HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole November 28 20001
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
Committee Of The Whole
November 28, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
Connie Hoag
1. DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY PROSECUTOR DAVE
MCEACHRAN AND SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR DAVE GRANT
REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2000 -018)
This item was withdrawn.
OTHER ITEMS
ADDENDUM:
DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL
REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
(AB2000 -132)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated there are two issues. The first
issue is the Water Quality Technical Team Proposal for the Stage 2 Water Rights
Review.
Dawson stated they need to discuss what exactly they are going to do, and
who is going to do it.
Roll stated he was looking for guidance on his role at the Planning Unit and
whether to support or not support this proposal.
Crawford questioned whether the big deal is that some councilmembers don't
want the Public Utility District (PUD) to do it. Roll stated not on this item. This
issue is just about what work would be done. They are working on the scope right
now.
Dawson asked for a staff summary.
Committee of the Whole, 11/28/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District 1 Manager, stated the document
submitted (on file), shows changes they made after the morning meeting to
address concerns raised at the Natural Resources Committee. The proposal now is
to take the document, as modified, to the Planning Unit at its meeting tomorrow.
Dawson questioned whether they are going to require that the water right
holder put in writing that he or she understands what he or she is reading.
Anderson stated they could do that.
Dawson stated she would be comfortable with that.
Roll stated item three in the Roles section talks about the contractor
providing details and specifics of the field methods and materials for review and
approval by the Water Quality Technical Team and Planning Unit. This would be the
opportunity for them to insert those issues if they want to bring them forward. This
gives the Council another opportunity at a point down the road when those
documents would be crafted, and he would come back to the Council with those
draft documents.
Imhof moved to approve the Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 1
Watershed Management Project Water Quality Technical Team Proposal for Stage 2
Water Rights Review, the version dated November 28, 2000.
not.
Brenner questioned whether this includes the contractor. Roll stated it did
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Unit would have a chance to look
at this before the Planning Unit meeting tomorrow night. Roll stated he would take
it to the meeting. This is a controversial thing. The strategy is to be able to work
through these through the course of a meeting when they can get it resolved.
Anderson stated there is no way to get it to the members in advance of the
meeting.
Dawson stated they just addressed what would be done in stage 2 and how it
is going to be addressed. Now they would discuss who would bring this forward.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag arrived at approximately 6:10 p.m.)
Nelson stated there was concern about the two individuals who have been
hired by the PUD, because the PUD may have a conflict of interest as to the
development of this data. He made a motion during the Natural Resources
Committee. The motion was that the process goes forward as the first step. The
second step would be for the caucus to discuss whether they are uncomfortable
Committee of the Whole, 11/28/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
with the PUD being the contractor. If so, they can decide who should be the
contractor. The money is all coming from the County anyway.
McShane stated they essentially don't care who the contractor is.
Nelson stated that they are approving the PUD with an amendment. The
amendment is for the caucuses to decide whether they approve of the PUD and, if
not, solve who should be the contractor. The Council would support the caucuses'
amendment.
McShane stated the Council is taking a position that the PUD is fine, but if
other people are uncomfortable, then they should work it out.
Hoag stated she was concerned that it may be interpreted that the Council
supports the PUD doing the work.
Dawson stated Mr. Anderson made a presentation at the Natural Resources
Committee. Mr. Anderson is willing to put things in writing and would not take
anyone's water rights.
Hoag stated she wanted to make sure that the caucuses don't get the
message that the Council supports the PUD. The County Council should represent
their interests in this. If the Council thinks that the PUD is a problem, the Council
should say so instead of making them deal with it.
Nelson stated that the County Council doesn't represent the other caucus
members.
Imhof stated that the County Council represents the County's interests.
Nelson stated that the caucuses represent their own constituents.
Imhof stated that is why they have the caucuses.
Hoag stated it doesn't abdicate the County Council's responsibility to
represent its constituents, even if they have a caucus.
Nelson moved to support the PUD as the contractor for these two individuals
that are doing the work. If there is a dissention within the caucuses, the County
would go along with whomever the caucuses would decide they prefer as the
contractor.
Brenner stated the caucuses should put out a request for proposals (RFP).
Roll stated the role of the Technical Teams was to create this proposal. If it
is not endorsed that the PUD goes forward with stage 2, it would go back to the
Technical Team to re -craft a new strategy.
Committee of the Whole, 11/28/2000, 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
Brenner stated that was fine.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
Hoag questioned what the committee decided on the stage 2 proposal.
Imhof stated the committee approved the November 28, 2000 version as
written.
Hoag questioned whether she could make amendments to the proposal.
Dawson stated it has already been voted on. During the Council meeting,
Councilmember Hoag could move to reconsider the vote.
(Clerk's Note: During the Regular County Council Meeting, the Council
amended the proposal by adding language to item four of the proposal, "...At the
beginning of the visit, these owners will be given a copy of the information that was
sent to them regarding water rights and typical problems with water rights, it would
be verified that the owner received the information. They will be asked if they have
any questions. The owner will be informed in writing that all information recorded
on the field form during the visit will be public information.... ")
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 9-, 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 11/28/2000, Page 4