing. This is another way to manipulate the cost of 34 agricultural land. There is nothing in the original ordinance that says an agricultural 35 project, if brought forward, would not be funded. No one has brought those 36 projects forward. John Gillies could have brought something to the Council. The Ag 37 Preservation Committee could have brought something forward. Councilmember 38 Hoag could have brought a program forward. This ordinance is not needed, and he 39 would not support it. 40 41 Brenner stated agriculture right now is not economically viable. They need to 42 preserve the land. If they can't preserve the farmer with the land, then the County 43 owes the farmer to pay a market rate on development rights and the land itself. By 44 making the statement this amendment would make, the County is saying that 45 agriculture is important. Restrictive ordinances on agriculture help put the farmers 46 out of business. This is a good option for farmers to be able to financially survive. 47 There is no way they are going to retain agricultural land without some kind of 48 subsidy. This is the perfect way to subsidize agriculture. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 7 1 2 Nelson stated he hears an argument that they need to provide an initiative 3 for farmers to use Conservation Futures funds. If that is the case, then the Council 4 can pass a simple resolution encouraging the Ag Preservation Committee to come 5 forward with programs and ideas. This ordinance has an intention by the public. 6 He questioned whether they would then begin to carve up the rest of the funds for 7 other interests. This needs to be programmatic. This needs to be done 8 intelligently. This needs to be done based on the need of the community. 9 Identifying a certain fund and setting it aside without having any idea what it would 10 be used for is a waste of the taxpayers' money. 11 12 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 13 14 Crawford questioned whether these dollars can be used to purchase land. 15 16 Grant responded (inaudible). The County can buy real property, but not in 17 conjunction with its powers of condemnation. 18 19 Crawford questioned whether the language makes the proposal appropriate 20 and follows the original text. Grant stated it follows the original text. He was not 21 familiar with the underlying legislative intent. 22 23 McShane stated the Kennewick Irrigation District is having rolling water 24 shutoffs. When it is 108 degrees, it is tough on the crops. Eastern Washington is 25 not the answer. He's watched this Conservation Futures fund and how it has been 26 used. He has been pleased with how its been done. They've come up with 27 tremendous purchases, and have gotten a lot of bang for their buck because savvy 28 administrative decisions have been made. He would like to see that continue, and 29 not hamstring this fund. If, in the future, a program comes forward for buying 30 development rights on farmland, this fund can be used for that. Nothing precludes 31 them from doing that. The funds should be used for the best purpose presented at 32 the time. This would take away that opportunity. He is not comfortable with the 33 proposal. He liked the idea of buying development rights. Have the program come 34 forward. He would support using this money for that program, but would not 35 support earmarking the funds, which would lock them into something that is not 36 necessarily the best use of the fund. 37 38 Hoag stated processors closed down because agricultural acreage was lost. 39 That is what they are trying to avoid. Studies have shown that they need to 40 maintain a certain land base if they are going to support the processors and 41 equipment dealers, and if the land that farmers have to lease is going to be 42 affordable. That is what this aims to do. The voters who approved this approved 43 the funds to be used for farm and agricultural land. It is not being used for that. 44 When there is a problem, they need to propose a solution that will follow the intent 45 of what was originally proposed. The original intent of this was to purchase 46 timberland, open space, and agricultural land. Unless those funds are earmarked 47 for agriculture, they will be frittered away on everything else. Unless they set this Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 8 money aside, it won't be available. They need to support the resource base they have. When the County buys parkland, that land comes off the tax roles. When they buy development rights in agricultural lands, the land remains productive in agricultural use and still generates taxes. It is what the public wanted to do. They are not doing it. This proposal will enable them to do it. If in a few years they don't like the program, they can change it if it is not working like it should. Nelson questioned the purchase of development rights. Grant stated the County can trade in the transfer of development rights, so they don't have to buy the underlying property. Nelson questioned whether the owner would still own the property. Grant stated the owner would still own the property. Nelson questioned whether there would be public access. A requirement of conservation futures in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is public access. Open space is different. Brenner stated public access depends on the type of acquisition. If it is for agricultural use, it doesn't require public access. If it is for public access, it requires public access. Grant agreed. Nelson stated the farmer retains the value of the land. He questioned whether the farmer could sell the land. Hoag stated the farmer can't develop the land. The land stays in agricultural. Grant stated the farmer can sell the land, but it couldn't be developed. Nelson stated the County would purchase the development right. The owner retains the value of the agricultural land. After the owner is done with the land, he or she can sell it. Grant stated that is correct. Covenants are attached to the land that prevent development. Hoag stated this is how Skagit County administers its program. Imhof stated the land didn't disappear when the processors left the area. Two or three processors left each year. They did not leave because there wasn't a land base. The processors left because there wasn't a quality product or the volume they needed to run the large plants efficiently. A five -acre parcel could be valued at $80,000, for example. If the County purchased the development rights, the five -acres would be worth $20,000, which generates approximately $30 per year in taxes. It would take the County 3,000 years to regain its investment. That doesn't make sense. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 9 1 Dawson stated Henry Bierlink was very supportive of the proposal, and asked 2 to appropriate 100 percent in the next three or four years. They are putting a 3 program together, and want to have the funds available. The County has to take 4 leadership in establishing this. Skagit and King counties took leadership. 5 Hopefully, Whatcom County will also. 6 7 Crawford questioned whether Skagit County appropriates 50 percent of their 8 Conservation Futures funds solely to agricultural purchases. 9 10 Hoag stated she didn't know if Skagit County has a designated appropriation. 11 They are using their Conservation Futures funds to purchase development rights. 12 They are actively purchasing development rights, and the program is working. 13 14 Imhof stated the public in Skagit and King counties voted to preserve 15 farmland with 100 percent of their Conservation Futures fund. 16 17 Motion to adopt carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and McShane opposed. 18 19 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag left the meeting at 8 p.m.) 20 21 2. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DURATION OF WHATCOM COUNTY LAKE 22 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, A LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR 23 LAKE SAMISH (AB2001 -214) 24 25 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, gave a staff report and stated 26 most of the information is on page 161 of the Council packet. The Lake 27 Management District has been around since 1992. It is set to expire this January. 28 The law was recently changed and allows an extension beyond the ten -year period. 29 The proposal is to extend the district an additional ten years, or until they get a 30 permanent water system. 31 32 Brenner questioned why they would not do this. Mills stated there is no 33 reason not to do it. They have to extend the district to continue to operate the 34 seasonal dam, as a condition of their water rights. 35 36 Nelson stated they assess themselves for the funding of that. 37 38 Mills stated there is plenty of money left over that they don't need to be 39 reassessed for additional money. 40 41 Nelson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, Nelson closed the 42 public hearing. 43 44 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. 45 46 Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag absent. 47 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 10 1 CONSENT AGENDA 2 3 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 4 moved approval of Consent Agenda Items one through eight. 5 6 Motion to approve Consent Agenda items carried 6 -0 with Hoag absent. 7 8 1. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON 9 EXCHANGE OF COUNTY PROPERTY REQUEST NO. 03 -01 (AB2001- 10 219) 11 12 2. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON 13 EXCHANGE OF COUNTY PROPERTY REQUEST NO. 04 -01 (AB2001- 14 220) 15 16 3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 900911 17 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE ALDERSON ROAD 18 STRUCTURAL OVERLAY TO STREMLER GRAVEL, INC., AS THE LOWEST 19 RESPONSIVE BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,361.50 (AB2001- 20 221) 21 22 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 23 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND 24 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND 25 PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC - CO- OCCURRING DISORDERS SERVICES TO 26 MEET THE NEEDS OF THE MOST AT RISK MENTALLY ILL AND 27 CHEMICALLY ABUSING ADULTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE 28 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $12,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF 29 $56,226 (AB2001 -222) 30 31 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 32 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND 33 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WASHINGTON INITIATIVE FOR 34 SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT (WISE) TO PROVIDE TRAINING, 35 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND MENTORING SERVICES TO LOCAL 36 CONTRACTED SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROVIDERS IN THE 37 AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2001 -223) 38 39 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 40 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND 41 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 42 SERVICES NORTHWEST TO PROVIDE FOR THE FAMILY RESPITE AND 43 RELIEF PROGRAM, AND YOUTH CO- OCCURRING DISORDERS 44 PROGRAM IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $10,424 FOR A TOTAL 45 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $38,634 (AB2001 -224) 46 47 48 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 11 1 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND 2 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND SUN COMMUNITY SERVICES TO 3 PROVIDE SHORT -TERM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SERVICES TO 4 WHATCOM COUNTY CONSUMERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE 5 AMENDED AMOUNT OF $14,600 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF 6 $81,702 (AB2001 -225) 7 8 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 9 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MART 10 KASK, INC. TO COMPLETE THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLANNING 11 AND UPDATE THE BIRCH BAY - BLAINE COMMUNITY PLAN TO COMPLY 12 WITH THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN THE 13 CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $66,000 WITH THE COUNTY PROVIDING 14 $8,780 (AB2001 -226) 15 16 17 OTHER ITEMS 18 19 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, 20 RELATING TO NONCONFORMING SURFACE MINES AND SURFACE 21 MINING IN RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, RURAL FORESTRY AND 22 COMMERCIAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2000 -301) 23 24 McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this is 25 held in committee until September 11. They want to get a response from the state. 26 The Planning Commission approach has been forwarded to the state for a report 27 due in August. 28 29 2. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR PROCEEDING 30 WITH FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OF THE " "Y" ROAD LANDFILL (AB2001- 31 208) 32 33 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 34 stated that this item was withdrawn by the Health Department, and would be 35 rescheduled in two weeks. 36 37 3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD (AB2001- 38 204) 39 40 Crawford nominated Ed Henken for the water right holder position. 41 42 Dawson nominated Doug Campbell for the non -water right holder position. 43 44 Brenner nominated Tom Shoen for the non -water right holder position. 45 46 McShane nominated Debbie Craig for the non -water right hold position. 47 48 Water Right Holder Position Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 12 1 2 Nelson moved to appoint Ed Henken by acclamation. 3 4 Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag absent. 5 6 Non -Water Right Holder Position 7 8 Brenner voted for Shoen. 9 10 Crawford voted for Campbell. 11 12 Dawson voted for Campbell. 13 14 Imhof voted for Campbell. 15 16 McShane voted for Craig. 17 18 Nelson voted for Campbell. 19 20 Doug Campbell was appointed. 21 22 23 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 24 25 Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items. 26 27 Motion carried 6 -0 with Hoag absent. 28 29 Nelson stated a substitute Introduction Item eight was submitted by the 30 administration earlier in the day. 31 32 The Council concurred. 33 34 1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON " "THE 35 LOGS RESORT," FILE NO. APL99 -0008, FILED BY WHATCOM COUNTY 36 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (AB2001 -218) 37 38 2. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON "'THE 39 LOGS RESORT," FILE NO. APL99 -0008, FILED BY WASHINGTON 40 STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (AB2001 -218A) 41 42 3. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX YEAR 43 COMPREHENSIVE ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2002 THROUGH 44 2007 (AB2001 -227) 45 46 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.10 SOLID 47 WASTE AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION (AB2001 -228) 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 13 1 5. ORDINANCE CREATING THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2001 -229) 3 4 6. RESOLUTION TO EXCHANGE COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY REQUEST 5 NO. 03 -01 (AB2001 -219A) 6 7 7. RESOLUTION TO EXCHANGE COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY REQUEST 8 NO. 04 -01 (AB2001 -220A) 9 10 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, REQUEST 11 #6 (AB2001 -230) 12 13 14 OTHER BUSINESS 15 16 Crawford stated he would work with legal counsel regarding the amount of 17 allowed impervious surfaces in the Lake Whatcom watershed. 18 19 20 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 21 22 Brenner stated she'd been asked to serve on the Puget Sound Energy's 23 Citizen Advisory Panel. There will only be four meetings. Let her know of any 24 issues or concerns. 25 26 Crawford stated he was surprised that the County Executive, in his State of 27 the County address, did not mention the positive things that are happening in the 28 Human Services Division of the Health and Human Services Department. There are 29 some very positive changes happening. That is an area that is not covered by the 30 press. There is a lot of citizen involvement. There have been some changes and 31 important things happening. He asked Councilmember Brenner, as a previous 32 member of the Developmental Disabilities Board and Substance Abuse Advisory 33 Board, how to bring issues before the County Council. It would be good for the 34 County Council to get some exposure to the things that are changing. The 35 complete role of the Developmental Disabilities Board is changing positively. Much 36 of it is due to the work of Andy Byrne and Yvonne Sorter. He suggested having a 37 presentation at a Council Meeting, he could submit information in writing, or he 38 could present a report. These changes will affect how the County processes 39 contracts. 40 41 Nelson suggested a presentation to the Board of Health. 42 43 Brenner stated another option is to have an annual presentation from the 44 Human Services Division to the County Council or Board of Health. 45 46 Dawson stated she would encourage a presentation at a Council meeting 47 because they are televised, and it is a way to educate the public. 48 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on July 24, 2001. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 7/10/2001, Page 15