HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 13 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
Regular County Council
July 13, 1999
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:
Kathy Sutter None
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dawson announced that there was discussion during Committee of the Whole
executive session regarding pending litigation (AB99 -018) and consideration of an
appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on File No. CUP98 -0028, filed by
Terry Beardsley, regarding installation of a 24 square foot sign to advertise a
home occupation (AB99 -168)
Imhof moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE N JUNE 1, 1999; REGULAR COUNCIL N
MARCH 20, 1997 (283 PAGE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE FOR
REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE), JUNE 1 AND JUNE 15, 1999
Imhof moved to approve by acclamation.
Hoag stated it was the May 20, not March 20, meeting they were approving.
Sutter stated she began going through the transcribed minutes and
comparing it to the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated there needs to be a process where a non - Council member can
review the May 20, 1997 minutes and compare them with the Comprehensive Plan.
She questioned whether staff had plans to hire someone.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
49
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they had not planned on
having staff do the comparison because there isn't money available. She
questioned whether the Council members would want someone with a planning
background to make the comparisons.
Hoag stated she did not. It was a matter of comparing words, not policies or
ideas. It is a matter of whether or not what was voted on ended up in the
document. They discussed using the funds that were left over from hiring a
temporary employee. She questioned whether those funds were still available.
Brown -Davis stated they were still available.
Sutter stated it would be an enormous task for someone who wasn't there at
the meetings to do the review. One would have to go back through the discussion
to determine the intent. Some of the motions were direction to staff to come up
with language.
Hoag moved to use the extra help funds in the Council budget to have
someone compare the Comprehensive Plan minutes with the Comprehensive Plan.
Dawson stated she was comfortable having staff and Council review the
documents.
Imhof agreed with Dawson.
Brown requested a copy of the transcript. Brown -Davis stated a staff person
went through the transcript and highlighted the motions.
Sutter volunteered to give her copy to Brown.
Brenner stated it wasn't a matter of having staff time. It was a matter of
having an objective review of the minutes.
Hoag stated she was uncomfortable with Sutter's review, because her
previous review was incorrect. In some of the errors that have been found, there
were indications that Council members may have influenced the errors. It is not
appropriate. She appreciated the gesture, though. The Council has the funds to
have someone go through the document.
Brown stated, in following the trail that leads through the minutes, there
needs to be a recollection of what took place during conversations. There may be
some bias one way or the other, but no one is going to try and slant the review.
Imhof stated they have a document that was working forward through the
process. Changes were made, and things were included in the document. They
had the document for six weeks before they voted on it. They voted on a finished
document. They've lived with the Comprehensive Plan, and he didn't see a
problem.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
49
50
Brenner stated no one was trying to slant anything. Everyone has their
individual perspectives. The most objective review would be from someone outside
the group. It is most important that the minutes are correct.
Sutter stated the minutes are accurate. They are now verbatim.
Nelson stated that period was very difficult for everyone. There were many
different points of view being thrown back and forth during committee meetings,
Council meetings, and work sessions. The final document is the one that they
should support. It is a living document. The County allows for a Comprehensive
Plan process to make amendments and changes. They shouldn't second -guess the
processes that went into it. It would take an enormous amount of staff time and
tax payers' money. If something needs to be changed, then they should go
through that via an amendment.
Hoag stated it was not a finished document they voted on that night. There
were two work sessions on May 20, 1997, prior to the night meeting in which the
document was voted on and approved. It is the information from those work
sessions that did not get properly into the Comprehensive Plan. Also, it is very
important that the information in the Comprehensive Plan be based on the public
conversations and votes, not on Council members' recollection. It is important to
have someone who is objective do the review.
Brenner stated she misspoke earlier. She meant the Comprehensive Plan,
not the minutes, are more important to be correct.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
2. CORRECTION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6,
1999 COUNCIL MEETING
See above.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District (PUD) #1 Manager, stated he made
comments about the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) presentation during the last Council
meeting. He submitted a document (on file). He had no objection to PSE's desire
to get the federal government to review the interpretation of federal law. That is
what they are asking the public to do. He did object to the way they are portraying
the process. They are saying the credit on the residential bill is paid by the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). That is only partially true. There was a
modification in 1996 of the residential exchange program. In 1980, there were
decisions in the rate case that asked the current participants in the residential
exchange program to terminate that program within five years, the end of the
contract. Bonneville negotiated termination plans with all of the current residential
exchange in utilities. Both Bonneville and the utilities knew what the payments
would be. Also, in 1996 PSE was seeking approval of merger. The document he
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
49
distributed is a part of the proceedings for the Utility and Transportation
Commission's (UTC) approval of that merger. The issue for the UTC at that time
was rate stability for residential and small farm customers. PSE agreed to maintain
the residential exchange for five years, and pay the difference out of their pocket.
They were willing to do that, because their projected savings from the merger
would make up for that cost. It is disingenuous for PSE to point the finger at the
Bonneville Power Administration as taking away that credit. Right now, 2/3 of that
credit is paid by Puget Sound Energy.
Brenner asked what happens after the five years, if the change takes effect.
Anderson stated all Bonneville's contracts from 1981 will expire the end of
September 2001. Bonneville's offer in the process gives the exchange in utilities
more kilowatt hours, not more money. PSE would rather have money. Bonneville's
offer is to increase the residential exchange portion of their allotment in the next
five years.
Hoag asked what is happening with the PUD and other publicly owned
utilities in the next five years. Anderson stated he was not aware that any of the
public utilities are currently participating in the residential exchange program, which
is an outgrowth of the 1996 rate case. He didn't have a draft contract with
Bonneville. He didn't even know if the exchange program will be offered to the
public utilities, after 2001. None of the public utilities are participating in the
residential exchange rate.
Hoag asked if Bonneville is giving a rate break to the public utilities.
Anderson stated Bonneville is not giving the public utilities a reduced rate. The
public utilities are Bonneville's primary contract customers. The public utilities are
the ones that guarantee the debt payment on the dams, through Bonneville. That
is the rate.
Hoag asked if they get a different rate than the investor -owned utilities.
Anderson stated they do, by statute. By statute, the public entities in the
northwest are preference customers of Bonneville and are paid the preference rate
of power.
Hoag stated the point of what she read from PSE is the customers should
receive the credit from BPA, whether they were customers of a publicly owned
utility or an investor -owned utility. It shouldn't matter. The individual on the
street has the same investment in those dams. Anderson stated that was not true.
The dams in the Columbia system were built with federal debt that is guaranteed by
the contract customers of Bonneville. The debt payments on the dam for the past
60+ years have all been paid by the public utilities. Public tax dollars have not paid
any of that debt.
Leslie Rigg, Whatcom Counseling and Psychiatric Clinic, stated a grant was
made through the County Mental Health Advisory Board for the Gatekeeper
program, which does outreach for at -risk elders in the community. She has been
employed to talk to people about senior services not being accessed by the elders
in the community. This is the first formal cooperation between the mental health
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
48
49
system and the Northwest Regional Council (NWRC). It will be very fruitful. Skagit
County also contributed to the program.
Dawson questioned where an elder should call for help. Rigg stated that
someone can called Senior Information assistance, a service of the NWRC, and put
them in touch with the services they need. Many of the people who are not coming
forward are those with dementia and mental health issues.
Brenner stated this was based upon a pilot program in Spokane, which
worked very well. Whatcom County is the second or third to do this program.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated there is a scrivener's error
on page 13 of the packet. On the last line, "votes" should be "voters." She was
also concerned the pay raise would take place so soon. She recommended it take
effect only for those members after their election. On an unrelated item, AB99 -
243, she stated this is a significant amount of practical work, which implies it is
proceeding for implementation before the Planning Unit has had a technical
meeting. It may be putting the cart before the horse. Even though the scope of
work seems accurate, she was concerned about duplication of work and leaving
things out. They should not move forward with major practical work before the
planning unit even plans the technical activities. She questioned the process this
was approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
recommended approval of Consent Agenda Items one through six.
Hoag moved to remove item six for discussion.
Dawson moved to remove item two for discussion.
Motion to approve items one and three through five carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF
WHATCOM COUNTY'S ANNUAL SUPPLY OF VACCINE FROM THE BINDLEY
WESTERN DRUG COMPANY, UTILIZING THE WASHINGTON STATE
CONTRACT, IN THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF $47,985 (AB99 -254)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS A CONTINUATION OF A GRANT THAT HAS BEEN IN
EFFECT FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, AND WILL ENABLE PARTIAL FUNDING OF
THE MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL NARCOTICS TASK FORCE PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF 119,760 (AB99 -255)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SEAMAR
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES TO INDIGENT AND LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES
AMOUNT OF $204,711 (AB99 -256)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSING HOME VISIT SERVICES TO FAMILIES WITH BABIES AND
YOUNG CHILDREN AT RISK FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT THAT ARE
REFERRED BY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
REVENUE SOURCES AMOUNT OF $18,578 (AB99 -257)
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSING SERVICES TO ASSESS HEALTH INFORMATION ON
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
SOURCES AMOUNT OF $27,956 (AB99 -258)
6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999001 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF HAXTON WAY -
BALCH ROAD TO KWINA ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,952 (AB99 -259)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Hoag stated she was concerned about bidding irregularities.
Brown stated he did not see any irregularities. Contractors bid different
prices on different items.
Brenner stated they will end up not contracting on any roads if they take
apart each item in each bid. This was the lowest accepted bidder. She suggested
Hoag come up with a better way to do the bidding process. If there is negotiating
going on behind the scenes, then there is no way they could know about it.
Hoag stated that is not called negotiating, it is called collusion, which is
illegal.
Imhof stated he wished she would bring forward information instead of
making public accusations.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Hoag stated she had concerns with the bidding process that are the same
types of concerns she brought up at the last meeting. Denying the bids would fix
the problems.
Brenner stated Hoag would be right if they denied the bids based on
knowledge of collusion. However, without knowing whether that was the case,
denying the bids calls someone guilty without any proof. A lot of times, a
contractor bases their bid specifics on their records, rather than on -site inspection.
They can't assume there is collusion unless there is proof.
Dawson stated a lot of time, bids are based on the work schedule they
already have.
Hoag stated she was not the one that said collusion was going on. She said
there were bidding irregularities. In the bids before the Council, there are
irregularities that cannot be explained away.
Brenner stated there have been concerns expressed by certain people. She
didn't know how to prove the concerns. If they know something is going on, then it
should be brought forward. If not, then they have to assume there are many
reasons these people could have discrepancies in the line items in their bids.
Nelson questioned whether there was a specific irregularity.
Hoag she would be happy to discuss it after the meeting. They went through
this at the last meeting, with two other bids. People just took pot shots at her and
she was not interested in going through it again.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
OTHER ITEMS
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A JOINT
FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS TO
COMPILE AND ASSESS AVAILABLE HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR WRIA #1 AS
OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK, WRIA #1 WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROJECT, AND IDENTIFY DATA NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT A
HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE WRIA, AND A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP
THE MODEL, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $244,000 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S
SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,000 (AB99 -243)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the amount total was $224,000, not $244,000. He moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Sutter stated she was concerned the County is beginning to implement
certain aspects of the Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514 process without
going through the review required by State law at the Planning Unit level. Planning
Unit members are concerned the County is moving forward without that public
process.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the Initiating Governments (IGs)
have a goal to get the Planning Unit seated as quickly as possible. Short of
delaying the work unnecessarily, the IGs believe the early work was in the form of
data gathering. They believed that before the work was finalized, the Planning Unit
would be seated and functional, and the data would have to be accepted by all the
participants in the Planning Unit. There was a view that there wasn't a need to
delay gathering the data for the process.
Sutter stated she agreed it is work that needs to be done. The first task of
the Planning Unit was to develop a scope of work. There has been a draft scope of
work the Planning Unit had not approved. The County is moving forward on
implementing tasks in the draft scope of work. It is not appropriate. They are
circumventing the process.
Monsen stated there is substantial effort by the IGs to engage the Planning
Unit in how they move ahead in the planning process. The administration has
made it known it is intended to be a draft scope of work, with the majority of all the
work and the analysis to be accomplished after the Planning Unit finalizes its scope
of work. The hope by the IGs is to begin the data gathering process while getting
the Planning Unit up to speed, and finalize the scope of work prior to accepting the
data as it comes in.
Sutter asked what would happen if the Planning Unit decides the data is not
collected how they need it. They should not move ahead with an unapproved draft
scope of work.
Nelson stated it is like the chicken and the egg. This request is to approve
the fact they don't have any information, such as water quantification, water
resource status, and water quality analysis. Everyone agreed that information is
needed. The disagreement is what information should be collected. They need to
approve the funding to begin solving the questions.
Brenner stated she was unsure the Planning Unit would come up with the
same conclusions. The County decided on a process and they have to stick with it.
They decided they would go through the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit may
decide some of these things are not necessary or have already been done.
Nelson questioned whether the scope of work is going to the Planning Unit
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District #1, stated the draft scope of work
published by the Initiating Governments in March was on the agenda for the first
Planning Unit meeting. There is a work session scheduled. It is an extensive work
session with any of the caucus members and Planning Unit members that wish to
attend to participate in working on, clarifying, and completing the draft scope of
work. There is no question the current scope of work is a preliminary scope of work
that is incomplete. The Initiating Governments clearly recognize that it was the
initial effort to create discussion. The document for approval is one of a number of
items the Initiating Governments felt was unquestionably needed to be able to
move the process forward. The United States Geological Service (USGS) is
considered one of the national experts on hydraulic modeling. One of the key
elements is to assess the existing available data and determine whether it is
possible to create the models they need from that data. If not, they need to
determine what pieces need to be collected. The primary issue is getting the
information they need to be able to educate the Planning Unit, who are not
scientists. One of the primary concerns by the IGs was about running out of the
time. There is a four -year time clock, which is now down to three years.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Anderson continued to state there is a need by the Planning Unit to
determine what analysis needs to be done.
Brown asked for clarification on the bid process. Monsen stated in this state,
these services are considered engineering or architectural. They typical process is
to make a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), select the most qualified, and move
ahead with a negotiated contract. It is not a bidding process, which is prohibited by
law for this type of work. There was no general RFQ process for this contract. He
checked with legal counsel. The USGS is founded on these issues and also showed
a willingness to bring forward money and seek other federal money to help finance
the effort. They are bringing cash to the project, which qualifies them as a sole
source and doesn't require an RFQ process.
Hoag moved to hold this item until after the Planning Unit has had a chance
to meet.
Sutter suggested the Planning Unit review the proposal in light of the draft
scope of work and make a recommendation.
Anderson stated it would be very easy to bog down the Planning Unit with
minutiae detail. One of the reasons USGS was chosen is because they are
considered the "cadillac" for this work. The tribes will not have a problem with
them. This is very preliminary work. They should not bog down the Planning Unit
members.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Brenner stated the Planning Unit can send the draft scope of work as their
recommendation if they feel they are bogged down. It is important to show good
faith at the beginning of the process.
Hoag moved to refer to committee.
Nelson asked for how long it would be referred.
Hoag stated they would refer to the next committee meeting.
Anderson stated there is not a meeting of the Planning Unit before the next
meeting. There is a work session for any members of the Planning Unit who wish
to attend to review the scope of work. The Planning Unit does not meet until
September.
Brenner stated there won't be anything preventing those members of the
Planning Unit who wish to attend the meeting from sending a recommendation to
the County Council about proceeding with this item.
Monsen stated it should be understood it would be an ad hoc
recommendation, not a formal recommendation.
The Council concurred with that understanding.
Motion to refer to committee passed 5 -2 with Nelson and Imhof opposed.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER, TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT (AB99 -191)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services committee and
stated this item was held in Council for two weeks.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, TO PROVIDE
FOR IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL OPTIONS FOR RETAINING SALES AND USE
TAX (AB99 -250)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services committee and
stated that this item was recommended with amendments suggested in committee.
Imhof reviewed the recommended amendments.
Imhof moved to amend on page one of the Ordinance, line 24, "...economy
by providing Whateem Geunty financial assistance..." The sentence doesn't make
sense. Financial assistance is for rural counties, not specifically Whatcom County.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to amend on page one of the Ordinance, line 39, "...a€ter
beginning January 1, 2000,..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to amend on page two of the Ordinance, line 6, "...amended to
include Chapter 3.34, Publie Utili Capital Improvement Fund, as..." That would
be carried throughout Exhibit A.
Hoag was opposed. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) created this for
public facilities in rural counties. In keeping with the RCWs intent, it would be in
the best interest to call it the public facilities fund.
Imhof stated they took advice from the administration. The term "public
improvements" does not necessarily mean roads by Whatcom County standards. In
the RCWs, it does include roads. The term "capital improvement" relates more to
what Whatcom County does. The County would be driven by the RCW anyway.
Dawson stated she would be comfortable using the language in the RCW.
Brown stated page 37 of the Council packet makes reference to the RCW on
line 37. That RCW specifies "...infrastructure development and business retention,
attraction, and expansion programs that will promote a competitive advantage to
rural distressed areas throughout Washington," which is what the funds are to be
used for.
Hoag stated Brown quoted the incorrect RCW. The correct RCW says,
"Monies collected under this section shall only be used for the purpose of financing
public facilities in rural counties." It should say "public facilities" because that
allows the County maximum flexibility under the law. The fact administration
wanted to change the term because they didn't want to include roads is why she
didn't want to change the terms.
Imhof stated Hoag was confusing the issue.
Hoag stated that is what administration said in the committee meeting.
Imhof stated they did not.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated the law
specifically states the revenues can only be used for public facilities. He cited the
definition of public facilities. The naming of the fund is unique to Whatcom County.
As long as it doesn't conflict with another named fund, there isn't a problem with
the name.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Brenner stated the term public facilities would be the most appropriate term.
Sutter asked for clarification on the definition Bennett just read, and whether
it was for "capital" or "public." Bennett stated it is for "public facilities."
Motion to amend the term carried 4 -3 with Dawson, Hoag, and Brenner
opposed.
Imhof moved to amend page one of Exhibit A, beginning on line 14, "The
rate of the tax imposed by this ordinance on each taxable event shall be .04%
through December 31, 1999 and .08% beginning January 1, 2000 through July 31,
2024, applied to the selling price or value of the article used, as the case may be."
Motion carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to amend page one Exhibit A, beginning on line 32, "...which is
hereby created, te be maintained by the WhateeFn Geunty T-i=ea5HFeF and the
Bennett stated the reason for the deletion is because the language refers
more to statutory responsibilities. Since Whatcom County is a Charter county,
Administrative Services does most of the accounting, not the Auditor. It made
more sense to say Whatcom County as a whole will deal with it than to identify
offices.
Hoag questioned whether the RCW specified distributions. Bennett stated it
did not.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Bennett stated they need to specify language on Exhibit A, line 11.
"...imposed under WCC 3.30..." That section of the code deals with sales taxes.
Imhof so moved.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to approve the ordinance as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TRAVEL
AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022 J)
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated the item came forward with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. LETTER OF PROPOSAL FROM THE NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT
ASSOCIATION PROPOSING A JOINT VENTURE WITH WHATCOM COUNTY TO
FINANCE AND SUPERVISE A WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS CREW IN
THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB99 -253)
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated Jeff Monsen would bring forward a resolution.
Nelson moved approval of the resolution.
Jeff Monsen provided a draft resolution. It accomplishes the
recommendation of the committee discussion. The resolution itself grants the
administration authority to make application and enter into a contract and execute
the relationship. The Exhibit A deleted any reference to Whatcom Creek. He did
not delete the Whatcom Park celebration. The second change is language to ensure
they are not performing mitigation work for which someone else should be
responsible. Part of the work is intended to help drainage /diking districts in dealing
with long- standing historical mitigation activities relative to planting and
maintenance. It was difficult to eliminate all potential mitigation.
Brown stated he appreciated the removal of the reference to Whatcom
Creek, it is the responsibility of the pipeline company to clean up that area. He was
still concerned they are taxing property owners and using the flood funds for a
party at the end of the work session. He questioned whether the people draw
wages. At the end of the eleven months, each person receives a grant for college.
Steve Seymour, Whatcom County, stated it is an AmeriCorps program. The
participants earn minimum wage during the eleven -month period of time. They
also earn a stipend to continue college. This is a match. The total services are
worth over $200,000 for a crew of six people for eleven months. It includes their
transportation, training, and tools.
Brown stated the flood tax took a big bite out of some people who couldn't
afford it. They shouldn't use it on anything that comes up. He can't support it
because it hadn't been through a part of the process, and he didn't want to set a
precedent.
Nelson stated the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) has
been around since 1991 providing fish habitat programs, and getting volunteers to
restore salmon stocks in waters. They work on a volunteer basis and work hard.
The value the taxpayers receive from this organization makes up for the amount
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 13
I NSEA receives in taxes. He also has a problem second - guessing the organization's
2 ability to help restore streams, which they do very well in improving the riparian
3 areas, improving the stream corridors, and improving relationships with the
4 agricultural community. He was in favor of continuing the grant and involving the
5 community. He questioned whether the celebration includes all volunteers. He'd
6 be happy to pay for it.
7
8 Seymour stated the focus is that NSEA has done a tremendous job trying to
9 restore riparian areas. It takes a tremendous amount of on -going maintenance to
10 get them to succeed. It is easy getting the volunteers to put the plants in the
11 ground, but it is difficult to get people to do the maintenance. The County has to
12 accomplish the re- vegetation of these riparian areas. Unless they can come up with
13 a maintenance plan to do it cost effectively, they will never get there. They can't
14 afford to do it on the open market. They need to get it done cheaply.
15
16 Hoag stated she supported the program. NSEA does a really good job. The
17 one drawback is not having people to do the maintenance. The County needs this.
18 This isn't a part of Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514. It is an ongoing
19 effort with NSEA. It brings the conservation corps into the program.
20
21 Brown stated it is not a slam against the organization. The County is
22 beginning to piecemeal solutions already. He questioned whether it was a part of a
23 coordinated plan. The County needs a list of projects on which to spend the tax
24 dollars. It should not be on a first come, first served basis. Seymour stated there
25 were ten federal projects prioritized by the tribes and the County for funding.
26 Number six was maintenance of riparian projects. This is direct effort towards what
27 has already been prioritized by the local entities.
28
29 Brenner stated she shared Brown's concerns about the money. That was a
30 different issue. She would much rather have the money spent on efforts like this.
31 This is an on -going effort because it is tried and true.
32
33 Sutter stated she agreed with the praise and support of NSEA. She would
34 like reports on the success of what has been done. Also, she wanted them working
35 with the Nooksack Recovery Team (NRT) and getting information in their database,
36 so no one is duplicating efforts or leaving big gaps where they need to fill in. She
37 questioned the proposed task schedule, and wondered where the smolt traps would
38 be and the kind of smolt to be counted. Seymour stated this year there were smolt
39 traps in the Ten Mile Creek and Deer Creek, and are operated by college interns
40 from Western Washington University.
41
42 Sutter suggested they emphasize Chinook - bearing streams. Seymour stated
43 the Lummi Tribe is smolt- trapping in the main river for out - migrating Chinook
44 smolts. There will be a new trap put on the South Fork next year. The main
45 channel is where Chinook are found.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
Sutter questioned whether they would use the traps to count the coho.
Seymour stated they would also count cutthroat. The low land streams are
important.
Sutter asked if they count bull trout. Seymour stated they tend to be an
upper watershed fish. They are not currently looking for bull trout. NSEA has a
monitoring program, which could be provided to the Council.
Nelson questioned whether quarterly reports include that information.
Seymour stated the quarterly reports to the DOE include that information. They
could be given to the Council as well.
Wendy Shearer, NSEA Director, stated the Whatcom party is a picnic in a
Whatcom County park. They will fund that themselves. The people will work for
eleven months. She is unsure of where the stipend comes from, but believed it is
from the federal government. She would find out. They work with the NRT and
other partners who work in the watershed. They also have a team of displaced
fishers working daily on the County streams. They are trying to see how best to
funnel the money into the on- the - ground project. Parts of the project requirements
are that they generate a minimum of 200 volunteers working at least 1,000 hours,
including 10 senior citizens. Therefore, not only will they get more work from this
work crew, it will generate volunteers and help do maintenance and monitoring of
the projects. They have a database. They are trying to find out what works in the
planting and along the streams. They are finding the bigger trees work better than
the smaller trees, in terms of survival. They have about 15 interns who are
monitoring all the streams they are working on. The are establishing protocols that
have worked throughout the State. They hope to work with the County and the
NRT in prioritizing projects that will be successful and will have a long -term impact
on the watersheds and drainages within Whatcom County.
Dawson questioned the age of trees they planted. Shearer stated they first
planted very small trees that were one to two years old. They are finding the trees
that are three to five years old survive much better.
Dawson asked where they get their stock. Shearer stated the Skagit
Conservation District provides most of their trees. They also work with various
nurseries.
Motion to forward the resolution carried unanimously.
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE
20 ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated they
continue to work on these items. They will introduce some items they have
completed. There are others that will be scheduled for a public hearing.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
7. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE TIMBER
APPLICATIONS (AB99 -210)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated it
comes forward with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. AMENDMENT #1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE CONCERNING ANNEXATION (AB99 -
261)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated it
comes forward with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
ON FILE NO. CUP98 -0028, FILED BY TERRY BEARDSLEY, REGARDING
INSTALLATION OF A 24 SQUARE FOOT SIGN TO ADVERTISE A HOME
OCCUPATION (AB99 -168)
See "Announcements."
10. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE
20 ZONING TEXT (GATEWAY) (AB99 -184A)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this is an amendment to
the Gateway Industrial zoning text to implement the urban fringe plan and address
a request by a citizen regarding the Portal Way area. The recommended
amendments would implement the Urban Fringe Plan and clarify the code by
reorganizing things and referencing them in the zoning text. There were a few
other changes regarding height restrictions, setbacks, and limiting building size in
the urban fringe area. There is a related ordinance for Introduction, to make a few
further changes to the Gateway zoning. There are two clarifications. One is to
change the title. She suggested, "Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the
Whatcom County Title 20 Zoning Text - Gateway Industrial District." And also to
clarify section one of the "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED..."
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin continued to suggest amendments to section one. "NOW
THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED... Section 1. The text and maps ef the Official
Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as
shown ..."
Imhof moved to approve the amendments.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 16
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
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated this was in Planning and Development Committee. They were in
the process of trying to come up with language to address the concerns of all and
implemented the subarea plan. During that process, they'd had two meetings, and
were in the middle of a third when this was pulled for a vote on a public hearing,
which failed. The committee had already recommended changes to it. To turn
around and vote not to have a public hearing, which prohibited any of the
committee's recommended changes, is not due public process. It is very odd.
Whether or not there has ever been a public hearing had always been determined
by whether they make changes, not whether they decide to vote on having a public
hearing. She was concerned about the final product. It does not implement the
subarea plan. The subarea plan clearly calls for light industrial in those areas,
except where commercial may be more appropriate. The language in the ordinance
does not do that. The representative from the neighborhood association said this
will go to court. She was tired of spending taxpayers' money in court defending
bad decisions. This ordinance does not accomplish what the subarea plan calls for.
She asked the Council to reconsider their decision and send it back to committee so
they can come up with language that does implement the subarea plan, which was
the result of all that public process.
Brenner stated whatever happens in court is beside the point. The zone was
named Gateway Industrial, and there is not one requirement in the text that will
guarantee there is any light industrial. They could end up with all commercial. It is
not the Council's job to ensure a rezone nets someone more money. It is the
Council's job to plan for development in a manner that is to the public's benefit. If
the Council is going to go ahead with this, they should make the intention clear by
not calling it Gateway Industrial.
Dawson stated the area had always been commercial, and the rezone allows
industrial use.
Brenner stated that wasn't correct. It was Tourist Commercial, which
allowed extremely small stores, up to 2,500 square feet. It now expands the use of
Tourist Commercial to up to 35,000 square feet. It is not a fair comparison
because there is a difference between little stores and larger stores. It is different
than what was allowed in the neighborhood. What is proposed does not meet the
intent of the zone name.
Hoag concurred with Brenner. It was Tourist Commercial allowing only a
small footage. This is not the same. It does not guarantee that light industry will
end up in that area, which is what the subarea plan calls for. It calls for what
would be appropriate in a light industrial park setting. There is no language to
implement the subarea plan.
Imhof moved to approve as amended.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT PAT JONES TO
SERVE ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) FOR A PARTIAL TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2001
(AB99 -262)
Imhof moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT ROBERT
MCKISSICK TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION FOR A FIRST, FOUR -YEAR TERM, ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
(AB99 -263)
Nelson moved to approve.
Motion carried unanimously.
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO REAPPOINT LIZ SMITH
TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ADVISORY
BOARD FOR HER SECOND THREE -YEAR TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2002
(AB99 -264)
Imhof moved to approve.
Brenner said Smith has done a great job.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Dawson stated there are five total introduction items. Three
have been added.
Imhof moved to accept the five Introduction Items.
Dawson listed the items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE SIX YEAR ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2000
THROUGH 2005 (AB99 -248)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AUTHORIZING PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM
PLANNING AREA STATUS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT SHORT
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
TERM PLANNING AREA STATUS FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR AREA OF
THE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB99 -265)
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN FRINGE
SUBAREAS PLAN AND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 20.65,
GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (AB99 -268)
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (FILE #46- 98:ZM)
S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT (FILE #58- 98:ZT)
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Imhof stated he had a great time at Harvard.
Sutter stated concerns were raised regarding the Open Space Tax
classification. She and Council Member Hoag will meet with folks who are familiar
with the classification and create a letter to send to the State legislature. They
want to address concerns about the County's revenue stream and abuses of the
open space tax classification system.
Sutter also thanked the Council for their vote of confidence on minutes to
compare with the Comprehensive Plan. She will be working with staff.
Dawson stated she brought forward a letter regarding the authority of the
Lummi Tribe regarding the water quality issues. The letter written by McEacharan
is done. She moved approval of the letter.
Nelson stated he reviewed the letter by McEachran, but questioned whether
it would include McEachran's name.
Brenner stated Dawson's proposed letter had nothing to do with McEachran.
Nelson stated he did not see Dawson's proposed letter.
Imhof stated he preferred the substitute letter from the Council, which
referenced and attached the Prosecutor's letter.
Brenner stated she agreed with Imhof. It is short and to the point.
Hoag stated there was a concern about the reference to "capability" in the
substitute letter. She also wondered whether they should mention the Lummi's
scope and jurisdiction should be limited to the trust lands on the reservation.
Sutter suggested, "...administer this proposed plan. It is inappropriate for
the Tribe to have jurisdiction over land use activities outside the reservation or on
non -trust lands." They are not questioning their capability, but their authority.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 19
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
49
Dawson stated it is important the authority they are questioning be
supported by legal case. She will send out her letter herself.
Brown stated sending out the shorter letter does not build a case.
Sutter stated it references McEachran's letter.
Brown stated he supported Dawson's letter.
Dawson withdrew her motion.
The Council concurred to send the shorter letter.
The Council concurred that they need to address the authority, not the
capability of the Tribe.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, stated the federal
requirement says the Tribe has to show their capability. That is where the term
"capability" had come into it.
Motion to send the shorter letter as amended carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the other letter is regarding the Shorelines guideline revisions
from the State Department of Ecology. There will be a meeting for public comment
the next evening. She gave comments mentioned in committee to individual
Council members. Suggestions have come up since then. One concern is that they
allow local knowledge and expertise in addition to proven scientific data.
The Council concurred.
Nelson suggested that the last sentence say they anticipate federal and State
monies, as discussed, to help meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirement
imposed through these shorelines revisions. They should also allow flexibility in
working with constituents and in setting performance standards.
Hoag stated that property owners should have to meet performance
standards, instead of provide the performance standards.
Nelson stated he was unclear on the intent of that section.
Sutter stated the property owner would have to provide the method to meet
the performance standards.
Hoag stated the homeowner would provide the alternative method, which
would have to meet the performance standards.
Sutter stated the last sentence about discussed monies would be unclear to
anyone not on the "inside." She didn't know what they were talking about.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 20
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 there have been Planning meetings where they've come and
discussed with the committee that there would be federal monies available.
Several State and federal legislators have said they will be pressing for federal
money.
Sutter suggested the letter reference in what context and from whom they
heard there would be monies available.
Dawson asked for direction to go ahead with the letter and wordsmith after
the meeting.
The Council concurred.
Imhof stated Sutter had a good idea. The closer they get to a personal hook,
the better it will grab. If they have a comment from someone from the State about
promising money, they need to hold them to it.
Hoag stated the letter should not say money was promised to meet the
shorelines guidelines. The money was promised to help with ESA.
Imhof stated the letter should say the County does not need another un-
funded mandate.
The Council concurred.
Dawson moved to allow Sutter and Hoag to wordsmith the letter.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved adding an "Other Business" section to the Council's agenda,
after the "Introduction Items." A lot of times, there is important business the
Council needs to do, but people leave because they think they are only going to
hear the Council members' reports on what they've done and where they've been.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
Hoag stated there was another letter to be sent to the State Department of
Health (DOH) regarding the Drayton Harbor Sanitary Survey (AB99 -267). The
survey didn't address fish and seals or effluent that may be arriving on flood tides
from Canada or the U.S. They would like to point that out and say that, otherwise,
it was a good report.
Brenner stated only the Natural Resources Committee members had time to
read the report, and she would like time to read the survey.
Hoag stated the letter was due the next day.
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 21
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
Brown stated the basis of the report is that the conditions are getting worse.
Yet, they found Dakota and California creeks are not the culprits.
Brenner suggested wording it so that is general and supports what they
didn't find out and what they need to find out.
Hoag stated it is not that they just need to deal with the fish and seals.
There are a lot of contributors to the pollution. They just want all of the factors to
be addressed.
Brenner stated that was fine, but she couldn't support the report because she
hadn't read it.
Hoag stated the report advised that all Drayton Harbor be closed in all areas
to shellfish harvesting. She is a member of the Shellfish Advisory Committee, who
has been making great progress since they brought on Chris Woodward. They are
also bringing in the Georgia sub -basin and are coordinating with the Canadians.
Brenner stated the City of Ferndale had initiated an ad hoc committee to
investigate medical waste related issues. At the last meeting, the City Council
voted to endorse the citizen initiative I -99, to limit the amount of infectious medical
waste accepted at local treatment facilities, to the amount that is locally generated.
She encouraged the County Council to do similar.
Dawson questioned if the City Council knew there was a citizen committee.
Brenner stated they did. They've been working on on -going issues.
Brenner stated they took a stand and it would be appropriate for the County
Council to take such action.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September 21 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 22
Regular County Council Meeting, 7/13/99, Page 23