HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 5 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
Special County Council
June 5, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 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
PUBLIC HEARING
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Robert Imhof
Sam Crawford
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 1.12, COUNCIL
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES (AB2001 -045A)
Shirley Forslof, County Auditor, stated the precincts must be changed at least
30 days before the date for filing for elected office. The County Council's deadline
for approving this in time for the November election is June 22. Her office must
verify that a candidate resides in the proper precinct and district for the office in
which he or she is running for office.
Forslof stated that this is a short time frame. After the County Council
changes the ordinance, her office must notify all the voters, change its computer
program to assign the correct precincts to the correct Council districts, mail out
voter cards, and have new precinct maps produced to show the Council district
lines. They are down to one precinct map. They have not produced more precinct
maps because they are waiting to see what the County Council does.
Nelson stated the Council does not change the district map. The Council's
purpose is to accept what the Districting Committee accomplished, or refer the map
back to the Districting Committee in regards to concerns raised in the hearing, or
vote the whole thing down, in which the boundaries would go back to the old
district map.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the third option is not a
real option. The Council only accepts the plan or refers it back to the committee.
The County Charter put the authority to revise the district map in the committee's
hands, not the Council's hands. Also, under state law, the County has eight months
after the receipt of the census data by the county to revise its districting map. The
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, 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
County received the census data on March 26, 2001. The County Charter wanted
the redistricting done by May 1, but that was impractical, and there is no penalty
for missing that deadline. The state law deadline is November 26, 2001. The
Auditor is working on tight deadlines in relation to the upcoming election. If the
Council doesn't adopt the recommendations of the committee, and if further work is
required, they could get a plan in place which would not affect the election this fall,
finalize it by this November, and not have any problems with summer and fall
elections.
Hoag questioned the date that people can mail their filing in. Forslof stated
that date is July 9, ten working days prior to the official filing day. Filing week
begins the fourth Monday in July. In fairness to candidates, the candidates should
know if they are in or out of a Council district. It takes some time to make a
decision to file.
Hoag stated the law requires this to be completed 30 days prior to the filing
date, and questioned the deadline in relation to the mail -in deadline. Grant stated
the state deadline is 30 days before the filing week.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Les Reardanz, Districting Committee, stated he and fellow committee
member Todd Gunn were available for questions.
Hearing no one else, Nelson closed the public hearing.
Dawson stated two Port of Bellingham commissioners were going to be in
district two as a result of this, and questioned whether the committee knew of this.
Terry Unger, Districting Master, stated the chair of the committee asked for a
list of all the elected officials in the County, but they overlooked the Port of
Bellingham and did not check it.
Todd Gunn, Districting Committee member, stated the Port of Bellingham
only references the council districts in its appointment requirements, and the Port
can change how its appointments are done, independent of the County.
Dawson stated she heard that the Port could not do that any longer because
the state legislature tied the Port appointments to the county districts.
Reardanz stated the committee discussed how the changes would affect the
County- appointed boards and commissions.
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, 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
Grant stated that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29.40.100 provides
certain criteria that the committee must abide by. The law doesn't reference
thoughts to particular elected officials, per se. The districts should be equal in
population as much as possible. That language is paralleled in the County Charter.
Each district shall be as compact as possible, should consist of a geographically
contiguous area, and population data must not be used to favor or disfavor a
particular racial group or political party. The last criterion is that, to the extent
feasible and not inconsistent with the basic enabling legislation for the municipal
corporation, county, or district, the district boundary shall coincide with existing
recognized natural boundaries and shall, to the extent possible, preserve existing
communities of related and mutual interest. An argument could be made that Ms.
Dawson's concerns would fit in the last category.
Nelson stated his concern is that it raises the issue of whether or not the
County did a good job on this. There were not a lot of changes from the original
map, and it doesn't seem that there is much of an impact. However, they did have
an impact on one of the elected jurisdictions. The committee should probably
redress that. He questioned whether the committee members would be interested
in looking at that concern.
Reardanz stated the committee discussed sticking to the criteria and mainly
looked at population. He didn't speak for the other members of the committee. He
would be willing to talk with the rest of the membership and legal counsel to ensure
that they are complying with the legal criteria.
Hoag stated she represents district two. She was surprised that her district
extended to Cornwall Park in Bellingham. She was concerned that agricultural and
timber interests were underrepresented on the Council. Her constituents have told
her that district two should be mostly rural. The criteria that the boundaries
preserve existing communities of related and mutual interests includes agricultural
and timber communities. In an attempt to balance the population, they keep
including a piece of Bellingham in district two. With the exception of her, everyone
on the County Council lives with 15 to 20 minutes of the courthouse. She lives 45
minutes away. Many of the councilmembers are not familiar with rural issues. She
questioned the breakdown of the population by district.
Unger stated that historically and traditionally, the County Commissioner
districts were designed so that each commissioner could travel to the courthouse in
his or her district, and not leave the district. The Guide Meridian was a traditional
boundary almost since time began in the county. The Kelly Road has been
observed as a traditional east -west boundary since time began. As districting
master, he looked at the historical boundaries. There was some intent to move the
Delta community into the second district, but it was rejected for historical reasons.
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, 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
The other issue, the medium they used, was 56,657 people per Council
district. The committee moved five precincts in total. One precinct was moved
from the third district, which reduced the population of the third district to 18
people below the median of 56,657. There is a five percent error data to the
census data. The numbers are based on the census data, interpolated with the
precinct data. Census data and precincts have no direct relation to each other.
Nelson stated that the City of Bellingham is roughly half the population of the
county, so each district must have a portion of the city in its boundaries.
Unger stated the committee leaned heavily on historic background to not
significantly change the boundaries. The committee was influenced by the fact
that, inside the City of Bellingham, the proposed line was cleaner by moving two
precincts from the second district to the first district and two precincts from the first
district to the second district. It appeared to make the boundary cleaner. There
was no other response from the committee other than it was a less confusing
boundary.
The first district population would be 57,006. The second district population
would be 56,325. The third district population would be 56,639. State law does
not define what the acceptable parameters are regarding population. The County
Charter says population has to be looked at, but split within one percent of the
population. The City of Bellingham boundaries are out of whack, but the City
doesn't choose to adjust its boundaries.
Hoag suggested putting Acme and Newhalem in district two. Unger stated
the districts have to be contiguous.
Dawson questioned whether they could even out the numbers if they adjust
the districts to account for the Port commissioner's situation. Unger stated the
committee looked at moving precinct 24 from the second district to the first district,
and moving precinct 11 from the third district to the second district. That would
even out the numbers.
Gunn stated the committee looked at the fact that this option got very close
to the desired population, but the committee liked the other option, because it
followed Alabama Street.
Hoag stated she wanted to find out if the Port could redistrict.
Grant stated he didn't know. He has not looked at the recent amendments.
Forslof stated she recalled that if there are three or fewer Council districts in
the county, then the Port's districts have to follow the Council's districts.
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, 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
Grant questioned whether the redistricting criteria demanded that the County
not change a particular person's residency in office. The Port official will be able to
fulfill his term. He will not be thrown off the Board of Commissioners. In the
future, the Port commissioner will have to change his residency or run for another
position.
Forslof stated that the Port official's term ends this year.
Grant stated this situation does not control the drawing of district
boundaries. The committee tried to address the criteria.
Gunn stated the committee looked at the population and tried to make the
boundaries as close to that median as possible.
Hoag stated this is a political consideration that should stay out of the
deliberations.
Reardanz stated the Districting Committee only looked at the County Council
membership.
Grant stated that the solution would be to pass on having this approved for
this fall's election, and have the Districting Committee back in October for the
November deadline.
Nelson stated the committee should consider the situation with the Port.
Forslof stated she would just go by the current district boundaries for the fall
election.
Nelson stated that the councilmembers, despite what their districts are,
campaign throughout the entire county. The councilmembers represent the entire
county. These changes are not going to alter campaigns or strategies significantly.
It is better to take this opportunity to re- examine the recommendation. He moved
to send the proposed district boundaries back to the Districting Committee.
Hoag stated she was concerned that they were not abiding by the County
Charter, and that there were no consequences to that. Grant stated that whoever
drafted this timeline in the Charter did not have an appreciation of the reality of the
situation, and probably thought that the census data was published earlier in the
year. This only happens every ten years. They only have a month to react to this.
The sensible thing to do is try to alter the deadline in the Charter to parallel the
deadline given in state law.
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, 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
Nelson stated that the recommendation can come from the Council to do a
charter amendment.
Reardanz stated that the Districting Committee approved a motion to
recommend that a charter amendment be made and for the County Council to use
any influence it has to change the state law. The state law redraws the legislative
districts, which affects the precincts and how the County draws its districts.
Nelson restated the motion to re- examine the boundaries in light of the
information obtained from the Port of Bellingham, and for the committee to make
specific recommendations on Charter amendments.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on June 12 , 2001.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Special County Council Meeting - Council District Boundaries, 6/5/2001, Page 6