Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 22 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 49 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council February 22, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Absent: Dan McShane None L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Robert Imhof ANNOUNCEMENTS Dawson announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation (AB2000 -018) held in executive session during Committee of the Whole. Imhof moved to reconsider ordinance 99 -071. The motion is to reconsider an amendment to the Drayton Harbor sewer project zoning. Motion carried unanimously. Imhof stated that would come forward in two weeks. (Clerk's Note: This item was continued later in the meeting. See page 7.) Dawson announced that the item regarding collective bargaining was withdrawn from the Committee of the Whole agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING 1999 MEETINGS: BOARD OF HEALTH FOR DECEMBER 14, 1999, SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 6, 1999 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 1 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING 2000 MEETINGS: 2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 25, 2000; REGULAR 3 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 11 AND 25, 2000; AND SPECIAL 4 COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 18, 2000 5 6 Brenner moved approval of the minutes as amended and with the scrivener's 7 errors corrected. 8 9 Hoag withdrew the January 11, 2000 and January 25, 2000 regular Council 10 minutes. 11 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 14 15 16 OPEN SESSION 17 18 The following people spoke: 19 20 Philip Serka, 400 N. Commercial Street, Bellingham, stated he represented 21 Stan Digby regarding the resolution initiating Comprehensive Plan and zoning 22 amendments (AB2000 -065), docket item 2000 -B. Mr. Digby owns 40 acres that 23 are zoned rural forestry. He completed an application to change the zoning to Rural 24 Five Acres (R5A). Unfortunately, neither Mr. Digby nor he received the notice of 25 what was happening. The Council considered it, and there was no recommendation 26 by the committee. The Council, on a 5 -1 vote, decided not to initiate the request. 27 He requested that this item be reconsidered. All they are asking is that the Council 28 initiate the request. He understands that all it does is allow Mr. Digby to be able to 29 give a presentation to the Planning Commission and the County Council about 30 whether or not it should be approved. It doesn't bind the Council to approve it. 31 Some of the items in the application are important. There are locational criteria to 32 change it from forestry to rural zoning. Those criteria are that it abuts a public 33 right -of -way. It is also on a 60 -foot right -of -way that is developed and maintained. 34 Water is easily available. The property would be able to perk for rural density. 35 They provided a rezone map of the existing zoning that shows it is not something 36 that would be a spot zone. To the south and also to the east is R5A zoning. Those 37 properties are developed with five -acre lots. There is enough information for the 38 Council to initiate the request to the Planning Commission, where the argument 39 would be presented. 40 41 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the regulations regarding 42 timelines are in Whatcom County Code chapters 20.10 and 20.90. One of the 43 things the code says is that the person has to pay the fees within 15 days after the 44 County Council passes the resolution. The County then advertises the resolution as 45 in a public notice to solicit public input. If the Council is going to reconsider the 46 resolution, they would want to make a motion to reconsider the resolution during 47 this meeting so she can add the item to the docket and publish the item. 48 49 Nelson questioned whether Mr. Serka would still want to put his client 50 through the process, knowing what the prospective decision may be. 51 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 2 1 Serka stated his client is willing to pay fees required and go through the 2 process. 3 4 Brenner stated she would not support reconsidering it. It was true that a 5 portion of the property abuts R5A zoning and a portion abuts Rural Forestry zoning. 6 This is how they keep eating away at the Rural Forestry land. She appreciated that 7 the owner wanted to rezone, but the Council doesn't owe people rezones. The 8 Growth Management Act mandates that they conserve resource lands. It is hard 9 enough to not downzone people. 10 11 Serka stated Brenner's arguments are about whether or not the rezone 12 should be approved. However, they are only asking the Council to initiate the 13 request. It is zoned forestry, but it isn't forestry land. 14 15 Brenner stated they are talking about keeping a buffer between Commercial 16 Forestry and Residential zoning. They've been told that they should docket items if 17 they believe there is a fairly good chance they would support the item. Docketing 18 an item puts a lot of work on the Planning Commission. 19 20 Serka stated he is trying to provide as much information as possible to show 21 that it can develop at a rural density. The Council is making a substantial decision, 22 and there hasn't been an avenue for any discussion. 23 24 Nelson moved to rescind the resolution and send docket item 2000 -B to the 25 Planning Commission. There are some significant issues. They have an established 26 process. This is an appeal from the landowner that he is still willing to go through 27 that process, recognizing there are significant issues regarding forestry buffering 28 and protecting the resources. If the landowner has strong arguments, then it 29 should go through the process or else they would never hear those arguments. 30 31 Hoag stated it isn't just a matter of being able to present the case to the 32 Planning Commission. It is a matter of the Council committing staff time and 33 Planning Commission time to all of this. It ends up costing the taxpayers. That is 34 why they don't proceed and docket items that they do not feel should be changed. 35 36 Serka stated Mr. Digby would pay a $3,500 fee, which is substantial for a 37 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. 38 39 Motion to rescind the resolution failed 3 -4 with Crawford, Nelson, and 40 Dawson in favor. 41 42 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the PUD is doing the water rights 43 survey. He agreed that there is too big a conflict of interest because they are 44 trying to get water rights. They will create a conflict with the other users because 45 they are the prime agency. Regarding salmon, Councilmember Hoag made a good 46 comment about achieving a much better result with a larger escapement. There 47 are rivers on the Olympic Peninsula that are suffering the same losses, but don't 48 have habitat degradation. It is not all about habitat. If they make a lot of rules 49 and regulations for impacting the salmon, they are wasting time. They have to get 50 the fish back in the river. That way, they can test the habitat. Regarding the 51 Planning Commission, he wanted to take all the councilmembers on a tour of Point Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 3 1 Roberts, which he did with the Planning Commissioners. They need to see what is 2 going on up there. 3 4 Harry Skinner, 6600 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated there were three 5 community groups who have made simple requests regarding surface mining 6 procedures in Whatcom County, two of which were discussed earlier in the day at 7 the Natural Resources Committee meeting. The first issue was about fair 8 notification of all Planning and Development Services permit decisions to all parties 9 of record. The second issue was about appointment of an ongoing citizen's 10 advisory committee, as currently required by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding 11 the request for expanded notification, it seemed the only objection from the 12 committee was about the extra cost for postage. At present, only a permit 13 applicant gets this notice. No one else hears of a decision unless he or she calls the 14 department every day to catch when the decision is made. The day the decision is 15 made is the beginning of the appeal process. The people who want to be notified 16 as soon as the decision is made would happily deliver a stamped, self- addressed 17 envelope to Planning and Development Services to save the County this cost, if 18 that's the objection. If there are other reasons for preventing public involvement in 19 the appeal process, then they should hear from those who have those reasons. In 20 the meantime, equal notice is a requirement of due process under state law. 21 Without this legal notice, equal for both parties, the process is illegal. They do not 22 achieve due process. They must treat all parties equally. He asked that they direct 23 the Planning and Development Services Department to notify all parties of record 24 and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject mining activity. The second 25 request at the meeting was for an ongoing advisory committee. The longer they 26 delay this step, the longer they remain in defiance if their own legislation. The 27 Comprehensive Plan authors saw an important role for such a committee to ensure 28 an effective melding of industry and community interests. He questioned the 29 reasons for delaying this step any longer. He asked that the Council appoint the 30 surface mining committee members. 31 32 Brenner stated there would be a Natural Resource Committee work session 33 to discuss these items. 34 35 McShane stated that later in this meeting there will be a motion for the 36 expanded notification, but discussion on the formation of the committee will be held 37 in a work session. 38 39 Margaret Wisbey, 3207 W. Maplewood Avenue, stated she purchased her 40 property in 1974. She lived in the neighborhood for many years. She has watched 41 its progress. She enjoyed raising her children there. She was disgusted about the 42 Birchwood Neighborhood group trying to downzone them again. She wanted to sell 43 her property, but she couldn't because her zoning keeps changing. She didn't 44 complain when this group allowed the drug store to move across the street, which 45 is turning into a deathtrap for anyone who wants to cross the street. She didn't see 46 any reason for the Birchwood group to go to her area and tell her what zoning she 47 should be allowed to have. They don't live there. They don't see the traffic 48 problems. There are now only three homeowners in that area, including her. The 49 remaining homes are rental properties. She is surrounded by Garrett property. 50 She asked the Council to reconsider and leave the property zoned as commercial 51 property. Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 4 1 2 Leonard Lindstrom, 2858 W. Maplewood Avenue, asked for help from an 3 honest person. There are a lot of heartless people these days. The churches are in 4 competition with the clubs in storytelling and lie telling. He is waiting for honesty 5 from the church people. 6 7 Klaus Klix, 5563 Hillard Road, Deming, stated the Public Utility District (PUD) 8 #1 water rights review would be a big mistake (handout on file). Giving the PUD 9 authority to review water rights is in direct conflict of interest because they are in 10 the business of developing and selling water. If the PUD is given the opportunity to 11 review and make the decision about who gets water and who doesn't, it wouldn't be 12 right. The citizens won't have any input. If a citizen has existing water rights, he 13 or she has the right to apply for development and to use it however he or she can, 14 according to the law. If the County needs someone to oversee the water rights 15 issues, it should be someone who is totally impartial. It would be a huge mistake 16 to give the power to the PUD because it's all about power. 17 18 Shirley Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, Everson, commented on citizen 19 involvement regarding surface mining activity. The concerned public is kept out of 20 touch with mining applications and permit decisions in the county, due to ineffective 21 posted notices, notices of decisions directed only to the applicants, and short 22 comment and appeal periods. Community involvement in surface mining decisions 23 must be made more effective and user - friendly. 24 25 Lars Kungsow, 2419 Williams Street, Bellingham, spoke about Public 26 Education and Government (PEG) television. He urged the Council to support 27 funding an improved public access station. He was heartened by the professed 28 support of the principles behind public access television and its power to inform, 29 educate, and entertain. At that meeting, the Council elected to postpone the vote 30 on public access funding and study the matter further. However, he was shocked 31 to learn that the plan to further study the issue was not to improve public access 32 but to dismantle it. The plan is to remove the public from public access television 33 by only funding the government portion of PEG. That would mean no more 34 cameras for the public to check out, no more edit gear for the public to put together 35 its shows, no more training, and no more access to channel 10 for any views 36 outside of those produced by government. The reason they put off the vote of this 37 issue in the first place was because members of the Council were concerned about 38 government control of channel 10. Now, it seems that government programming is 39 all they are approving funding for. He questioned whether it was more dangerous 40 to have a public access facility open and available to all, which is run in accordance 41 with established federal guidelines, or a channel where only government 42 programming is allowed and in which all other voices are censored for fear that 43 someone may take offense. It was frustrating that the Council co- created a 44 citizen's board with a mandate to improve the state of public access in Whatcom 45 County, and has totally ignored that board's recommendations. Many people have 46 volunteered untold hours in time and effort working in good faith to implement the 47 stated wishes of the City and County councils to find a new access provider. The 48 community would be better off to forget the whole thing, and continue to deal with 49 the aging equipment and inconvenient hours of the current public access facility. 50 AT &T will no longer provide public access as of July 3. He urged the Council to 51 reconsider its support of public access television. They don't have to raise fees to Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 5 1 do it. For years, cable subscribers have been paying a franchise fee directly to the 2 City and the County. The amount being collected is nearly $1 million per year. 3 They should give cable subscribers a direct benefit of this fee. It is an investment 4 in high -tech, multimedia training that will make the area attractive to employers. It 5 is an investment in community and non - profit organizations, and their ability to 6 help others. It is an investment in media literacy for the schools, and an 7 investment in democracy and communications. It is an investment in public safety, 8 as a place where the community knows to turn for information in times of crisis. 9 10 Brenner disagreed with the speaker. She and City Councilmember Bob Ryan 11 have been doing a lot of research on this. They have just been tarred and 12 feathered for doing something they haven't done. Their biggest problem is with the 13 public part only because there is so much more involved than the government and 14 educational parts. It isn't anyone's intention to not have public access television. 15 How they do it depends on how quick they can get their answers on the public 16 issue. There are things the councilmembers don't agree on. The County does have 17 access after the July date, and has the ability to use the studio until the County 18 makes a decision not to use it anymore. The speaker was referring to the 19 agreement between AT &T and the City of Bellingham, not the County. 20 21 Kungsow stated he received his information from the Cable Television 22 Administrative Board meeting. That is how the situation was presented from the 23 County Council Public Works Committee. 24 25 Brenner stated she was chair of the Public Works Committee, and she never 26 presented that. 27 28 Nelson suggested discussing this further in the Public Works Committee. He 29 was in favor of public access. The funding issue is one they need to look at. There 30 is strong support from the Council regarding the public access. There may be some 31 miscommunication. 32 33 Brenner stated the Council has access to the studio at AT &T until the County 34 makes a decision. The City doesn't have access. Now, the County has to meet 35 with Dan Crocker of AT &T to decide how that access will be handled. There are a 36 lot of decisions that have to be made. 37 38 Dawson stated they are drafting a letter and will bring back issues for the 39 Council to consider. 40 41 Nelson questioned the timeframe. 42 43 Brenner stated they would have a position in a week or two. 44 45 Hoag said she voted to delay the decision because they needed more 46 information on how they could prevent programming that was offensive and would 47 be detrimental to the public at large. They need those issues addressed. They 48 need those answers before they approve something. In terms of educational or 49 government program, they don't have the issue of offensiveness. That is the only 50 reason, at this point, there hasn't been an objection to government programming or 51 educational programming. On the public access portion, they are looking at what Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 6 1 other jurisdictions have done and the other types of things the County can do to 2 protect the public, which is their job. 3 4 Kungsow stated he was concerned about losing something or making it worse 5 than it was before. The Council has the authority to enact community standards. 6 7 Hoag stated the Council is still working on it. When they come up with 8 recommendations, he will have a chance to speak to them if there are any concerns 9 at that time. At this point, there are not any recommendations to speak to. His 10 testimony sounded as if he was upset with recommendations, but there aren't any. 11 12 Brenner stated no one is talking about reducing public access. What 13 Kungsow is talking about is increasing services, such as turning government into an 14 educational facility to teach people how to use the equipment. She has problems 15 with that but this isn't the time to discuss it. That would be increasing services, 16 not keeping them at their current level. 17 18 Nelda Sigurdson, 5171 Ferndale Road, stated she was surprised that the 19 Public Utility District (PUD) #1 has already gone ahead and done some of the work 20 on examining water rights. With all the people that will be involved, there should 21 have been a public hearing. Historically, private wells have belonged to the land. 22 Other than the people who have a well with which they irrigate, they've passed by 23 private wells. Most people belong to a water association. With over 300 in the 24 county, it doesn't leave too many private wells that are being used for 25 consumption. She was opposed to this being done by the PUD. They are invading 26 their privacy. She questioned how they would measure the rainfall in Whatcom 27 County, because it doesn't come down evenly across the county. Some of this is a 28 waste of time and money. 29 30 Imhof moved to rescind the motion made previously during this meeting 31 regarding reconsidering ordinance 99 -071. If they rescind that motion, they will 32 have no ordinance in effect. He will make another motion that will rescind that 33 action. 34 35 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that procedurally they 36 should be consistent in the way they do things. By moving to reconsider an action 37 at a prior meeting, they are not technically in compliance with the procedural rules. 38 39 Nelson stated parliamentary procedure has to be followed consistently to 40 make a legal record. 41 42 Motion to rescind the action to reconsider ordinance 99 -071 carried 43 unanimously. 44 45 Imhof moved to request staff to draft an ordinance to amend ordinance 99- 46 071 regarding the Drayton Harbor sewer project, for consideration at a later date. 47 That way, they will continue to have an ordinance until this new ordinance takes 48 effect. 49 50 Motion carried unanimously. 51 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 7 1 2 CONSENT AGENDA 3 4 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 5 moved approval of consent agenda items one through eleven. 6 7 Hoag withdrew item number five. 8 9 Motion to approve items one through four and six through eleven carried 10 unanimously. 11 12 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM 14 COUNTY AND THE NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT 15 ASSOCIATION TO MANAGE THREE CHINOOK ACCLIMATION PONDS, 16 WITH THE FEDERALLY FUNDED AMOUNT OF $29,000 (AB2000 -098) 17 18 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BETWEEN 20 WHATCOM COUNTY AND WALKER & ASSOCIATES, TO PROVIDE FOR 21 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING OF THE 22 LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER, IN THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF 23 $42,218 FOR A TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $80,918 (AB2000- 24 099) 25 26 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 27 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 28 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND NORTHWEST EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 29 DISTRICT 189, TO PROVIDE FOR SCHOOL NURSING SERVICES IN 30 THE NOOKSACK AND MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS, IN THE STATE 31 FUNDED AMOUNT OF $15,600 (AB2000 -100) 32 33 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 34 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE VAN ZANDT 35 COMMUNITY CLUB TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 BASKETBALL COURT, HANDBALL COURT, CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA, 37 PARKING, AND SIGNAGE ON THE VAN ZANDT COMMUNITY HALL 38 PROPERTY, REQUIRING NO DEVELOPMENT, NOR MAINTENANCE AND 39 OPERATIONAL FUNDS (AB2000 -101) 40 41 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE 42 USE OF WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT PRICING FOR THE ANNUAL 43 PURCHASE, ON AN AS- NEEDED BASIS, OF ROAD STRIPING PAINT IN 44 THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $300,000; GLASS BEADS IN THE 45 APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $50,000; HERBICIDES IN THE 46 APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $66,000; AND TIRES IN THE 47 APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2000 -102) 48 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 8 1 Hoag questioned why so much money was requested for the purchase of 2 herbicides. They discussed the amount of herbicides being used in the county and 3 its effects on the environment during Public Works Committee early last year. This 4 amount is the same amount that was allocated last year. They are not reducing 5 the amount of herbicides used. The Council encouraged the administration to find 6 ways to use less. There are certain things they need to do to maintain the roads, 7 but they need to find a better way to do this. They need to find ways to reduce 8 the amount of herbicides they are using and the amount of money they are 9 spending on herbicides. 10 11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 12 13 Dawson questioned whether Hoag had any suggestions. 14 15 Hoag stated she was only trying to draw attention to the issue. It was 16 mentioned in Public Works Committee and citizens have brought it to the Council's 17 attention. 18 19 Imhof explained that this should be discussed when the Roadside Vegetation 20 Management Plan comes forward in June or July. As the new plan develops, it 21 could be scheduled before the Public Works Committee for discussion. A few years 22 ago, they addressed the use of herbicide use in the Lake Whatcom and Lake 23 Samish watersheds and on Lummi Island. Their use was eliminated in the 24 watersheds. There may be more options to reduce the use now. That discussion 25 needs to be with Maintenance and Operations (M &O) before the new plan is 26 drafted and put into place. 27 28 Nelson moved approval as presented. It is an approximate amount of 29 money. If alternative items come forward, they don't need to exceed that amount 30 of money. Also, property owners have the ability to maintain roadside control of 31 their area if they are concerned about vegetation. The County is responsible to 32 make sure the maintenance is done either by the County or the property owner. 33 There have been discussions about the safety of the herbicides used. They need to 34 make sure the public safety on roads is also protected. 35 36 Brenner stated she agreed with Councilmember Hoag. This was before the 37 committee, and they've made recommendations and asked for a revision, but 38 they've never had enough councilmembers to support that thought, so it hasn't 39 happened. 40 41 Dick Prieve, Public Works Department, explained that they don't apply 42 herbicides in the watershed and other sensitive areas. He explained that they are 43 continually working on ways to reduce their use of herbicides. They are now 44 looking at the City of Portland, because its 4(d) rules have been approved, and it is 45 a model. There will be changes this coming year. 46 47 Hoag stated she tried to bring this up when the plan came forward. They 48 requested documentation, but what they were given was only information from the Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 9 1 manufacturers saying the chemicals are safe. However, there are studies from 2 people who do not have a vested interest that show the chemicals are not safe. 3 She wanted a reduction in the amount of herbicides used around the county. 4 5 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 6 7 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 8 MODIFICATION TO THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT 9 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 10 DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, FOR THE CITY TO 11 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE ALCOHOL PROTECTIVE CUSTODY 12 PROGRAM AND FOR SUBSIDIZING SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT 13 COSTS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $53,600 (AB2000 -103) 14 15 7. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE 16 OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 00 -1 (AB2000 -104) 17 18 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 19 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 20 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL TO FUND 21 SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM 22 COUNTY, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $37,448, WITH THE 23 AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $11,744 (AB2000 -105) 24 25 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 26 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 27 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL TO PROVIDE 28 CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY CASE MANAGEMENT, A JAIL OUTREACH 29 PROGRAM, CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES, AND ALCOHOL 30 PROTECTIVE CUSTODY IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $120,443 31 (AB2000 -106) 32 33 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 34 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 35 SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COUNSELING & 36 PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF MENTAL HEALTH 37 SERVICES INCLUDING JAIL CASE MANAGEMENT, ELDER SERVICES, 38 SUPPORT LIVING, GATEKEEPER COORDINATION, AND CONSUMER 39 PEER SUPPORT AND EDUCATION, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF 40 $231,000 (AB2000 -107) 41 42 11 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 43 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, 44 SOLID WASTE DIVISION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, TO 45 PROVIDE THE ADOPT -A -ROAD AND JUVENILE OFFENDER LITTER 46 CLEANUP PROGRAMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,500 (AB2000 -108) 47 48 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 10 1 OTHER ITEMS 2 3 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED 4 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON 5 WERRE FOR "'HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089) 6 7 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Services Committee and stated 8 this item was held in committee, pending a will -serve letter from the City of 9 Bellingham. 10 11 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.) 12 13 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED 14 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY JACK LAIRD 15 FOR " "TOAD CREEK VISTA" (PUD99 -0001) (AB2000 -090) 16 17 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Services Committee and moved 18 approval of the Hearing Examiner's findings, subject to conditions. 19 20 Nelson questioned whether the project had fire district approval. 21 22 McShane stated he didn't recall any comments from the fire district. 23 24 Nelson questioned whether a fire district would be notified. 25 26 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated a fire district would be 27 notified. 28 29 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.) 30 31 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED 32 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON 33 WERRE FOR " "HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089) 34 35 Brenner stated she wanted a letter from the City of Bellingham about why 36 they have delayed the letter. 37 38 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.) 39 40 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED 41 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY JACK LAIRD 42 FOR " "TOAD CREEK VISTA" (PUD99 -0001) (AB2000 -090) 43 44 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 45 46 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED 47 APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY SEBULON 48 WERRE FOR "'HILLSIDE ESTATES" (PUD99 -0003) (AB2000 -089) Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 11 1 2 Imhof questioned why the Council is holding the approval until a will -serve 3 letter is received. If that is the case, they will never get approval. 4 5 Hoag stated the County code requires that they have a letter to serve. 6 7 Imhof stated there are a couple of developments in the North Bellingham 8 urban growth area (UGA) that are platted. They have their roads in and are far 9 along in their development, and they still have not received a letter to serve from 10 the City of Bellingham. 11 12 Brenner stated Mr. Werre's proposal came in and was dated before the Toad 13 Creek Vista project. The Toad Creek Vista project got the letter from the City of 14 Bellingham. She talked to the project's engineer, who told her that Mr. Werre, 15 according to the City of Bellingham, has been difficult to work with. To her 16 knowledge, he has not been treated equally. The City of Bellingham provided a 17 letter of service to the Toad Creek Vista property, which will require a trespass onto 18 Mr. Werre's property to extend services. The service lines go through Mr. Werre's 19 property. Something is terribly wrong, and she wanted an answer. 20 21 Dawson stated Councilmember Brenner wanted a letter to the city requesting 22 clarification. 23 24 Hoag asked that the letter say the Council wants to work with the city on 25 this. 26 27 Brenner stated she would draft the letter. 28 29 Nelson stated one of the concerns is about people being treated equally. 30 They may need to have a joint meeting with the City Planning Committee and the 31 County Planning Committee to discuss proper procedures. The city will not give 32 any indication of what the requirements are until the last minute. They need to 33 have a coordinated process so people have clear expectations, particularly in the 34 urban growth areas. This goes back to the issue of who has control in the urban 35 growth areas. 36 37 Sam Ryan, Acting Planning and Development Services Director, stated what 38 they are talking about is starting to happen already. They have had recent 39 participation from the City of Bellingham in a couple of their technical committee 40 meetings, which they have never had before. That is a positive step. Planned unit 41 developments (PUD) require by law that the PUD have that written will -serve letter 42 up front. Long -plats do not have that requirement. They allow bonding. That 43 makes a difference. 44 45 Brenner questioned whether both of the items are PUDs. Ryan stated they 46 are. 47 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 12 1 3. APPOINTMENT TO THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY 2 COMMITTEE ALTERNATE MEMBER LIST (AB99 -375A) 3 4 Imhof moved to appoint Nichols. 5 6 Motion carried unanimously. 7 8 4. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING CONTINUATION OF 9 FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUD #1 WATER RIGHTS REVIEW EFFORT 10 (AB2000 -097) 11 12 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, gave a staff report and stated the matter 13 was presented during the previous County Council /Water Resources work session. 14 They were not able to resolve the issue then. For review to occur, and to resolve 15 the discrepancy between paper water and real water, the State Department of 16 Ecology could have chosen to do the work, but hasn't. Therefore, as part of the 17 watershed process, the County chose to move ahead and accelerate that activity to 18 ensure that critical information was resolved. The Public Utility District (PUD) #1 19 stated they were interested in seeing this through. They volunteered to facilitate 20 the review of existing public records. The general scope of work is to review the 21 paper rights and report the results back to the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit 22 would take that information into consideration as it deals with the bigger picture 23 regarding water availability. The PUD has no decision - making authority. They are 24 only reviewing public records and reporting that information back to the Planning 25 Unit. He is asking the Council for direction that he can take to the Planning Unit at 26 their meeting the next evening. He questioned whether or not the Council would 27 support continuing the relationship with the PUD, initiated by interlocal agreement, 28 to pursue the work. He asked for other suggested issues from the Council to take 29 to the Planning Unit so they can formalize the relationship. 30 31 Dawson stated she received a call from a Planning Unit member who wants 32 discussion before any action is taken. They asked that the County Council postpone 33 its direction. 34 35 Brenner spoke against the agreement because she felt it is a conflict of 36 interest for the largest water purveyor to determine water rights. They don't have 37 any decision - making capability, but they have a lot of influence by making these 38 recommendations. That is the problem. The PUD has a direct financial interest in 39 the results. That is a conflict of interest. In addition, someone told her that they 40 hadn't heard about any complaints about this. She talked to different members of 41 the caucuses and heard the same concerns from them. They were concerned they 42 didn't have an avenue to complain. Also, one caucus member stated they only 43 allowed the PUD to do the work because she didn't want Ecology to do it, as if those 44 were the only two choices. She questioned whether the Planning Unit was up and 45 running when this process began. Her recommendation to the Planning Unit was 46 that the Council would like to consider a request for qualifications (RFQ) process for 47 an unaffiliated, private third party firm that is qualified to do this. If it means 48 delaying it some, they should delay it. This is a very controversial issue. At the Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 13 1 very least, they owe everyone in the county the assurance that whoever is making 2 the initial recommendations are as untainted and objective as possible. She would 3 rather have an RFQ process than a request for proposals (RFP) process because the 4 RFQ seeks the person who is the most qualified. She was more concerned about 5 getting the most qualified person than about doing the work at the lowest price. 6 She moved to request the Planning Unit to consider engaging in an RFQ process. 7 8 Dawson questioned whether the PUD was getting any funding out of this. 9 Monsen stated the PUD is facilitating the process, but the people doing the work are 10 hired, temporary PUD employees. The PUD is contributing the cost of supervising 11 the employees. Only the additional costs incurred by the PUD are the costs they 12 are recovering. 13 14 Dawson questioned what the PUD would do with the equipment that will be 15 purchased. Monsen stated the PUD would not likely have any use for the 16 equipment at the end of the contract period, so they would return it to whoever 17 paid for it originally. 18 19 Crawford stated that under their proposal, they extrapolate the amount of 20 time for each application. Someone did the math and determined that it would take 21 3 1/2 years to go through all the paperwork. They suggested it would be too long 22 of a time frame. He questioned whether there was something about the year 2002 23 by which the work needs to be done. Monsen stated he would have to defer the 24 question to PUD Manager Tom Anderson. They recognize it could take longer. 25 From what he understood, the proposal was to begin with a faster -paced effort to 26 get the context of the issues framed for the purpose of watershed planning. 27 However, resolving the issues will likely take longer than completing the plan itself. 28 29 Imhof questioned whether there is a downside to postponing the issue for 30 two weeks to get input from the Planning Unit. Monsen stated the process is 31 intended for each Planning Unit member to present his or her position. There isn't 32 any participant, including the County, who can't gather information, reconsider an 33 issue, and then deal with the matter. If the Councilmembers want to hear more 34 from the Planning Unit, that simply means that they can't take a position at the 35 table tomorrow night. 36 37 Imhof requested that they listen to what the Planning Unit has to say. This is 38 a different animal. This is funding the whole process to look at all the County water 39 rights. If some people in that unit are uncomfortable with it, the Council should at 40 least hear what they have to say. He would like to have that discussion at their 41 next meeting tomorrow, and then bring back a recommendation or the arguments 42 at the next meeting. 43 44 Dawson stated she preferred that as well. 45 46 Brenner stated she would be willing to withdraw her motion if Imhof included 47 in his motion the request to look at other options besides the PUD. 48 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 14 1 Imhof stated the Planning Unit members, if they are not satisfied with the 2 PUD, will have the options to bring forward. 3 4 Dawson stated the RFQ would be one of the options. 5 6 Brenner withdrew her motion. 7 8 Hoag questioned what the review entails. Monsen stated they will look at the 9 document that suggests a valid water right, and compare it to whether or not the 10 use is or isn't there. The process tries to resolve the discrepancy between what 11 water is actually being used and what the paper right has to say. Most basins are 12 closed to water rights applications because of the paper quantity that is committed. 13 A lot of paper quantity is no longer valid or isn't being used. It may legally free up 14 water availability. 15 16 Imhof stated that as development occurs, city water is used. Those 17 groundwater permits become nonexistent then. 18 19 Hoag stated that what someone has a right to, compared with what actually 20 might exist, is a sensitive issue. She wasn't comfortable having the PUD review 21 that comparison. What they are required to report under performance is the 22 monthly summary of property owners contacted, the number of realty parcels 23 completed and mapped, and the number of exempt wells that have been identified 24 and mapped. She was not comfortable with the PUD having that kind of 25 involvement in the water rights' issues. She supported Imhof's suggestion. 26 27 Nelson stated he also supported Imhof's proposal. He questioned whether 28 having an RFQ would preclude the PUD as being an applicant of the RFQ. They 29 legally can't exclude someone from an RFQ. 30 31 Hoag stated they could exclude the PUD if they have a conflict of interest. 32 33 Monsen stated the exclusion would be in how they define whether they were 34 eligible. 35 36 Nelson stated the issue is conflict of interest, not necessarily that they have 37 an RFQ process. It is important that the Planning Unit have that full discussion with 38 the PUD. The PUD has been working on these issues for years, along with the 39 Conservation District. His concern was that they would contract with an entity that 40 may not have the background or the ability to collect the necessary data. They 41 need to answer the concern about how the PUD provides information and how the 42 information is verified. 43 44 Imhof moved to hold the item in Council for two weeks to request the 45 Planning Unit to review whether the PUD has a conflict of interest in this position, 46 and refer back to the Council for action in two weeks. 47 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 15 1 Brenner stated that under no condition would she support the PUD doing this 2 review. There are other firms that are able to do this work. 3 4 Hoag suggested that the Council request the Planning Unit review this issue, 5 express that the Council has some concerns about a possible conflict of interest 6 with the PUD, and request that there be consideration of an RFQ process. 7 8 Monsen stated there is a lot of value in putting this off for two weeks, so they 9 can gather more information. He wanted to clearly understand the direction from 10 the Council that he can take to the table and so that he could participate in the 11 decision, rather than simply gather information with no ability to take any action at 12 the table. 13 14 Dawson stated the direction from the Council is that they would prefer that 15 the PUD not be involved because there is a conflict of interest. Further, the Council 16 wants to engage in a bid process. 17 18 Imhof restated his motion to put the decision off for two weeks, request the 19 Planning Unit review the PUD's involvement in this position, and report back to the 20 Council about their opinion on the issue so the Council can take action in two 21 weeks. 22 23 McShane stated the Council went through this last year. It was a matter of 24 considering whether they wanted the PUD to consider water rights. The Council is 25 getting into managing the Planning Unit. The Council should decide now whether 26 there is a conflict, and send that decision to the Planning Unit table. It is 27 inappropriate to go to the table with no negotiating power to the Council. 28 29 Imhof withdrew his motion. He moved to approve this item as requested. 30 He didn't believe there was a conflict of interest. When they wrote the original 31 contract, this issue was reviewed. That is why the document is about ten pages 32 long. He will support the item. They looked at it last year and it passed 5 - 2. 33 Nothing has changed. 34 35 McShane stated there are two new councilmembers. 36 37 Imhof stated he didn't see any great miscarriage of justice since they 38 originally entered into the contract. 39 40 Hoag stated this should go to the Planning Unit before it comes to the 41 Council. That is one of the things that the Planning Unit should have input on. 42 Creating a Planning Unit, and then bypassing them, is a mockery. 43 44 Dawson stated she agreed with Councilmember Hoag. 45 46 Brenner spoke against Councilmember Imhof's motion. The best or worst is 47 yet to come. Because this is such a contentious issue, they have to be very careful. Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 16 1 It is not personal against the PUD. The PUD just happens to be the major purveyor 2 in the county. They should not be the ones doing it. 3 4 Nelson requested clarification from Monsen. He questioned whether Monsen 5 was requesting direction from the Council so that he could act at the Planning Unit. 6 The Planning Unit is to help assist the County so the County has input from those 7 who are impacted by water decisions. Monsen stated that is correct as it relates to 8 some of the financial matters. The reason for the monthly work sessions is to get 9 direction from the County Council so the County can state its position at the 10 Planning Unit table. 11 12 Nelson questioned the purpose of having the Planning Unit if the County has 13 already stated its position. 14 15 Hoag stated the County is a member of the Planning Unit. 16 17 Monsen stated that if they are in agreement with everyone else around the 18 table, then the next time the County Council sees a matter it would only be for 19 budget approval. However, if they take a position at the table and there are 20 differences, then the matter would come back for the Council's consideration and 21 discussion. When they are at the Planning Unit or decision -maker table, the 22 expectation is to be clear on direction collectively. If they are all ready to agree, 23 then procedurally they don't have to come back to any body to reaffirm what 24 they've already agreed to. 25 26 Brenner stated this is the problem with the process. She has never heard of 27 a point of beginning. It is a circular process and is not easy to follow. If they feel 28 that the PUD has a conflict of interest, they should say so. It would help the 29 process move forward more rapidly. The Planning Unit should go ahead and make 30 the decisions, but she wanted to send the message that the majority of the County 31 Council believes that the PUD has a conflict of interest. 32 33 Crawford stated it isn't that complicated. The Planning Unit has the collective 34 wisdom of many governments. As one of the initiating governments, the County 35 Council has the money and the ability to make decisions that affect the other 36 governments. They are looking for direction. He agreed with the very first motion 37 Imhof made, which requested that they should engage in an RFQ, but not eliminate 38 the PUD as a possibility. They should let the Planning Unit say whether or not the 39 PUD is the best entity to do the work. He would vote against he motion on the 40 table now because it eliminates that part of the process. 41 42 Imhof stated the County is one of a group in the Planning Unit. If a majority 43 of the group does not agree that the PUD should do the work, then they won't. 44 45 Brenner stated the Planning Unit must come to consensus. 46 47 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated this is not an easy issue and it is an 48 important issue. He could see where there is some concern about the appearance Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 17 1 of a conflict of interest. Personally, he had minimal concerns. He understood that 2 some people could be extremely concerned. Another issue is that they need to 3 progress as expeditiously and as effectively as possible. They have been losing 4 some time as they mull this over. They also need to consider the cost. It would 5 more than likely be a considerable increase in the amount of money it will cost if 6 they contract out this activity. The most important factor is the buy -in and the 7 acceptance. There seems to be a lot of hesitation to proceed with the PUD. If that 8 buy -in is not achieved, their ultimate goals and objectives are not going to be 9 reached. 10 11 Motion to approve the item failed 3 -4 with Imhof, Nelson, and McShane in 12 favor. 13 14 Imhof moved to postpone action for two weeks, ask the Planning Unit for 15 their input, express the Council's concern of a perceived conflict of interest, and ask 16 the Planning Unit for its recommendation of whether to proceed or go out for an 17 RFQ. 18 19 Brenner stated she appreciated the Executive's comments, but they could 20 end up being penny -wise and dollar - foolish. The buy -in is important. If there is 21 concern, they are not ever going to end up with a product. They will end up with 22 wasted money. It is an important issue and they should take the most careful 23 route. 24 25 McShane proposed a friendly amendment to include the County in the 26 consideration of who should do this work. There is staff that is under the oversight 27 of the PUD and has already begun this work. They have a good sense of what 28 needs to be done. He has spoken with both of these staff persons. He suggested 29 the County take them on as temporary employees instead of doing an RFQ, which 30 would cost at least three times as much as what is being proposed. 31 32 Imhof accepted the friendly amendment. 33 34 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) 35 36 Hoag stated she supported the motion, but wanted to add to it. She 37 proposed a friendly amendment that there be consideration of a request for 38 proposals (RFP) or request for qualifications (RFQ) process to solicit other 39 contractors. It would make it clear that the County Council has concerns about 40 conflict of interest, would like these other things to be considered, and requests the 41 Planning Unit's input. 42 43 Imhof accepted the friendly amendment. 44 45 Hoag stated her other concern regarded the cost. This job has to be done 46 right. If they do not get buy -off on what is done, they've wasted every penny 47 they've spent. If someone loses his or her water rights for one reason or another, Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 18 1 through this process, it would be costly. This is not the time to pinch pennies. 2 They need to be certain they are doing the job right. 3 4 Dawson restated the motion to give staff direction to take to the Planning 5 Unit regarding the Council's concern regarding a potential conflict of interest with 6 the PUD. They would also ask the Planning Unit to provide direction to the Council 7 about whether they would prefer an RFQ or RFP process, having the County do the 8 work, or having the PUD continue the work. 9 10 Crawford questioned the administration about the possibility of the County 11 doing the work. 12 13 Monsen stated it is an option. They don't have anyone on staff that can do 14 the work. He agreed that one of the issues is that they don't want to lose the 15 investment into the people already hired at the PUD. If there is a way they can 16 maintain that investment while dealing with this other issue, he would try to find it. 17 They are not qualified to step into the program tomorrow and begin to supervise 18 this activity, but it doesn't mean they can't eventually. 19 20 Dawson stated the Department of Ecology has said they will provide some 21 training. 22 23 Kremen stated the most important criteria for deciding who will do the work 24 is who is the most universally accepted and how they are going to gain the most 25 strides in what they are trying to achieve. However, he would like the County 26 Council to consider that expanding or increasing the number of County employees 27 is something he would rather not do. 28 29 Dawson stated they would be temporary employees. 30 31 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 32 33 Hoag thanked Monsen for performing the delicate and difficult task of trying 34 to get the Council's direction and convey that direction at the table. 35 36 5. APPOINTMENT OF DOUGLAS MCDONALD TO THE NOXIOUS WEED 37 CONTROL BOARD (AB99 -375) 38 39 Imhof moved to appoint. 40 41 Motion carried unanimously. 42 43 6. RE- APPOINTMENT OF DAN ZENDER TO A SECOND TERM ON THE 44 ETHICS COMMISSION WITH TERM ENDING MARCH 7, 2004 (AB2000- 45 113) 46 47 Imhof moved to confirm the appointment. 48 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 19 1 Nelson questioned whether the Ethics Commission has held a meeting or if is 2 is doing anything. 3 4 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the commission has only met twice in 5 the past year, which is the minimum required under the statute. The group is 6 standing ready, willing, and able. There is a vacancy that has turned up on the 7 commission, and he will forward an appointment to the Council during the next 8 meeting. 9 10 Motion carried unanimously. 11 12 13 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 14 15 Imhof moved to accept the introduction items. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 19 1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION ON 20 FILE NO. COM99- 00443, FILED BY ROBERT MARR, REGARDING 21 DETERMINATION OF TIMELINESS (AB2000 -092) 22 23 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 6.04.050, DOG 24 LICENSING (AB2000 -094) 25 26 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 99 -083, THE WHATCOM 27 COUNTY 2000 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2000 -093) 28 29 4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT BIRCH BAY 30 (AB2000 -109) 31 32 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.88 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY 33 CODE RENAMING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO 34 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP AND CHANGING SCOPE 35 AND RESPONSIBILITIES (AB2000 -110) 36 37 6. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 38 00 -1 (AB2000 -104A) 39 40 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 3 (AB2000- 41 111) 42 43 8. RECEIPT OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A 44 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILED BY HILLSIDE ASSOCIATES 45 (DICK SKEERS) FOR "GOVERNOR ROAD" (PUD 98- 0001 /LSS98- 46 0010), (AB2000 -112) 47 48 49 50 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 20 1 OTHER BUSINESS 2 3 Imhof distributed letter from the Council of Governments (COG) requesting 4 that the County Council send a letter of support to the City of Bellingham to 5 reconsider funding for the regional grant writer for COG. The County Council 6 approved the money for this in the 2000 budget, as did every other entity that 7 belongs to COG, except Bellingham. The city's portion of the money is $18,000. 8 He moved to send a letter of support. 9 10 Crawford questioned the reason the City of Bellingham withdrew their 11 funding. 12 13 Dawson stated they were going to discuss it at a future meeting. 14 15 Imhof stated it never has been discussed. They weren't sure whether they 16 wanted to hire an in -house grant writer or if there would be a conflict. 17 18 Brenner stated she didn't support the Council contributing to it, and she 19 wouldn't support the Council's letter. There is a potential for conflict. Those who 20 contribute the most to the grant writer would not necessarily get the most funding. 21 That doesn't serve the County well. She would support an in -house grant writer 22 hired by the County. In addition, she has also been concerned with the people COG 23 has been hiring. 24 25 Hoag agreed width Brenner. She didn't support the original request and she 26 wouldn't support this for the same reasons. The County won't get a fair shake, and 27 would be in competition with other entities in COG that she didn't want to compete 28 with. At the time this was proposed, she asked how it would be handled if there 29 were different entities that would be eligible for a grant that only one entity could 30 win. COG said they would award the grants on a rotating basis. However, they 31 are not splitting the cost on a rotating basis. 32 33 Imhof stated that might have been said, but it wasn't the intent. For most of 34 the grants, an entity would have to qualify within an area of Whatcom County. 35 There would be very few times over the course of a ten -year period that more than 36 one entity would qualify for the same grant. Having the grant writer and 37 researcher would help the County, the cities, and the Port. There would be a full - 38 time person to investigate the grants that are available, to direct those grants to 39 the entities that would qualify, and to try to bring more dollars into the County. It 40 is an excellent idea. They should participate and ask Bellingham to reconsider their 41 participation. 42 43 Hoag stated all of Imhof's comments apply to having a County grant writer, 44 but she didn't agree with having one at the COG level. 45 46 Dawson stated she had some concerns originally, but was willing to give it a 47 try to see if it is productive. 48 49 Motion carried 4 -3 with McShane, Brenner, and Hoag opposed. 50 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 21 1 Dawson spoke of a letter she proposed to Secretary of State Ralph Munro. 2 The absentee voter envelope asks for the voter to provide verification of the voter's 3 status by indicating whether he or she is a resident, as opposed to a U.S. citizen. 4 The letter would request changing the language on the envelope so it would be in 5 compliance with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Whatcom County 6 Auditor Shirley Forslof supports the letter as well. The letter would include her 7 name. 8 9 Hoag moved to approve the letter to Secretary of State Munro. 10 11 Motion to approve carried unanimously. 12 13 Nelson spoke about his upcoming trip to Washington D.C. to the National 14 Association of Counties (NACo) Conference. He has a letter for the local 15 Congressional delegation, including Senator Gorton, Senator Murray, and 16 Congressman Metcalf, that he will take along regarding water resources and the 17 Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. There are four concerns listed. If there are 18 any more concerns by the councilmembers, he will include them in the letter. 19 20 Crawford concurred with Councilmember Hoag's changes. 21 22 Hoag stated she was looking for more clarity, not a change in intent. 23 24 Dawson moved to approve the letter 25 26 Motion carried unanimously. 27 28 McShane stated one item from Natural Resources Committee was a letter 29 making recommendations for the Shoreline Management Program guidelines. 30 There are essentially no changes in the proposed letter, except for scrivener's 31 errors. He asked for any more recommendations from the Council. 32 33 Hoag suggested adding "clarifying when and where fill is allowed within 34 shoreline jurisdiction" because there seems to be a lot of confusion. This 35 amendment doesn't make it any clearer. 36 37 McShane stated he would look into that. There were some comments he 38 didn't include because they were already addressed. The letter will go out later this 39 week. The comment deadline is March 1. 40 41 McShane moved to approve the letter with the current comments, including 42 the comment from Councilmember Hoag. 43 44 Motion carried unanimously. 45 46 McShane reported that the Natural Resources Committee voted to direct staff 47 to notify parties of record and property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed 48 gravel mines or gravel mine expansions within mineral resource land (MRL) areas 49 regarding administrative approval decisions. 50 51 Imhof questioned what the current regulation is. Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 22 1 2 Hoag stated currently people within 1,000 feet are notified if there is an 3 application. They are not notified of the decision. This request is to notify those 4 same people of the decision. 5 6 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, requested clarification about the 7 direction and whether the request was that only the people within 1,000 feet of the 8 proposed project receive the decision notification. She questioned whether the 9 direction is that they also send the decision to the parties of record. Parties of 10 record get a notice if they ask for one, but the County doesn't automatically send a 11 notice to anyone but the applicant. If the intent is to send a notice to anyone who 12 participates in any way, then that is what they will do. She needed it to be clear. 13 14 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it makes more sense to 15 give the notice to the people who do have the right to appeal. She suggested that 16 the Council direct staff to notify parties of record, not both. 17 18 Hoag stated they also want the people within 1,000 feet to be notified 19 because those people have no idea what decision has been made. 20 21 Imhof stated that if the neighbors haven't had the will to become a party of 22 record, then they must not be concerned. 23 24 Hoag stated that wasn't necessarily true. When the people within 1,000 feet 25 are sent the notice of a project, it only says that someone plans to open or expand 26 a mine, and that the neighbor has 15 days to comment on the application. If they 27 do not comment on the application, it doesn't mean they are not concerned. 28 29 McShane stated the committee voted to notify the parties of record. 30 31 Dawson restated the motion to notify the parties of record. 32 33 Hoag stated she made the motion in committee. She initially made the 34 motion to notify the parties of record and people within 1,000 feet of the use. 35 There was discussion about what that entailed. They ended up changing the 36 motion to people within 1,000 feet because Councilmember Nelson said he wasn't 37 comfortable notifying someone that was on the other side of the county who might 38 have made a comment. At that point, they questioned legal counsel about whether 39 or not parties of record are already notified. People have been concerned about 40 certain expansions and called the County about it, but were not notified when 41 decisions were made. Whether or not they are considered a party of record is 42 something the Council is going to have to look into. It is something the committee 43 will deal with in an upcoming work session. In her mind, they should be notified. 44 Whether or not the County is currently doing that is the question. This motion is 45 regarding someone who is within 1,000 feet of the project and who receives 46 notification of application. That person should also be notified of the decision. 47 48 Imhof stated that if the neighbor didn't have the will to make a comment, 49 they do not become a party of record. If they are not a party of record, even if 50 they live within 1,000 feet, they don't have the ability to appeal. It is too late. Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 23 1 That is why they should be advising the people who have the ability to appeal. He 2 will not support the motion to notify people within 1,000 feet. 3 4 Nelson stated there are two issues. Public knowledge of what is going on in 5 the community is important. He recognized that if there is a decision rendered, 6 those in the area should be notified about the decision. That was his understanding 7 about the motion. 8 9 Imhof stated they are going to have a work session to discuss notification. 10 11 Hoag stated that wasn't correct. The work session was to discuss setting up 12 a surface mining advisory committee (SMAC) and to determine the scope of what 13 the Council would like them to look at in terms of recommendations for regulations 14 and any changes that need to be made. There was some discussion during 15 committee about what the administrative approval process consists of in mineral 16 resources lands and whether or not people who have not issued written comments 17 do have a right to appeal. The decision notification issue is being brought forward 18 to the Council now from the committee. 19 20 Imhof stated it serves no purpose. The people that have made comments 21 and are a party of record should be notified because they have the right and the 22 ability to appeal. The people who live within 1,000 feet, who have not commented 23 and become a party of record, apparently don't care. They don't have to be 24 notified of the outcome. The reason for notifying people of an outcome is so they 25 can exercise their right to appeal. 26 27 Hoag stated that under the administrative approval process there is no public 28 hearing before the decision. 29 30 Imhof stated there is a comment period. 31 32 Hoag stated a citizen testified that he provided comment and still was not 33 notified of the decision. 34 35 Dawson stated she would support notifying the parties of record. 36 37 Crawford questioned whether someone who was concerned would be able to 38 call the people doing the administrative approval and ask when a decision would be 39 rendered. 40 41 Hoag stated citizens testified that they did that, but were not notified when a 42 decision was made. The County code does not require staff to notify them. 43 44 Brenner stated that was her concern when they originally went from a 45 conditional use process to an administrative approval process. She questioned 46 whether people within 1,000 feet are notified and given a chance to comment when 47 there is an application under the administrative approval. 48 49 Goodwin stated they are given a chance to comment at the time the 50 application comes in. Everyone within 1,000 feet gets a notification. If someone Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 24 1 were to call and ask a question, but didn't ask for a copy of the final decision when 2 it is issued, they would not be notified of the decision. 3 4 Brenner questioned the potential outcome after the decision is made since 5 they are given the opportunity to comment and become a party of record. She 6 questioned why they would notify everyone of a decision if there is nothing they 7 can do about it. 8 9 Nelson stated it is a courtesy to let the neighbors know of the decision. It 10 helps both the mineral resource people as well as the neighbors. Another issue is 11 that a party of record has his or her own process. 12 13 Brenner stated she supported parties of record being notified also. She 14 agreed with notification being a courtesy. She would support both. 15 16 McShane restated the motion to direct staff to expand notification of the 17 administrative approval decision on a surface mining activity to all of those within 18 1,000 of the proposal and also to parties of record. 19 20 Kremen stated the amount of work that would be required to do this more 21 extensive notification is not significant. The costs would also not be significant. 22 The County only has two or three of these decisions annually. It is something the 23 County can afford and the administration is willing to do. 24 25 Nelson clarified that a party of record has to be an individual who identifies 26 that he or she wants to be notified, and not someone who just testifies at a 27 hearing. 28 29 Frakes stated the County code defines party of record. It is the owner, the 30 applicant, or anyone who submits written comments. 31 32 Nelson questioned whether someone who lives across the county could 33 become a party of record. Frakes stated that is correct, as defined by the code. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously. 36 37 38 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 39 40 Imhof stated he is also going to the NACo Conference. He is dealing with 41 border issues and criminal justice issues. Any comments about these issues would 42 be appreciated. 43 44 Nelson stated Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, will also be attending, 45 and is dealing with the transportation issues. If there are concerns about that, they 46 should be given to Mr. Desler. 47 48 McShane stated he attended his first Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection 49 District meeting. They are moving toward sending a camera down the Blaine sewer 50 line. There are indications there are serious problems. 51 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 25 1 Brenner stated they sent a letter to the State Senate and House legislative 2 committees to support a senate and house bill that would give Whatcom County 3 $1.2 million to deal more extensively with mental health issues. Whatcom County 4 is the only county in a position to do this pilot program. She hasn't heard back 5 about what has happened. There was a rush, and they had to get the letter down 6 to Olympia by last Thursday. 7 8 Hoag stated they also responded to a joint House resolution in support of the 9 request to Congress to modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act so they can 10 address endangered species. 11 12 Crawford stated he talked to Bruce Thompson from Sumas last week about 13 the sales tax exemption. Mr. Thompson talked to Governor Locke, who has given 14 them some support on that. 15 16 Hoag stated that is very dismaying because the citizens haven't even had a 17 chance to contact Governor Locke. 18 19 Nelson stated they received a letter regarding the pipeline from Senator 20 Murray's office. She has legislation she is trying to get through, but she needs 21 support. He urged the County Council to unanimously endorse that process and 22 send forward its recommendations of approval. He can take that approval to the 23 NACo Conference. He so moved. 24 25 Hoag asked Nelson to describe the legislation. 26 27 Nelson stated Senator Murray refers to the fact that there are far more 28 tragedies involved regarding pipelines than people realize. There are over 300 29 deaths annually. There are concerns about pipeline safety because of a lack of 30 jurisdictional control. She wants to return some control to the states. 31 32 Hoag agreed with the support. 33 34 Nelson stated the support would go to all of their congressional leaders. 35 36 Dawson restated the motion to send a letter supporting Senator Murray's 37 legislation. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 Kremen stated there have been parking problems, especially on Council 42 meeting days. The administration is sensitive to the councilmembers' situation and 43 is putting a plan in place that would enable another three or four parking places for 44 the days they are engaged in meetings at the courthouse. They will probably 45 restrict more spaces in the parking lot that will be specifically designated for 46 Whatcom County councilmembers. 47 48 Nelson stated they are usually carrying in a lot of materials and need parking 49 nearby. 50 Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on March 7, 2000. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Marlene Dawson, Council Chair Regular County Council, 2/22/2000, Page 27