HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole December 7 19991
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
December 7, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
1. UPDATE FROM WHATCOM COUNTY WATER RESOURCE PLANNER SUE
BLAKE ON LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT (AB99 -056)
Sue Blake, Watershed Resource Planner, stated that the purpose of the
discussion was to receive any comments the councilmembers had about the work
program they presented a month ago. She distributed a summary of comments
from other people. She would be presenting suggestions from the community that
have a substantive difference from what is currently in the work program. She
would take the councilmembers' comments to the meeting with Water District #10
the following evening. They will meet with the City of Bellingham the following
week. These comments came from their November 8 public meeting. They've
gotten some comments from former commissioners. They've also gotten
comments from the general public.
Under the topic of watershed ownership, someone suggested they poll the
community to see how much money people are willing to pay for watershed
protection.
Hoag questioned whether the public's comments are under consideration or if
they will be included in the plan. Blake stated they are under consideration. She
wanted to know if the councilmembers felt strongly about any of these suggestions.
She needed feedback from the councilmembers about which suggestions to
consider.
Blake continued to discuss the suggestions. The first suggestion was to poll
the community to see how much money individuals are willing to pay to protect the
watershed.
Hoag stated they should let the City of Bellingham do it.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, 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
48
Brenner stated she didn't like that.
Nelson agreed with Brenner. It doesn't make any sense. He questioned how
much they should poll the community about.
Brown stated that was a very low priority.
Brenner stated it is important to work with the community so they know why
the County has to pay to protect the watershed.
Nelson stated he wanted to add an item under "Watershed Ownership" that
they continue to look at grants for development rights and other alternative
methods for land preservation, whether that is a State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) purchase or transfers or utilizing conservation futures funds to
purchase easements. Blake stated that option is already included in that section of
the plan.
Blake continued to state that item T2 under "Watershed Ownership" does not
have a timeframe. The recommendation was that they establish a timeframe for
that item. Item T2 is to identify, assess, and evaluate property purchases that are
determined to be necessary for the purpose of stormwater management, such as
retrofits. They weren't sure when they were going to get to that.
Brown stated that is the biggest problem. All the money ought to go to this
item. They should upgrade and install stormwater collection facilities. A lot of that
is within the City of Bellingham.
The councilmembers concurred to establish a timeframe.
Blake stated they are looking at that as a part of the stormwater program,
but they can clarify that there is a timeframe for looking at it. Under the section
"Stormwater Management," the first comment notes that the modeling could take
longer than what they currently anticipate. It could affect the timeframe, but they
are not sure at this point.
There was some confusion under task T5 and stormwater that they are
reviewing compliance. The person who commented felt that they meant
compliance with water quality standards. What this refers to is compliance with
stormwater requirements.
It was suggested that tasks T1 through T5 be clarified that all the tasks are a
part of the existing comprehensive stormwater program that is currently underway
at phase one. They refer to it later on in subsequent tasks.
There was a suggestion to add a budget estimate to task T6, which was the
early placeholder for the comprehensive stormwater program.
Dawson stated that was fine.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, 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
Nelson asked how they would do that. Blake stated the suggestion was that
they say they will work out the budget as part of the comprehensive program, as
they work along this coming year. They need to clarify that there will at least be
requirements.
Nelson stated they need to have the plan first.
Blake read the next bullet point, that every person who develops should be
required to retain and treat sewer and water.
Sutter questioned whether that would be associated with a task under this
plan, or if it is something they need to do through regulation. Blake stated this is
something the Council can consider now, as a part of the stormwater requirements.
Dawson questioned whether anyone addressed retrofitting. Blake stated it is
being addressed as part of the comprehensive stormwater program. They are
addressing where they would put facilities.
Brenner suggested they add an item to do retrofitting. Blake stated they
could make sure there is a mechanism in the plan to address retrofitting.
Hoag questioned how they cover maintenance on required stormwater
collection facilities. Blake stated that there are actions related to an early action
maintenance and operation project. They can help people understand what they
need to do. They are discussing ways to help people do required maintenance. As
part of the comprehensive stormwater program, they are going to have to develop
a maintenance and operation strategy for the County. She will bring that
discussion to the councilmembers at some point down the road. There will be
policy issues.
Blake continued to state that a suggestion under "Urbanization and
Development" was to not clear vegetation completely when creating a
development.
Hoag suggested alternate language, "minimize removal of vegetation." Blake
stated the councilmembers would be discussing phasing clearing as a regulatory
change at the evening meeting. That is something they can act on at the evening
meeting.
Hoag stated it doesn't cover the issue of minimizing vegetation removal.
Blake stated the next item is up for interpretation. It suggests keeping
densities away the lake itself, through downzoning and incentives.
Brenner suggested removing the first sentence. A cul -de -sac isn't any worse
than scattered houses.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, 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
45
46
47
48
Dawson stated no one was interested in downzoning, but they are interested
in providing incentives. Blake stated there are recommendations for incentives.
Hoag stated cul -de -sacs could be done to minimize the amount of impervious
surfaces. It is appropriate, that if a development is near the lake, the amount of
impervious surfaces be minimized.
Brenner stated a bunch of single houses with driveways right next to each
other would have more impervious surfaces than a cul -de -sac.
Hoag stated that was not the only alternative. They can install vegetation in
the middle of a cul -de -sac, run the road through, and do other things.
Brenner stated the suggestion says that cul -de -sacs are a big danger.
Nelson stated there wasn't anything in the report that showed cul -de -sacs as
the culprit.
Brenner agreed. The culprit is the density. She suggested, "reduce density
and impervious surface" rather than target cul -de -sacs.
Blake continued to state that the next comment was about making violation
penalties higher or more severe.
The councilmembers concurred.
Nelson questioned the definition of a large penalty to a developer.
Brown stated that, any more, even a person building one home is considered
a developer.
Sutter stated all they need to do is put teeth into the regulation.
The councilmembers concurred.
Hoag suggested deleting the second sentence, so they put teeth into the
regulation and try to make it so it is not worthwhile to abuse the regulation. Blake
stated the councilmembers wanted them to take a look at the penalty system.
Nelson questioned whether the County's fines are sufficient. Blake stated
they can take a look at it.
Blake continued to say that the next two items request that they take a look
at tax relief for people in the watershed who are doing things in water sensitive
ways. That could be considered as part of the incentives.
Sutter questioned whether they could afford tax incentives. Blake stated
they have to look at that.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, 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
45
46
47
Nelson stated they couldn't do tax incentives. They can't offer tax relief on
one group of citizens that can't be applied to others.
Brown stated the long -term stability of zoning would substantially decrease
the amount of immediate development. People are being driven to develop right
away because of the fear they would not be able to develop in the future.
Blake continued to say that the items on the second page are requests that
some of the items be done sooner. Under the section "Community Outreach" the
request was to define Integrated Pest Management (IPM). They can do that. The
second item was to provide more education about how pesticides can affect water
quality and public health, and would provide information on alternatives to pesticide
use in the watershed.
Sutter stated there isn't anything that says the individual property owner
can't use pesticides. Blake stated this item regards education on that issue.
Sutter stated that item specifies that they provide alternatives. They are
limiting the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in greenhouses, but individual
property owners who fertilize their lawns and spray their roses are not prohibited.
Blake stated this is an education - focused suggestion.
Brenner wanted to adopt regulations that prevent the use of pesticides.
Sutter stated enforcement was the problem.
Brenner stated a problem with enforcement happens in everything they do.
Nelson stated they couldn't create laws that can't be enforced.
Brenner stated they could be enforced by complaints.
Brown stated pesticides and herbicides play an important part in maintaining
the environment if they have a large timber kill.
Brenner stated they could make an exception in those types of cases. They
can prohibit use for routine gardening. They can utilize the County's pest board.
Bruce Roll, Water Resource Manager, stated to push people into doing other
things, they have to know they are viable alternatives that are environmentally
friendly and work as well. Those need to be in place, regardless of regulation.
Brenner stated it is just like recycling. If they don't mandate certain things,
they will have the few people who always do the right thing and the rest who will
not.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, 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
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Sutter stated they have to go hand -in -hand. They have to talk to the
suppliers. When it comes to education, they should not leave out the suppliers,
such as the hardware stores and home improvement stores. They need to be
educated so they stock the alternative items.
Blake brought up the last item.
Hoag suggested language that new officials, as they are elected, are
educated on the condition of the lake.
Nelson stated they should be taken out on a busy day.
Hoag stated the main point is to educate newly elected officials on the lake.
The councilmembers agreed.
Blake stated the request under "Data and Information Management" was that
the first item, T1, be a high priority. That item is to provide an annual review of
the latest monitoring results and other information for the purpose of assessing the
state of the lake and to identify high priority concerns that need to be addressed by
the management program.
The councilmembers concurred.
Blake stated another suggestion was to have an evaluation of water quality
impacts associated with public properties, particularly Bloedel- Donovan Park.
Hoag stated that was appropriate.
Blake stated one item was to take a look at how Sudden Valley is doing
business related to fertilizer and pesticide management. It is a similar exercise
related to those properties.
The councilmembers concurred.
Blake stated the next item was to compare water quality between the City of
Bellingham and Water District #10 intakes.
Imhof questioned whether it is being done. Blake stated they have not
compared them directly. It would be an easy exercise.
The councilmembers concurred.
Blake stated the next item has to do with the pesticides and fertilizers in the
watershed. Currently in the plan, there is an education topic. They are also going
to present options for banning or reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
They will look at how other communities have handled it. The councilmembers will
get a chance to look at options, then decide if that is what they want to do.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 6
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
Nelson questioned whether they would provide the data to support the
reasoning.
Imhof questioned whether there are pesticides in the water.
Brenner stated there are chemicals.
Nelson stated some of the areas have agricultural practices. It doesn't make
sense to do an outright ban in the watershed. Blake stated they have indicated
some interest in seeing how other communities may have handled this. That is
what they will bring back to the Council.
Sutter stated they need to find ways to reduce the use of pesticides in the
watershed.
Brenner stated it shouldn't be that difficult to find out which chemicals that
are regularly used get in the water, and then ban them. People should be
educated. Everyone should get a notice about what is banned in the watershed. If
anyone is caught putting banned chemicals in the watershed, then they would get a
fine.
Hoag suggested using what they have, and then document usage to establish
the problem and the reason for a ban. Blake stated they can summarize what they
do know about the problem, which is not very much.
Hoag stated the information is not documented. They need to document the
effect of pesticides and fertilizers in the watershed and consider a ban.
Brenner stated that sounds like a lot of money and testing. They don't have
to re- invent the wheel. She questioned whether they could get data from other
sources that have had this problem. Blake stated they could look at the state of
knowledge about that issue, and present the options.
Blake continued to discuss the section "Forestry, Fish, and Wildlife." The first
item is a comment to do logging in ways that minimizes impact on water quality.
The second bullet is to evaluate fertilizer and pesticide use on commercial forests.
Sutter stated that is documenting the problem that they already talked
about.
Hoag agreed that it was appropriate. They need to find out what they are
using and whether or not it is ending up in the water.
Nelson stated the applicator has to be bonded on commercial practices. They
are so restricted on what they can and can't use in forestry practices, particularly in
the watershed. They've had presentations on this at the Forestry Forum. The
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 7
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
product Roundup that is used on a residential lawn is far more harmful than what is
used on forestry applications.
Brown stated they use the version of Roundup that does not include the
surfactant. It becomes a product called Rodeo that is compatible.
Hoag stated there are a lot of products applied that have gone into the
water, and were applied by people who were bonded who were following existing
regulation.
Nelson asked who Hoag referred to, and where and when.
Hoag stated people in the berry fields who had to provide bottled water.
Nelson stated they are talking about Lake Whatcom.
Hoag stated just because someone is bonded doesn't mean what they are
putting on doesn't cause a problem in the water. It is very appropriate to evaluate
what is occurring there and whether or not it is impacting the water.
Nelson stated they do that continuously.
Brenner agreed with Hoag.
Blake stated a suggestion for recreation was to ban two - stroke engines off
the lake. With recreation the way it is now, they come back to their options. They
haven't settled on one right now.
Brenner questioned whether two - stroke engines are the ones that dump
more of the gasoline and oil into the water. Blake stated that was correct.
Hoag stated they burn oil with the fuel.
Brenner questioned whether they can do item number two legally.
Sutter stated she didn't believe they could.
Nelson stated they could charge a different fee to put boats in the water.
Blake questioned whether the Council wanted to consider banning two - stroke
engines from the lake.
Brenner stated she wanted to look at it. Blake stated they would look at it.
She will bring back options for them to consider.
Dawson stated there is also a safety issue.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 8
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
Blake discussed the section "Utilities and Waste Management." They need to
correct task T8, which was inadvertently left off. Under "General," the first task is
to take a look at how much it would cost to get water from other sources. The
issue was where they would go to get water if they could no longer use Lake
Whatcom.
The councilmembers concurred.
Brenner stated they could generalize that and not spend much time on it.
Sutter stated the value of that item is to show the community what it would
cost.
Hoag stated they should also look at what it would take to protect that new
water source.
Blake stated they are trying to coordinate efforts with the Department of
Ecology (DOE) flood program. They are trying to put everything in terms of the
dollar value.
Brenner stated that was a mistake. Turning everything into a dollar value
devalues intrinsic things that shouldn't have a dollar value attached.
Sutter stated that is all some people who need to get the message will hear.
Brenner stated there are people that are willing to pay to pollute. They
shouldn't encourage that.
Sutter stated they are not saying one can pay to pollute.
Brenner suggested they say that there are some things that can't have a
value attached.
Sutter suggested they tie together bullet points.
Hoag suggested language that the costs be considered.
Blake stated another suggestion was to create a packet for new homeowners
in the watershed, with the recommended ways to live in the watershed. Putting
something on the deed would underscore the fact they are in a place that is in a
watershed.
Hoag stated a title company would read the deed and know if something is
on there.
Sutter stated every change of title is recorded at the Auditor's Office. She
suggested distributing the packet of information to anyone who records a new
deed, including the title companies.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 9
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
Hoag suggested that the notice on the deed would inform the homeowner
that they live in the watershed, and would refer him or her to the County for more
information.
Nelson stated there are already several programs in existence. There are
signs posted at the entrance to the watershed. In addition, residents get many
mailings every year about water quality from various groups.
Hoag stated the cost of putting a notice on the deed is minimal, compared to
cleaning up the lake.
Sutter stated there is not anything wrong with giving people suggestions
about what they can do to help preserve water quality. A stamp on the deed
doesn't tell them how to act responsibly. People need to know those kinds of
specific things. She didn't want that information on the deed.
Brenner suggested a stamp on the deed that notifies people they live in a
drinking water watershed that has restrictions. Homeowners should call the County
for more information.
Nelson stated people don't have to call. The information comes in the mail
on a weekly basis.
Dawson stated there are four councilmembers that support the suggestion.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Blake stated that the Water District would generate a status report on what
they have done related to overflows.
Sutter stated she wanted information on the impediments to reducing the
overflow.
Blake stated the request was to distinguish between projects that are specific
activities and projects that are ongoing. They can easily do that. Another
suggestion was that future program plans should include a summary of the
expenditures. Other suggestions include providing more information on the citizen
advisory committee. They should also include a summary of how much they have
spent. The rest of the suggestions don't relate to the specific activities they are
planning for the following year. It is more about the accomplishments.
2. DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
JEFF MONSEN AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL
REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
(AB99 -391)
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 10
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
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they have two items to discuss.
One item is the salmon grant application cycle. John Thompson was present to
provide information. They also have the opportunity to talk more about the
interlocal agreement and how they should allocate the balance of the time in the
work session.
Hoag stated she was not comfortable voting on the interlocal agreement until
they have more information.
Brown stated he read through the information, and has fewer concerns than
before. This is a derivative of the resolution they passed.
Dawson stated one should refer to the other. She would insert language at
the beginning, "Based on policy directions provided to members of the joint board."
Each of those members is from the Initiating Governments.
Brenner stated that reiterates what is in the other.
Dawson stated it doesn't refer to the Initiating Governments, but each of the
Initiating Governments know where their policy direction comes from.
Brown suggested, "Whereas Resolution 99 -050 directed the creation of
this "
Sutter stated this is not just the County's document. It is a document of all
five Initiating Governments. Whatever goes in the document, they have to agree
to.
Dawson stated they've already agreed to it.
Sutter stated they haven't agreed to any new language they add.
Dawson stated it just refers to the other.
Sutter stated they still have to approve it.
Hoag stated that was fine. They've been getting revisions on this from the
other four initiating governments all week. The County should be able to make
revisions. They should put the language in.
Roll stated they run the risk of the other Initiating Governments not agreeing
to the language.
Hoag stated they have had the same risk. It is supposed to be something
that everyone agrees to. The other four governments do all their talking and then
bring a document to the County, who is supposed to not make any changes. The
County needs to have its input go into it. That isn't happening.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 11
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
Dawson stated she wasn't comfortable with delaying it.
Hoag stated she had a couple of questions. She questioned whether they
have ever seen the structure and function document dated March 25, 1999.
Monsen stated it refers to the operating procedures.
Hoag stated it does. Monsen stated it refers to the operating procedures and
the memorandum of understanding.
Hoag stated she has seen the memorandum of understanding. The operating
procedure document dated March 11, 1999 is a different document. She is not
familiar with either of those documents. This substitutes the memorandum of
agreement for the operating procedures as how the decisions will be made.
Sutter stated it was in the Council packet, beginning on page 163.
Hoag questioned whether the Council ever reviewed this.
Nelson stated he has reviewed it.
Sutter stated they all saw this. There was a flow chart that went with it.
Hoag asked about the structure and function document of March 25, 1999.
Sutter stated it is the one with the flow chart.
Hoag asked why they are striking the memorandum of agreement and
substituting it with the operating procedures.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the operating procedures
and memorandum of agreement say the same thing. In drafting it, he put in both
of them because they both describe the same process. The Nooksack Tribe did not
sign the memorandum of agreement. Consequently, when it came to the
"Whereas" that refers to an agreement they hadn't signed, he believed that was the
reason for striking the memorandum of agreement, since both documents define
the same decision - making process.
Hoag stated the memorandum of agreement spelled out certain things.
Gibson pointed out the focus in one clause. Decisions made with regard to entering
into contracts will be governed by the decision - making procedure as outlined. He
referred initially to both of the documents, which both say the same thing. There is
a political sensitivity to the first document. The second document covers the issue.
Hoag questioned whether Gibson was certain that there is nothing in the first
document that is neglected in the second document. Gibson stated he didn't see
the difference.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 12
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
Nelson questioned when the strikeouts came. They came on Friday. Monsen
stated they were a result of a follow -up meeting of a drafting committee that met
Thursday afternoon.
Nelson stated that the document has already been altered substantially, and
questioned why it would make any difference if the Council made changes. Gibson
stated that if there is something that is critical to say, that hasn't been said, then
they should make changes. Other entities have had opportunity for input. If they
find it critical to say something that hasn't been said or should be said differently,
then there is nothing that forecloses them from doing that. On the other hand, if it
is simply a matter of restating language that already exists, they should make it
count. If it is going to end up in the same place, they shouldn't bother.
Hoag stated they keep finding themselves in the same position, and she
didn't understand why there seems to be very good dialogue between the other
four governments, but the County seems to always be the last one to have a look
at anything. Gibson stated there is very good dialogue with the staff of the other
four governments. He suspected, depending on the level of concern and scrutiny
that other legislative bodies want to put to this, there may be a similar discussion.
Staff talks to each other to get input and feedback.
Nelson stated this is a result of the feedback they received the last time.
Hoag stated they are not getting feedback from the County Council.
Nelson stated they are. That is what this is a result of.
Hoag stated they haven't seen this before.
Nelson stated the original memorandum was before the Council and
everyone was upset there wasn't a definition of everyone's roles. They wanted that
defined by the Planning Unit.
Dawson stated they wanted to come back with a budgeting angle, but the
County Council did not get input on it.
Hoag stated she was talking about this interlocal agreement that was in front
of them. They have never seen it before. The other Initiating Governments have
seen it, been talking about it, and making revisions to it.
Monsen stated they received the first version either ahead of or at the same
time as everyone else.
Hoag stated when it goes into the County Council packet, the other
governments are making revisions, which the Council receives days later. The
Council doesn't have an opportunity to review it together and make input. They
always end up with the finished product that the other governments have been
reviewing and revising. The County Council is then always told not to revise it
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 13
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
because everyone else has already to agreed to it. They are not getting the same
level of dialogue with the staff that they need to be efficiently processing this. The
other four Initiating Governments seem to be doing a better job of that.
Dawson stated that, if no one asks any questions, that may be a problem.
Sutter stated they should talk about big problems and substantive issues.
Nelson stated he had an issue with the budget. His only concern regarded
the calendar year. They should define the calendar year, and not try to put it on
the same budget cycle as the County's budget cycle. That way, they have ample
time to look at the same issues. The only part they control is the flood control
money. That would provide ample time to review the projects to see if they are
appropriate.
Dawson stated policy and budget go together.
Brenner stated Dawson's amendment clarifies it. It is an important
clarification.
Dawson stated policy comes before budget. She moved to amend language,
"Based on policy direction provided to members of the joint board." Gibson
explained why it was drafted the way it was and the various reactions. It was
required under 3934 to address budget within an interlocal agreement. The budget
that is adopted by the joint administrative board identifies anticipated sources of
revenue. It does not raise taxes by itself. It is not a taxing authority. It identifies
where it expects the revenue to come from. The County is one of the five
governments that participate in adopting that budget, which identifies anticipated
sources of revenue and identifies, in varying degrees of detail, where that money is
going to be spent. Most of the money comes from Whatcom County's water
resource fund. The adoption of the budget by itself does not bring this money in.
Brown stated that the key is that, once a budget is adopted and things are
set aside, the Council would not be delving back into it. Therefore, they shouldn't
be blocking the activity. Gibson stated in addition to that, the concern was that
even after the money was distributed to the fund, it had to come back through the
Council again. They have cut out that second loop through the County Council.
The first loop that the County Council has to appropriate money from the water
resource fund still exists.
Sutter stated it is based on their budget. Gibson stated it is based on their
budget and the level of detail that the County Council is going to require making its
decision. Within the five initiating governments, there is tension on this matter.
Whatcom County says that they want to ensure that the appropriation of funds
from them is consistent with its policy. That is appropriate. Other governments
believe the County should just trust them and hand over the money.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 14
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
Hoag stated they are supposed to be spending the taxpayer's money.
Gibson stated they are the ones that control the purse strings.
Dawson questioned whether they put any money in the fund until after they
get the budget. Roll stated that was correct.
Gibson stated the County Council doesn't put any money in the fund until
they get the level of detail that they are satisfied with.
Hoag stated that puts them right back in the position of not funding things
that have already been agreed to. They need to set policy first, and then set the
budget. Gibson stated they would be doing that.
Hoag stated Dawson's proposed language change doesn't specify the County
Council's policy. It clarifies that it has to stay within the guidelines of policy, which
is exactly what they claim they are going to do.
Sutter asked how the County Council is going to give them any policy
direction if the Council doesn't have their proposal.
Hoag stated they are supposed to bring the policy forward and ask for
prioritization of where the funds will go.
Gibson stated this discussion has occurred among the people who have been
at the table. Some governments clearly recognize this concern. Others recognize
it, but are not prepared to address it. They know what the issue is, which forces
them to agree to it.
Hoag stated that means they have a problem. Gibson stated that isn't what
it means.
Hoag stated that is what it means. She questioned why someone would have
a problem signing the agreement if they don't intend to follow through.
Sutter stated they are afraid that the County Council is going to continue to
try to micro - manage everything they try to do.
Brenner stated they have never micro - managed.
Brown stated he is satisfied with the way it is.
Hoag stated Dawson should bring forward her motion at the evening
meeting.
Sutter asked for the justification for striking the "Whereas" on the first page
regarding engaging in watershed planning. Gibson stated it goes back to the issue
that the Nooksack Tribe did not sign the memorandum of agreement. There is a
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 15
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
certain sensitivity to talk about things. When faced with the choice, they decided to
strike it.
Sutter asked about the difference between "the board" and "the joint board"
as referenced in the document. It needs to be consistent. Gibson stated he will
make that change.
Hoag questioned the "Whereas" that was stricken regarding procedure
processes. Gibson stated there seems to be sensitivity from a couple of different
directions. Given that sensitivity, the language didn't seem critical to the
document.
Hoag stated they are talking about planning unit processes, which are
established in state law. She questioned why they would adopt an interlocal
agreement that strikes that language. Gibson stated that, because it is in state
law, they have the liberty to adopt a document that doesn't specifically reference it.
It is the law.
Hoag stated that a while back staff brought the Council a memorandum of
agreement that had some things included that the councilmembers were not
comfortable with. The councilmembers were told that ESHB 2514 establishes the
state law and they can't do away with it. Later, State Representative Kelli Linville
said those items were something the state legislature should consider as changes to
ESHB 2514. The councilmembers told Linville they signed the agreement because
they were told the legislature would retain those things. Representative Linville
told the councilmembers not to do that, because the state legislature could change
anything at any time. She was not comfortable with not including language
regarding the Planning Unit in the agreement, even though it is state law. Gibson
stated the Planning Unit processes need to be addressed. This interlocal agreement
is not intended to be the place for that.
Hoag questioned what exactly the interlocal agreement is supposed to do.
Gibson stated it is supposed to establish the joint administrative board financial
operating procedures.
Sutter stated the Planning Unit is not part of the administrative board.
Monsen stated a critical element of decision - making by the board includes
approval by the Planning Unit.
Skip Richards, citizen, stated the Nooksack Tribe hired a Seattle attorney,
who struck the "Whereas" without explanation. Some of the Planning Unit
members found that language disconcerting because it suggested the process by
which the Planning Unit would make decisions. That is something the Planning Unit
is doing on its own. The law sets forth the process by which the Planning Unit is
established. It doesn't dictate how the Planning Unit operates internally.
Hoag stated it does. It says how the votes will be taken.
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 16
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
Richards stated it does not. It says the government entities will vote by
consensus and that the non - government entities will vote either by consensus or
majority. This phrase brought up the issue about the role between initiating
governments and the Planning Unit. A memo from one of the initiating
governments suggested the Planning Unit is virtually a non - entity. That is a really
problem. The concern they raised was to either re- phrase that term or drop it. The
Nooksack Tribe said they want to drop that phrase anyway, so the Planning Unit
agreed. It isn't necessary to the execution of the agreement to have that comment
in there. Whether it is accurate or not, it isn't necessary. They are only talking
about the inter - relationship of the initiating governments when they are doing their
disbursement of funds. That is all this interlocal is supposed to address. It is not
supposed to address how the Planning Unit operates or the relationship between
the Planning Unit and the initiating governments. They recommend that phrase be
left out. It is a separate issue.
Hoag asked about the documents referred to as the structure roles and
operating procedures and the flow chart. These were presented to councilmembers
in the Natural Resources Committee. She questioned whether they were ever
brought to the Council for approval.
Nelson stated they had a meeting about it during a Committee of the Whole
meeting. Monsen stated they will need direction as they have their monthly
meetings. Procedurally, they have been looking to the councilmembers to see if
there are objections to activities at this point. They have not brought items forward
for the councilmembers to take formal action.
Hoag stated that the reason she asked is because she was told what staff
was considering, but was never asked if she believed the activities are according to
the law and policy.
Brenner stated the councilmembers went over them and had the
presentation. They never adopted anything.
Brown stated he believed they agreed on a format.
Monsen stated they did not vote as a council on most of the issues. During
these discussions, they've brought forward various elements and looked for
comments and /or objections. They've not asked for formal approval.
Sutter stated they are not legislative documents.
Hoag stated in her mind the document was in process and the process was
being set up. They kept being told that various items were being formed. She
never took the time to question whether the items were being done, as they should
be. That should have occurred. In the future, they need to make sure those things
are occurring. They need to know that the Council will review documents being
adopted by the other initiating governments. Monsen stated that is the reason they
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 17
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
are having discussions during Committee of the Whole, so they are not caught up in
all the other issues that come up during regular council meetings. Staff will do the
best they can to transmit the salmon recovery items to the councilmembers in
writing. They want to schedule a work session in January. During this evening,
they were going to try to address informational and preparatory work for the work
session in January.
Brown stated the County is supposed to be doing the land management
aspect under ESHB2496. He questioned whether that had actually been designated
to the tribes to do. Monsen stated that wasn't correct. There is an early draft of a
Chinook recovery plan in which the Lummi staff attempted to write some of the
land use information.
Brown questioned whether they would accept the County's land use work.
Monsen stated the document doesn't exist until they mutually agree on all the
language.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on February 8 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 12/7/99, Page 18