Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 12 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council June 12, 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 SPECIAL PRESENTATION Absent: None STATE OF THE COUNTY ADDRESS BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN This item was withdrawn to a later date. APPROVAL OF MINUTES pages. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 29, 2001; REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 15 AND 29, 2001; SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 5, 2001 (DISTRICTING HEARING); BOARD OF HEALTH FOR JUNE 5, 2001 Imhof moved approval of the minutes, including the substitute Motion carried unanimously. OPEN SESSION Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 1 1 2 The following people spoke: 3 4 Kerry Chappell, 1121 Roland Street, read a letter into the record regarding 5 the Planned Parenthood facility being on County property (on file). She requested 6 the status of the rent free agreement between the controversial organization and 7 the County. 8 9 Dawson stated she reviewed Ms. Chappell's documents with the 10 administration. There is a valid contract. 11 12 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County has an agreement 13 that was established by the District Board of Health and adopted by Whatcom 14 County a number of years ago. County legal counsel says that the agreement is a 15 lease. The administration is discussing a revised lease agreement with Planned 16 Parenthood that includes a rent payment. Administration is not prepared to bring 17 that before the County Council today. The County has an excellent relationship 18 with Planned Parenthood, and is also following through with the concerns brought 19 forward by Ms. Chappell. 20 21 Kathy Larson, Puget Sound Energy Government and Community Relations 22 Manager, stated Puget Sound Energy (PSE) was recently awarded the highest 23 industry award, the Edison Award, recognizing their innovation for installing new 24 smart meters. The Edison Institute is an association of shareholder -owned utilities, 25 such as Puget Sound Energy. Today, the company is launching the new personal 26 energy management (PEM) tracker, with which customers can access their daily 27 energy use information on the PSE website. It is a pilot program involving 300,000 28 customers chosen at random from those who have had their meters installed the 29 longest. To go forward with the pilot program for all customers, the company has 30 to have approval from the regulatory commission. 31 32 In addition, the company just began it's program for a $.05 buyback per 33 kilowatt hour conserved over ten percent. The company recently refunded 34 $242,000 from customers. The average rebate on a customer's bill is $13.59. She 35 commended the County for setting the example by conserving an average of almost 36 25 percent on the courthouse bill. There should be a nice rebate coming to the 37 County. 38 39 Brenner stated that program rewards the most wasteful people who can 40 afford to cut ten percent of their energy use. Some people have been careful all 41 along. She would like to see Puget Sound Energy offer a rebate to customers who 42 have a low usage, whether or not that usage has been reduced. Larsen stated that 43 some utilities have had to raise rates because they've had to go to the expensive 44 marketplace to purchase energy. Puget Sound Energy is trying to not go there. If Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 2 1 all of the Puget Sound Energy customers collectively can conserve energy, then the 2 company will avoid having to go to that expensive marketplace. Because the 3 company is a cost -based utility, they would need to ask for a rate increase if costs 4 for purchasing the power rose tremendously. Getting all customers to collectively 5 conserve a little or a lot will make a big difference. 6 7 This year compared to last year, all of their customers have conserved about 8 nine percent, but it is warmer this year than last year. If corrected for 9 temperature, they've only conserved about four percent. That is not enough. That 10 is why they offer this incentive. 11 12 Nelson asked why it is more expensive in the marketplace rather than from 13 their own generation. Larson stated contracts are at set prices. The marketplace is 14 like the stock market. There is no rhyme or reason for the price changes. The 15 market is based only on supply and demand. 16 17 Nelson asked if there is a way to control those market prices or cap the costs 18 of power. Larson stated President Bush will not approve price caps. If there isn't 19 enough supply, then new generation needs to be built. 20 21 Hoag stated it takes two years to build a power plant. She was concerned 22 that the industries who have to purchase that expensive power can't afford to do 23 that for two years. She would propose a resolution that the prices they charge be 24 tied to their fundamental cost of production plus a reasonable rate of return. That 25 does not cap the price at any rate. 26 27 Brenner stated it caps the rate of return. 28 29 Hoag stated they are leaving the rate of return to the experts to figure out. 30 31 Nelson questioned why the energy cost has gone up. 32 33 Hoag stated energy is sold as a necessary commodity that can't be stored or 34 banked. 35 36 Larson stated energy is sold as a commodity and the cost is based on supply 37 and demand. The government will not step in and put price caps on. It will let the 38 free market reign. Many of the industries in the northwest were somewhat 39 different than in other parts of the country. In other parts of the country, 40 industries had their own power plant onsite. Washington State companies have not 41 done that. They have had very cheap, hydroelectric power for many years, which 42 has drawn people here. The energy resources have not been able to keep up with 43 the demand. 44 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 3 1 McShane questioned when the scenario of rolling blackouts would occur with 2 Puget Sound Energy. Larson stated there would be a rolling blackout for the entire 3 region if there was some type of problematic disaster, such as a large power plant 4 going down. The cause would be beyond Puget Sound Energy's control. Puget 5 Sound Energy has a blackout plan, and is working with the emergency management 6 directors in all of the counties they serve. In addition, they are working with a 7 number of their large customers who would voluntarily curtail their use in an 8 emergency. There are rates available that would be advantageous to them if they 9 are sitting on line, waiting for the power company to come to them. 10 11 Hoag questioned whether the Governor would require rolling blackouts for 12 Puget Sound Energy customers and that Puget Sound Energy redirect its power 13 supply to other customers, even if Puget Sound Energy has enough power to serve 14 its customers. Larson stated the Governor is the commander in chief, and has that 15 power. 16 17 Larson stated Puget Sound Energy is being recognized by the industry with 18 this award. 19 20 Hoag questioned whether customers have to agree to the time of use rates 21 to be included in the pilot program. Larson stated the pilot program customers 22 have the time of day option, and can opt out of the pilot program if they want to. 23 24 Hoag questioned whether a customer could have the special meter without 25 having the special rate. Larson stated a customer could. 26 27 Pat Brown, Deputy Sheriff Detective, invited the Council to the Deputy 28 Sheriff's arbitration hearings this week. The County representatives were unable to 29 answer a question during arbitration, and referred the deputies to the Council. 30 Rather than ask the question here, he invited the councilmembers to attend the 31 hearings on June 13 and 14 at 9:00 a.m. at the alternative corrections building. 32 33 Hoag questioned whether the councilmembers were allowed to attend. 34 35 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he didn't think the 36 councilmembers were allowed to attend, but he would look into it. 37 38 Brown stated that in law enforcement labor contracts generally, wages are 39 compared with other comparables in the law enforcement profession. The deputies 40 asked the question of how the County came to the decision of offering a three 41 percent wage increase. The deputies were told that most other departments 42 settled at two percent, except the corrections officers settled for three percent. The 43 deputies were told that the reasoning for that was because the Council felt it was Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 4 1 fair that the bargaining units having interest arbitration be offered one percent 2 more than the rest of the County. That didn't sound right to the deputies. 3 4 Nelson stated the assumption is probably right. He asked how the Sheriff's 5 Guild decides what offer to accept. Brown stated they look at their comparables. 6 The County's representatives said they did not look at the comparables. 7 8 Nelson stated both sides do the same thing any time during negotiation. 9 10 Jim Smith, Deputy Sheriff, stated they were told that the hearings are open 11 to the public, which is why the Council is invited. The County representative 12 testified today on behalf of the Council. If the councilmembers had attended, they 13 could have answered a question posed to the representative. The representative 14 testified that the Council was ordered to stand firm at three percent per year. 15 When the representative was asked why, she responded that it was out of fairness 16 to other employees, meaning the other bargaining units. The representative also 17 testified that the three percent offer was based on internal equity rather than the 18 outside labor market and the economic labor market. That is of concern because 19 outside comparables are supposed to be considered. The Consumer Price Index 20 (CPI) is running at about four percent. 21 22 Hoag stated that is the Seattle's CPI. The legal department keeps the 23 Council on a very short leash, for the sake of the taxpayer. 24 25 Smith stated that the County's representative also testified that Sheriff Office 26 staff received raises in excess of three percent, up to 4.5 percent in some cases, 27 based on external comparables. 28 29 30 PUBLIC HEARING 31 32 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFT EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF THE 33 TITLE 21 LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (AB2001 -153) 34 35 Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: 36 37 Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, Bellingham, stated he would like to 38 see the initial five -year sale prohibition reinstated. He thanked Senior Planner Matt 39 Aamot for his information and help on this issue. Mr. Aamot has always kept him 40 informed on what is going on. When the Council changed Title 21, it forgot to 41 include that sale prohibition, and everyone was then able to sell their property 42 immediately upon segregation. 43 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 5 1 Hoag asked Mr. Isaacson if he was supportive of the changes made by the 2 Planning Commission. Isaacson stated this has gone through the public process 3 and there was much public input. Staff may have put in some changes that were 4 not addressed by the Planning Commission, the public, or the Council. One of the 5 changes staff added is to subsection (e) regarding ingress and egress. He 6 understood staff's position; however, he did not support that section. He supported 7 subsections (a) through (d). 8 9 Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing. 10 11 McShane moved to adopt the ordinance on Council packet page 190, which is 12 the version recommended by the Council Planning and Development Committee. 13 There were efforts by all three committee members to amend that version, but they 14 were not approved. 15 16 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, clarified that the version on Council packet page 17 190 is the staff's recommendation. The emergency ordinance was done six weeks 18 ago. There are other issues in this permanent ordinance that were not included in 19 the emergency ordinance. The five -year sale restriction is still the main issue. He 20 did not write up the version of the ordinance recommended by the Planning and 21 Development Committee because it is exactly the same as the staff's 22 recommendation. 23 24 In 1972, the County adopted Title 8, the subdivision regulations. At that 25 time, the division of four lots or less would require a short -plat from Whatcom 26 County. Several exemptions were established, including the gift exemption. There 27 was no five -year limitation on selling the parcel at that time. In 1979, that was 28 changed, and a five -year restriction was added to the regulation. One couldn't sell 29 a gifted parcel for five years. That restriction remained in the County's ordinance 30 until December 2000, when the new code was adopted. The gift exemption 31 provision was discussed a lot by the Technical Advisory Committee, the Planning 32 Commission, and the County Council. 33 34 Brenner stated Mr. Aamot did a great job arguing his point, although she 35 didn't agree with it. She supported the Planning Commission version. She didn't 36 support the motion. 37 38 Imhof stated five -acre zoning is the worst thing that ever happened to the 39 County, especially in the rural area. One acre is plenty. He would not support the 40 ordinance because the minimum exemption is five acres. Also, he did not support 41 subsection (f). 42 43 Dawson questioned whether the size of the gifted lot depends on the zoning. 44 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 6 1 Imhof stated it does not. 2 3 Hoag questioned whether the gift exemption is just an alternative to the 4 short -plat process. Aamot stated that was correct. There are two things going on. 5 One thing is that the state's platting laws say that one has to have at least five 6 acres to qualify for an exemption. The other thing is that the exemption has to 7 meet the zoning district. 8 9 Hoag questioned whether the language in section (b) reflects state law. 10 Aamot stated it does. 11 12 Hoag stated the Council received a comment about bringing access points up 13 to County standards. She questioned whether the original language for legal 14 ingress and egress access of record would require developers to build roads to 15 County standards for a gift exemption. She questioned whether the new language 16 adds an additional requirement. Aamot stated that was a matter of debate about 17 what "legal access" meant. He and the Technical Advisory Committee interpreted 18 the term to mean the development standards. This language was added to clarify 19 that is the case. The access point has to meet sight distance. The Engineering 20 Division wanted to include a requirement for an easement that is wide enough for a 21 road when it is eventually constructed. 22 23 Hoag questioned whether an easement for access through a gifted parcel 24 would be legal access, but would not have to meet County standards because it is 25 just going across private property. Aamot stated an easement to one lot would 26 have to meet development standards. 27 28 Imhof stated the language is not about easements. It just addresses access 29 points to public roads. At those points, the apron would have to be paved and 30 there would have to be an appropriate sight distance. 31 32 McShane stated there was a separate recommendation that he offered in the 33 Public Works Committee that the ingress /egress must meet County road standards. 34 35 Hoag questioned whether the County is adding another burden by adding the 36 language in subsection (e). The Council received a considerable amount of public 37 testimony on that very point. 38 39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 40 41 Hoag continued to state that she did not want to add an additional burden if 42 the easement goes to only one property. 43 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 7 Richard Duane, Engineering Development Manager, stated they do not require that an easement be a specific width at this time. The new language would not require that an easement be a specific width. One is not allowed to create a landlocked parcel, so he or she needs to provide an access to that parcel. The Engineering Division originally asked that a development standard be met on the lots that would be accessed. That required an easement and road of a specific size. They need to ensure that the properties have proper access. Someone from the Engineering Division will visit the lot and verify where the access point is, so they don't create a future hazard. He is talking about the access point, not the entire lane. The road doesn't have to be constructed at the time the property is gifted. Dawson questioned whether the access to one home, when developed, has to be developed according to the County road standards. Duane stated that once a building permit is issued, the fire marshal would review that access point and determine if that access point is wide enough to take on an emergency vehicle. If there are more than one house on that access point, then there are specific standards. Once there is more than five houses, the driveway must get a little wider, and the standards begin to come up. One house will not have a specific roadway standard. road. Brenner questioned whether they could have turnouts instead of a wider Imhof stated that is part of the road standards that one has to meet. Warner Webb, Fire Marshal, stated that for a single lot, he and the developer will discuss the requirements of the driveway when a developer applies for a building permit. When there are multiple users to the road, he is bound by the Revised Code of Washington to follow the currently adopted development standards. He would provide the same information that the Engineering Division would provide if the road were developed at the beginning of the gift deed process. The easement mechanism is what he doesn't have the authority to get at building permit time. The easement process they're discussing is so one can't land lock a parcel. Brenner stated this language talks about standards, which is different from land locking a parcel. Someone could have a ten or fourteen foot driveway that would keep someone from being land locked, but does not meet the County standard. This language is very unclear. Nelson stated the language is clear. It talks about the access point, the point it meets the County road system. Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 8 Imhof stated this is just a part of the development standards. For a short - plat, the number of potential houses dictates what the road standard is going to be. This just addresses gift platting and how the access point to the plat is going to be governed as it comes off a County road. From that point on, the development standards will determine the road standards. Hoag asked for clarification on the term "multiple user" as stated by Mr. Webb. Webb stated that the first user would build a driveway in. The second user would build a potentially wider road. The County is bound to follow the development standard as closely as possible, as long as they don't mitigate the fire and life safety of the situation. Nelson questioned whether the County evaluates a site according to the development that was applied for or the potential development that is possible. Webb stated the development standards require the evaluation based on what was applied for. At the time the developer wants to subdivide further, there would be more requirements to widen the access. Brenner stated the County doesn't have a big problem with this five -year sale issue. The County is going to hurt a lot of people who are doing the right thing, because it is worried about this spike. The County should leave it the way it is. That may inspire the administration to work with the Council to fix the short -plat process. McShane stated that the gift exemption process does not look at the potential for more gift exemptions or short -plats in the future. He moved to amend Whatcom County Code (WCC) 21.03.020, "(f) All lots in such divisions shall have access onto maintained public roads constructed to current minimum road standards for two -way traffic." The current subsection (f) would become subsection (g). Anyone doing a short -plat has to take that potential into account. Anyone doing a short -plat or a long -plat in the vicinity of a gift exemption would have to pay for and suffer the consequences of gift exemptions that don't have to take into account the impacts they are having on local roads. If councilmembers have problems with the County road standards, that is a separate issue and should be addressed differently. The Council is allowing a group of people to not take into account the traffic impacts just because they are giving land away to their children or grandchildren. This exemption causes harm to other people. Brenner stated that is a huge burden. When a person goes in to develop a lot, he or she has to meet certain standards anyway, depending on how many lots are going to be developed. The issue is going to take care of itself. They don't need any more impervious areas in the county. Imhof stated he did not support the motion. Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 9 1 2 Nelson questioned whether it is the road access issue that makes the gift 3 exemption process easier to work with than the short -plat process. Aamot stated 4 that may be a part of it. Title 21 has a requirement for road frontage 5 improvements on short - plats. That can be quite a bit more expensive. The short - 6 plat processing time is not entirely spent in the County's offices. The developer and 7 surveyor can take months to meet the County's requirements. 8 9 Nelson questioned whether the Engineering Division has a significant impact 10 on the short -plat. Aamot stated it does have an effect on the roads. 11 12 Nelson questioned how many lots could be gifted. Aamot stated a person 13 could create up to four lots, three gift lots and one original lot. 14 15 Hoag stated the Planning and Development Services Department has done a 16 good job on the short - plats. The requirements for short -plats are there to protect 17 the consumer and to make sure the issues are addressed up front by the developer, 18 which is appropriate. The difference with this is that it is a gift exemption between 19 family, and government doesn't have to protect family against family. She 20 supported the exemption. It is important to differentiate between this and the 21 short -plat process. She supported the staff recommendations. The fact that people 22 have tried to use this as a development tool does not mean that there is something 23 wrong with the short - platting process. It just says that they would rather do 24 something that is less onerous up front, and pass the burden on to the future 25 purchaser, which is not an appropriate way to develop property. She didn't support 26 Councilmember McShane's proposal, although she respected it. 27 28 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with McShane in favor. 29 30 Nelson clarified that the document they are working on begins on Council 31 packet page 190, the staff's recommendation. 32 33 Brenner moved to eliminate all references to the five -year waiting period 34 from WCC 21.03.020(d) and (f). 35 36 Dawson stated the waiting period is important. People could take advantage 37 of it. If a person is going to act like a developer, then he or she should do what a 38 developer must do. A family gift of land should be just that. 39 40 Hoag agreed with Councilmember Dawson. If this is abused, which it would 41 be, the County will end up losing the exemption for families altogether. It is 42 important that the five -year waiting period remain. 43 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 10 1 Crawford questioned whether subsection (d) has to do with further 2 subdivisions, and subsection (f) has to do with selling the property. Aamot stated 3 that is correct. 4 5 Crawford questioned whether Councilmember Brenner's intention is to 6 eliminate the five -year restriction on further subdivisions. 7 8 Brenner stated a person should not have to wait five years to do a second or 9 third gift. 10 11 Crawford stated the motion is not appropriate because they would eliminate 12 all reference to five years. 13 14 Brenner moved to amend subsection (d) to the Planning Commission 15 recommendation, and eliminate subsection (f). 16 17 McShane stated that, by approving the motion, the gift exemption will have 18 nothing to do with family. It is a way to avoid doing what developers are supposed 19 to do. Aamot stated the number of exemptions applied for mushroomed until the 20 emergency ordinance took effect. The week of April 19 through April 26, there 21 were the approximately the same number of lots applied for as gift exemptions as 22 one would see in a typical year. 23 24 Imhof stated the reason was that people saw it coming and wanted to beat 25 the clock. Before that date, the typical amount of applications received was six or 26 eight per month. Aamot stated there were fewer in the beginning. Word got out 27 that there was no restriction. 28 29 Imhof stated word got out that there would be further restrictions, so people 30 wanted to beat the clock. Aamot stated it is hard to know what people's 31 motivations are. 32 33 McShane stated the gift exemption existed without any problems. It all went 34 fine for 21 years. The Council made the change in December, which created a 35 loophole for developers that hadn't been there for 21 years. 36 37 Hoag stated there is also a difference in the number of lots created by those 38 applications. Historically, applicants were not all applying for four lots each. The 39 recent applications all are for four lots. It is quite clear that this is simply an 40 attempt to avoid the short -plat process. It is not a land rush to get in a gift 41 exemption before the five -year removal. 42 43 Brenner stated there have been more complaints over the last ten years 44 about how difficult the County has made it for people to have affordable housing. Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 11 1 The real problem is with the short -plat process. That is what the Council needs to 2 work on. There are other ways to address this to make sure it goes from family 3 member to family member. Once a person gives something away, it is no longer 4 theirs. It is a one -time thing. It is not a problem. There are other ways to keep it 5 from being used as a tool for major development. 6 7 Motion carried 4 -3 with McShane, Hoag, and Dawson opposed. 8 9 Hoag moved to reinstate the language in subsections (d) and (f) on Council 10 packet page 190. 11 12 Nelson stated that motion would require reconsideration by the Council. 13 14 Hoag requested a parliamentary inquiry on whether or not her motion was 15 valid without reconsideration. Councilmember Brenner had said that gift 16 exemptions would stay within the family, so it won't be a problem. However, any 17 developer who wants to develop property through a gift exemption rather than a 18 short plat can gift it all to a spouse, and then immediately sell it. That developer 19 would have just bypassed the short -plat process. It is not something that 20 guarantees that this will remain an option for families. 21 22 McShane stated that Councilmember Brenner had made a statement that the 23 gift exemption is a one -time deal. This language is not a one -time deal. The 24 developer gets to do it again. He moved to amend subsection (d), "...or binding site 25 plan procedure, except fOF any furtheF gift exen9ptiens. If there is no instrument...." 26 27 Imhof stated that is appropriate. 28 29 Nelson stated subsection (a) says that no more than four lots can be created. 30 There is no need for further discussion about how this is going to create multiple 31 developments. 32 33 Hoag questioned what would prevent someone from dividing a lot through a 34 gift exemption, if one is in a zone that allows further division of a lot that had been 35 gifted. An 80 -acre parcel in R5A zoning could be gifted into four 20 -acre parcels. 36 She questioned what would prevent a person from further gift exempting the 20- 37 acre parcels into five -acre parcels. Aamot stated subsection (c) requires that the 38 new lots must be created from a legal lot of record that existed as of the effective 39 date of the ordinance. That language is intended to prevent the 20 -acre parcels 40 from being further divided into five -acre gift parcels. One cannot create a gift 41 exemption division on any lot that was not a legal lot of record after this date. 42 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 12 1 Hoag questioned whether the original lot, once changed because of the gift 2 exemption, is no longer a lot of record as of the date of the gift. Aamot stated that 3 is correct. Subsection (d) might actually conflict with subsection (c). 4 5 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Planning Commission 6 didn't want this activity occurring on parcels of land that are not on legal lots of 7 record, and exacerbating existing problems. He didn't see the limitation that Mr. 8 Aamot sees. 9 10 Aamot stated the intent was that they should not do back -to -back 11 exemptions or more than four lots total. One could have ended up with 16 lots 12 through the exemption process, and not gone through the public hearing and long - 13 plat process. 14 15 Imhof stated Councilmember McShane's motion clarifies that intent. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 19 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated that Councilmember Hoag's 20 motion to reinstate language in sections (d) and (f) would require a motion to 21 reconsider. 22 23 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 5 -2 with McShane and 24 Hoag opposed. 25 26 27 CONSENT AGENDA 28 29 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 30 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through four and six. Item five was 31 held in committee pending receipt of recommendations from the Lummi Island 32 Transportation Committee. 33 34 Motion to approve items one through four and six carried 6 -0 with Crawford 35 absent from the room. 36 37 1. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT 38 REIMBURSEMENT AREA AND ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF 39 ACADEMY ROAD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO 40 ENTER INTO THE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 98- 41 01 (AB2001 -098A) 42 43 2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 998026 44 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE ALDERWOOD /AIRPORT /W. Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 13 1 BAKERVIEW ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE 2 BIDDER, WILDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF 3 $1,230,825.19 (AB2001 -192) 4 5 3. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LEAD -BASED PAINT HAZARD 6 REDUCTION PROGRAM (AB2001 -193) 7 8 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD THE 9 BELLINGHAM HERALD THE BID AS SOLE SOURCE FOR WHATCOM 10 COUNTY'S OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE 11 TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT WITH SAID SOLE SOURCE (AB2001- 12 194) 13 14 S. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FERRY RATES AS SET FORTH IN WHATCOM 15 COUNTY ORDINANCES NO. 89 -103, 91 -046 AND 93 -040, WITH A 16 RECOMMENDATION OF NO RATE INCREASE FOR 2001 (AB2001 -195) 17 18 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 19 TWO AND A HALF YEAR RECYCLING HOTLINE CONTRACT BETWEEN 20 WHATCOM COUNTY AND RE SOURCES TO PROVIDE A WASTE 21 REDUCTION/ RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 22 HOTLINE TO WHATCOM COUNTY RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES IN 23 THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2001 -196) 24 25 OTHER ITEMS 26 27 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.03, BOARDS AND 28 COMMISSIONS, TO CLARIFY TERM LENGTHS AND CREATE UNIFORM 29 TERM ENDING DATES (AB2001 -155) 30 31 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 32 moved approval. 33 34 Motion carried unanimously. 35 36 2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW FUND DEDICATED TO INMATE 37 TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING (AB2001 -187) 38 39 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 40 moved approval. Several funds will be closed in the next few months. This is to 41 reflect new accounting procedures. 42 43 Motion carried unanimously. 44 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 14 1 3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW FUND DEDICATED TO THE 2 WHATCOM COUNTY SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN (AB2001- 3 188) 4 5 Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 6 moved approval. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously. 9 10 Imhof moved to reconsider Consent Agenda item three, a resolution in 11 support of lead -based paint hazard reduction program (AB2001 -193) to 12 approve the substitute resolution, which amends the funding amount to $312,991. 13 More money was made available through the grant fund. 14 15 Motion to reconsider Consent Agenda item three carried unanimously. 16 17 Imhof moved to approve the substitute resolution distributed during the 18 Finance Committee meeting. The County is entitled to more money than what was 19 originally planned. The original amount was approximately $168,000. The 20 amended amount is $312,991. It is all grant money. 21 22 Motion carried unanimously. 23 24 4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF 25 NICOLE GRANT TO HER FIRST FULL TERM ON THE AMERICAN'S WITH 26 DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE (AB2001 -199) 27 28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 29 30 Imhof moved approval. 31 32 Motion carried unanimously. 33 34 35 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 36 37 Dawson moved to accept the Introduction Item. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB2001- 42 200) 43 44 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 15 1 2 OTHER BUSINESS 3 4 Hoag stated a constituent contacted her about the presence of cancer among 5 all her neighbors in a five -mile radius in the South Pass Road area. she passed the 6 information along to the Health and Human Services Department. 7 8 Nelson questioned whether the forms of cancer were identified. 9 10 Hoag stated they were. 11 12 Hoag proposed a resolution regarding stabilizing electric energy prices 13 (AB2001 -202) to take to the National Association of Counties (NACo) because of 14 what has occurred to local industry. This comes from someone who is a laissez 15 faire economist. She talks about doing this with great hesitancy; however, they 16 need to recognize that industry, including agriculture, is being crippled across the 17 country. Historically, Bonneville Power Administration power costs have been low. 18 Beginning in May 2000, the prices shot up out of control. The resolution does not 19 propose a firm price cap, which would intrude into the market unnecessarily. She 20 proposed that a meaningful threshold be set above which power could not be sold 21 on the wholesale market unless the party could justify the rate, based on the 22 fundamental cost of production, including a reasonable rate of return. This will not 23 prevent alternative sources from being developed, new generation, or hamper 24 companies from making a legitimate profit. This will prevent people from charging 25 $3,000 per megawatt. She is trying to protect local industry, which needs to have 26 stability and affordability. A two -year sunset clause will give them time to resolve 27 the problems going on in the electric market. This resolution was brought up by 28 the Environment, Energy, and Land Use Steering Committee at NACo. This 29 resolution is also being sponsored by the director of the Oregon Association of 30 Counties, and is being brought forward in a number of counties. 31 32 Dawson stated she supported the legislation. 33 34 Brenner stated this isn't about supply and demand. There is a supply out 35 there. It is being artificially controlled and prevented from where it needs to go to. 36 It is unfortunate that they treat something that people can't live without as a 37 commodity. This resolution proposes a fluctuating cap. It has a bearing between 38 the cost and people's needs. She supported the resolution. 39 40 Nelson stated he is interested in the concept. He had a problem with 41 anything that has a cap on industry. He questioned whether this went through the 42 NACo committee. 43 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 16 1 Hoag stated it had. It has been referred to the national committee, but was 2 brought forward by the Western Interstate Region Committee, which approved it 3 unanimously. 4 5 Motion carried 5 -2 with Imhof and Crawford opposed. 6 7 Crawford moved to approve a resolution he just wrote regarding 8 councilmember collective bargaining agreement negotiation attendance 9 (AB2001 -203) (on file). He respects the process. It is effective. An individual's 10 participation in any form could represent only his or her views. The collective views 11 of the Council are represented through the County's representative, and that 12 communication is done in executive session. Approving the resolution would be an 13 appropriate response to the invitation that was made by the Deputy Guild 14 members. There is something to be said for the formal setting of a negotiation in 15 which the appointed members are there to negotiate. 16 17 Brenner stated she supported Councilmember Crawford's position, but it is a 18 public hearing. The councilmembers are elected individually. There is no way that 19 any collective bargaining unit can take something that one councilmember says as 20 the word of the entire Council. She supported reaffirming the Council's support of 21 the administration. If it is a public hearing, anyone should be able to go. 22 23 Nelson stated he was concerned that the administration speaks on behalf of 24 the Council, and then recommends that the bargainers ask the Council about its 25 position. Each councilmember may have differing reasons for reaching the same 26 conclusion. 27 28 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated each person has a different view 29 of reality. The administration urged the Council to let the administration do its job. 30 The administration tries to create a lot of respect and authority for the County 31 Council. If the Council participates in activities in this effort, the administration will 32 not be nearly as effective at trying to carry out the policy of the Council. The 33 administration needs the Council's active support. Let the administrator carry 34 forward with the negotiations, and bring back recommendations on how to proceed. 35 36 Hoag stated she was surprised that what was said during the Council's 37 executive session was repeated outside of executive session. She questioned 38 whether a representative of the Council has the same constraints as the Council 39 about what conversations occur in executive session. 40 41 Imhof stated that the representative reflected what the Council told her to 42 do. 43 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 17 1 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated if that was the case, then 2 he agreed with councilmember Imhof. In general, the representatives are bound 3 by the same restrictions as the Council. 4 5 Hoag questioned whether there is a legal requirement for the 6 councilmembers to not participate in the negotiation and hearings. Grant stated he 7 believed there is a legal requirement. 8 9 Hoag questioned whether the resolution is unnecessary if there is a legal 10 requirement. Grant stated a power vested in the Council by the County Charter is 11 to establish that compensation be paid to all County officers and employees. The 12 Charter recognizes the separation of authority and power between the legislative 13 and executive branches of government. That division of labor is heightened by 14 Whatcom County Code 3.04, Personnel. This is an ordinance that establishes the 15 personnel system. The authority and functions of the administrative role of the 16 personnel system was given to the County Executive. The County Council 17 empowered the County Executive to undergo these negotiations on behalf of the 18 County. It would be improper, given the separation of authority in the Charter and 19 the power given to the Executive in the County Code, to be involved. The 20 Executive's Office will ultimately come to the Council to pay a particular amount. 21 The process used to arrive at that amount is the Executive's authority. 22 23 Brenner stated that separation of powers works in a perfect world. She's 24 heard before that the Council is getting blamed for certain things in bargaining 25 negotiations. Grant stated the proposed resolution does not prohibit someone from 26 sitting in on a hearing, but participating. If the Council thinks something is going 27 on that it should look into, the Charter gives the Council the authority to do that. 28 The Council can subpoena people, if it wants. 29 30 Nelson stated that the Council could subpoena people to deal with laws. 31 These are contracts, which are negotiated by the administration and approved by 32 the Council. Contracts are a delicate situation because they become an agreement 33 between two parties. In a legal sense, it is difficult if multiple people are discussing 34 contract issues. That is his greatest concern. The resolution is appropriate to let 35 everyone know what the process is. 36 37 Brenner stated she just wanted to make sure that the administration does 38 not make the Council look like the bad guy unnecessarily. 39 40 Hoag questioned whether they need to clarify that participation means verbal 41 interaction. Grant stated that is clear, given the discussion. 42 43 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 44 Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, 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 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Brenner stated she attended the Women in Timber timber tour. It was wonderful. Everything has become very mechanized. This tour is different every year. Between 40 and 60 people attended. Hoag reported that the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee had a Discussion regarding the agreement between Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) and Whatcom, Skagit, and Island Counties for an outdoor fire permit warden (AB2001- 164A). This was held in committee for two weeks so the committee members can get input from the fire district chiefs. Imhof reported for the Finance and Administrative Service Committee regarding the update from Mike Brennen, Bellingham Chamber Of Commerce, on the Business Service Center Program (AB2001 -201). Mr. Brennen is going to give this update quarterly. If there are questions that other councilmembers might want answered at the next presentation, give those questions to Mr. Brennen. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on June 26 , 2001. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 6/12/2001, Page 19