HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 23 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
November 23, 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 there was discussion with Civil Deputy Prosecutor Karen
Frakes regarding pending litigation (A699 -018) during Committee of the Whole
executive session.
OPEN SESSION
No one spoke.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through nine.
Nelson removed items seven and nine. They recommended by a 2 -1 vote.
Item nine was amended.
Motion to approve items one through six and eight carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #
99 -105, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, FARMERS
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, FOR A BACKHOE TO BE USED BY WHATCOM
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $68,880.97 (AB99 -450)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
110 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, NORTH AMERICAN
CRANE & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DIESEL
BRIDGE TRUCK WITH CRANE TO BE USED BY WHATCOM COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $187,365.50 (AB99 -451)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
111 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, BRIM TRACTOR
COMPANY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE LONG -ARM ROTARY
MOWERS TO BE USED BY WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,290.50
(AB99 -452)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HEALTH
PROMOTION NETWORK FOR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SERVICES IN THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,925
(AB99 -453)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RESOURCES
TO PROVIDE OUTREACH AND PROMOTION SERVICES FOR WASTE
REDUCTION AND RECYCLING/ HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB99 -454)
6. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE
THAN A YEAR OLD (AB99 -455)
7. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A SALARY SCHEDULE
AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES
FOR THE YEAR 2000 (AB99 -442)
Nelson gave a report from Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to increase the salaries reflective of resolution 95 -016 for the County
Executive, Prosecutor, Sheriff, Assessor, Auditor, and Treasurer. That motion
passed unanimously in committee. He moved to amend by approving the increase.
Imhof moved to amend to also include an increase reflective of resolution 95-
016 for Councilmembers to the amount of $1,208 per month.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Dawson stated that amount is in the Home Rule Charter.
Imhof stated that was correct.
Nelson called point of order and asked that his motion be considered before
Imhof brought forward another motion.
Brenner offered a friendly amendment that the Executive and Prosecutor be
taken out of the unrepresented schedule.
Nelson did not accept the friendly amendment.
Brenner stated the majority of the councilmembers have been talking about
raising people's taxes. She proposed a friendly amendment that all unrepresented
employee salaries that are $60,000 or above be frozen so they do not receive a
cost of living increase in hard times. It is a slap in the face to the public to keep
giving two percent increases to people who make very good salaries, while other
people are struggling. She understood an increase for those at the lower end of the
salary schedule.
Dawson stated they are going to have to look at the way the County
negotiates in the future.
Brenner stated they couldn't do that here.
Dawson stated, with I -695, they will be looking at the total revenue, as
opposed to rate. This is what they've done traditionally.
Nelson stated he would not accept the friendly amendment. The Prosecuting
Attorney's wage is one of the lowest in the state. Many of the elected officials are
receiving less pay than the staff.
Brenner stated the problem is not about who is getting what. They are either
going to have hard times coming allegedly because of I -695 or they aren't. They
can't have it both ways. At some point, they are going to break the bank. A salary
freeze is not going to break someone who is earning a very good salary.
Dawson stated Whatcom County is not going to face what other counties are,
in terms of cutting back expenses. The Council has not raised property taxes
except for one year. The year they were raised, the money was put into the
reserves. Also that year, the budget was cut between five and ten percent in each
department. They have been very prudent.
Brenner stated that if it isn't going to adversely affect the County, then they
shouldn't be raising the one -tenth of one percent sales tax.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Motion to approve Nelson's amendment carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Imhof moved to amend to also include increases for councilmembers to the
15% rate allowed in the Home Rule Charter, which would be $1,208 per month.
Hoag stated it doesn't raise the salaries for the current councilmembers.
Imhof stated it does raise their salaries. It was a raise okayed in 1995, but
was never implemented due to budget restraints at the time. The Executive's
salary was never raised. This has cleared legal hurdles. They put it in before they
ran for re- election.
Brenner stated the supporters of this should not vote for the criminal justice
sales tax. They shouldn't fund the salary increase on the backs of tax increases.
Dawson questioned whether Brenner would accept the raise if it was
approved.
Brenner stated she would use the money for the legal battles the County
should be fighting.
Brown stated they need to set a precedent. If he could, he would freeze the
Executive's and Prosecutor's salaries. It is not the right thing to do at this time.
(Clerk's Note: Tape one is only first 15 minutes of the meeting. Beginning of
tape two, side B.)
Nelson stated they wrestled with this in 1995 and 1997. They always get
what they pay for. He can't support it because they are asking departments to hold
the line. They want to keep the compensation so good people run for office. It is a
part -time position in which he recognized had limited pay. He didn't run for office
for the money. Until they find out what the impacts of I -695 are, he hoped those
impacts won't be felt by the citizens of the county. He couldn't support increasing
his salary.
Hoag stated she is a fiscal conservative. She believed in spending taxpayers'
money very wisely and not wasting. However, this action is political grandstanding.
The current pay, according to this, is $1,117 per month. This would increase it to
$1,208 per month. That is less than a $100 increase per month. The money is a
drop in the bucket in terms of the problems they face in the budget from I -695.
However, when they ask people to run for this office and spend their time doing
this, the amount of money they are paid doesn't even come close. It doesn't
compensate for what they do. She didn't run for office for the money, but at the
same time, people should be compensated for what they do and their families
should not bear the brunt of the lack in compensation. To increase it to $1,208 per
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
month is the bare minimum that should be happening. She was offended by the
grandstanding.
Brown said he didn't consider it grandstanding. It is a responsible step to
take. They are leaders. Some of them will be asking for cuts to the budget and
possible deletions of full -time equivalent (FTE) employees and programs. At the
same time they are giving themselves a pay raise. It is not right. They should
show that they could cut back as well as the ones that they are going to ask to cut
back.
Brenner agreed with Brown's comments. She was offended by being accused
of grandstanding because they don't agree. That is out of line. Some of them have
been very consistent about how they see the budget and the salaries, and have
taken the cuts themselves. Councilmember Hoag works very hard and should have
the same respect for the councilmembers who do not agree with the increase. She
is going to be proposing cuts. It isn't fair for the Councilmembers to take another
cent when they are going to be proposing cuts. That's not grandstanding. They
just don't agree.
Hoag stated they are not asking any officials or departments to cut their
salaries. The comparison falls between the cracks. This was money they should
have had in 1995, has been deferred, and is much needed. The kinds of cuts she is
proposing are not for essential services. They are not cutting anyone's salaries and
there is no reason to cut the councilmembers' salaries.
Brenner stated they are not proposing to cut councilmembers' salaries. They
are proposing to continue the freeze. That is totally different. She did propose to
freeze salaries of those at the high end of the pay scale.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Brown opposed.
Nelson moved to remove Exhibits A and B because they are incorrect. They
do not match the text of the ordinance.
Hoag questioned whether all the figures in the matrix are in the text, so they
wouldn't be approving an open -ended item. She was assured by staff that was
correct.
Motion to remove Exhibits A and B carried unanimously.
Nelson moved approval of the resolution as amended
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
HUMAN SERVICES AND WIZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
SERVICES FOR COORDINATING EFFORTS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
IN RELATION TO THE SHELLFISH CLOSURE RESPONSE STRATEGIES,
IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $12,176 FOR A NEW CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $82,176 (AB99 -456)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND BLACK FLAG EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO
ASSIST PARTICIPANTS TO GAIN COMMUNITY PRESENCE AND
ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT THROUGH ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AND
CONTRIBUTION IN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTIVITIES,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,493 (AB99 -457)
Nelson stated there was an amendment on packet page 124 that was made
in committee, and moved to amend language under the 'Volunteer Employment -
Level 1' section, "...The Level 1 monthly minimum service is sixteen twenty (20)
hours...." That was passed unanimously in committee.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to approve as amended.
Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 95 -001, ESTABLISHING
SERVICE FEES AND SETTING A FEE SCHEDULE RELATED TO
AMBULANCE SERVICE CHARGES (AB99 -447)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
stated there were questions regarding proposed changes.
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Nelson moved to approve.
Hoag questioned whether the fees listed are the total or the half that is paid
by the County.
Imhof stated it is the total paid by the patient.
Hoag stated the patient pays what is listed, and the County pays an equal
amount. She questioned why the fee is so much. For instance, for advanced life
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 6
I support transport in the County, it is $540. That meant the ambulance service is
2 getting $1,080. She questioned why it is so expensive to transport someone from
3 the County. She also questioned whether the mileage charge is in addition to the
4 other fees.
5
6 Brown stated it is.
7
8 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County contracts with the
9 City to provide ambulance services countywide. These fees currently generate
10 about 50% of the revenue to match the total cost of the service during the entire
11 year. The City of Bellingham pays for 25 percent of the cost. Whatcom County
12 pays for another 25 percent of the cost. The County currently budgets about
13 $994,000 in its non - departmental budget to support this program. These fees are
14 charged to either third -party payers, such as Medicare, Medicaid, insurance
15 companies, or the consumer who is receiving the service pays them in whole or in
16 part.
17
18 Hoag stated she received a letter from a heart attack victim who had his first
19 heart attack and was taken to the hospital by the ambulance and had his second
20 heart attack when he saw the bill. There is a lot of concern about the amount that
21 is being charged for this. She didn't see the justification for it. She questioned
22 whether there are any profits being generated. Desler stated it is run not -for-
23 profit. Any excess revenues over expenses would be retained in the fund that the
24 City of Bellingham maintains. This is an intergovernmental agreement between the
25 City and the County. It is an expensive service. The administration would like to
26 work with the City in ways that can retain an efficient service.
27
28 Brown read some of the charges into the record. Basic life support transport
29 is increased from $260 to $320. The mileage is increased from $7 to $11 per mile.
30 Everything is going up by $60 or $70. A patient can easily have an $800 to $1,000
31 bill for being transported from out in the county into Bellingham. They are also
32 paying again through the taxes the same amount. It is easily a couple thousand
33 dollars to transport one person. They have a letter from Cascade Ambulance
34 Services that says they are willing and can provide the same level of service. They
35 are just as accredited. They can provide the service on a fee for service basis and
36 charge the same fees that Medic One receives, without a tax subsidy. Council and
37 administration have stated they are looking towards privatization. They should be
38 looking at this more closely. Instead of approving this, they ought to look at what
39 is going on and move toward privatization.
40
41 Imhof stated an option is to approve this and try in the next six months to
42 see if they can get something going with Cascade Ambulance Service. This item
43 doesn't lock the County into anything. It is just a schedule for their fees. It is not
44 the contract.
45
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Brenner stated she didn't understand why that negotiation hasn't already
been done. The County is obligated to provide emergency services for people.
Desler stated there has been discussion with the City of Bellingham. Part of
the reason for the fee increase is because of the intention to extend services to
county residents. Currently, there are three full -time Medic One units that are
operational. The desire of many county and city leaders is to expand that to four
full -time Medic One units. The fourth unit would be stationed in the Grandview
Road area as a unit to serve county residents.
Brenner stated it seems that Cascade Ambulance Services can serve
countywide also. Desler stated there is currently an interlocal agreement with the
City of Bellingham to operate this service. They can adjust that agreement over
time. They are proposing to do that over the course of the next year. As a part of
that, they could examine some of the options that Councilmember Brown
recommends.
Brenner questioned whether the County used to have contracts with Cascade
Ambulance. Desler stated the County and City have operated this service since
1973 or 1974.
Brown stated there used to be private ambulance service. Cascade
Ambulance has placed a full -time paramedic ambulance on the Guide Meridian at
Wiser Lake. They are in position and they have as much accreditation.
Nelson stated health care costs have gone up considerably. There are many
reasons for that beyond inflation. Litigation has a tremendous impact on health
care. Managed health care has entered the arena. Medicaid is now utilizing Health
Maintenance Organizations (HMO) and other services to take their contracts. He
would like to see competition, but they need to make sure they provide a service
level that helps the person in the rural area that needs that service. At the same
time, they can look at other companies that may be able to provide that service.
He suggested they look at the entire concept and see whether private or public
service provides a better level of care.
Sutter asked what happens to patient care if they don't approve the fee
schedule. Desler stated patient care would continue. The fee schedule maintains
the level of commitment that the County and the City have to fund the service at
the current year's level.
Brown questioned whether they are increasing service with the fee schedule.
He questioned whether the purpose was to increase service. Desler stated there
will be an increase in service phased in during the next year. There will be a fourth
ambulance unit.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Hoag stated that Cascade Ambulance Service is located near Lynden. It is
more closely situated to the outer areas of the county. She supported putting this
in committee. There has also been a lot of discussion regarding fire districts that
would like to be able to transport. They are usually the first ones to respond to the
scene. They have to stand by until Medic One arrives, which does not always result
in the best care of the patient. She would not support approving this as presented.
The fees are too high. The purpose of approving these fees is to approve of them.
She didn't approve of them.
Brenner stated HMOs and managed care came into effect to level costs out.
These are huge increases.
Motion to failed 2 -5 with Nelson and Imhof in favor.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, AUTHORIZING PROVISIONAL SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA
STATUS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERMANENT SHORT TERM PLANNING
AREA STATUS FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR AREA OF THE BLAINE UGA
(AB99 -435)
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Roger Brown, Birch Bay - Blaine Water and Sewer District, 7096 Pt. Whitehorn
Road, spoke in favor of the staff recommendations. They are trying to provide a
land use designation that facilitates the district's consideration of extending sewer
and water service to the area south of Drayton Harbor, using local improvement
district (LID) financing. The land use designation as recommended by the Planning
Committee is a problem. It is a short -term planning area, but within that short -
term planning area, certain areas have been pulled out and are surrounded by
other short -term planning areas. They are exempted from the short -term planning
area designation. That is a financial and legal problem in consideration of a LID.
He recommended the Council support the staff's recommendation rather than the
committee report. The staff recommendation did not have those islands pulled out
of the designation. Also, within section two, paragraph three of the ordinance,
there is a statement that the County reserves the right to modify the final short -
term planning area boundary. This is a problem. They are concerned about
extending sewer service into an area, and then have the County pull the zoning
after financial commitments have been made. That section should be taken out.
Brenner stated they intentionally did not create any islands within the
boundary. The intention was to keep areas in that wanted to be in, without
creating any islands. The boundary goes around some areas, but she was not
aware of any islands that are created.
Roger Brown stated he was sent two maps. One is called exhibit two, which
is the staff recommended map. The other is the Council recommended map. That
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
map has two areas he believed are islands. One area is on Drayton Harbor road
that encompasses four or five lots and is right in the area where sewer would likely
be extended. There is another location near California Creek that is larger. It is
surrounded by short -term planning areas.
Brenner stated those areas are not totally surrounded by areas it includes.
Hoag stated they didn't know the Sunday Harbor was a short -term planning
area also, at the time they did this. The committee recommended that island be
removed and become part of the short -term planning area. The properties along
Drayton Harbor Road are not an island because the harbor is across from them.
She didn't see a problem with running a line past the property of someone who
chooses not to hook up. Those residents stated clearly they didn't want to be
included, and they are located on the outer perimeter. She questioned whether
there was a reason why leaving those areas out wouldn't work for the district.
Roger Brown stated the financing of an LID is based on the special benefit to
the properties. That special benefit is based on their proximity to the improvement
and the size of the property. With the sewer going in front of the property, and the
property not being designated a short -term planning area, they will have an
argument they don't benefit. The district will be faced with either assessing them
anyway and going to court over that, or shifting their assessment to others and
going to court over shifting their assessments.
Hoag questioned why they would assess them if they are not hooked up to
the line, haven't asked to be included, and are not in the short -term planning area.
Roger Brown stated they would consider assessing them because their
property value benefits from the proximity of the sewer.
Hoag stated they don't benefit from it if they can't hook up to it. They can't
hook up to it unless they are in the short -term planning area.
Roger Brown stated that is the issue and that is why they see it as a
problem.
Dawson stated the staff is familiar with the Growth Management Hearings
Board's decisions.
Muriel Terry, 5191 Drayton Harbor Road, stated she gave each
councilmember a map before the meeting. Along Drayton Harbor Road, there are
three lots. One belongs to the Martins, who live in California. There is no house
and they've owned the lot since 1993. They don't want anything. She included
every landowner in sections 13 and 18. The Ellises, who have two small lots next
to the Martins, have been trying to sell those lots for years. They are Blaine
residents that live across the harbor. No one will buy the lots. On Lincoln Road,
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
between Shintaffer Road and Harborview Road, there is a section that belongs to
the Burke family. They also want to sell their property. They want to subdivide
and sell. However, they can't subdivide and sell unless they are in a short -term
planning area. They only want sewer at no cost. At the east end of Lincoln Road,
there are three small lots. One belongs to a resident who owned it since 1967.
Next is Mr. Voth, who owned his property since 1991. Mr. Voth doesn't want any
sewer. He has not been approached by the Health Department to check his septic
tank. On Lincoln Road, between Harborview Road and the Blaine Road, property is
owned by Mr. Senate, who owned it since 1992. He doesn't want any service and
his septic system has probably not been monitored. Next to Mr. Senate is a
resident whose property has been in the family since 1950. He wants the sewer
and to subdivide. He only wants sewer at no cost.
Brenner questioned how Terry feels about what is proposed in the packet.
Terry stated the staff proposed package is fine. She would like to see the Bianchi's
be able to get the sewer if they want to. They live on the north side of Lincoln
Road. The large section of property that abuts Sunday Harbor and is south of
California Creek is owned by someone who wants a sewer and to be in a short -term
planning area.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Sutter moved to adopt the ordinance with the committee's map and to
amend to include the area that runs along California Creek.
Dawson stated she was more comfortable with the staff's recommendation.
They are more attuned to the Growth Management Hearings Board and what would
be accepted.
Hoag stated there are other items the Council will be addressed that have
irregular boundaries and will not be a problem with the Hearings Board. The island
they created, and which was removed during committee would have caused a
problem. The areas along Drayton Harbor Road and Mr. Burke's property do not
create an irregular boundary. She didn't want to force people into something they
don't want to have. She was also concerned about the survey that was sent out.
The committee asked that Terry find out from the residents whether they wanted to
be included in the area if it was going to cost them money and whether they only
wanted it if it was free. She asked if the letter received from Doreen Myron was the
same letter that was sent to everyone and whether it was used as the survey.
Terry stated it was.
Hoag stated the letter did not provide any information so the residents could
make the decisions about how they want their service. The committee wanted to
know how many people were interested in forming an LID and in paying for it. She
questioned whether people have much of a chance to opt out of the process if they
find out it is more money than what they can commit to.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Roger Brown stated that once the board has certified the petition, it is
empowered to exercise its statutory power to include putting in the sewers over
substantial protest. Ordinarily, there is at least some protest against an LID.
Hoag stated she wanted Terry to let people know what the anticipated cost of
this will be, and then find out how many people would like to be included in this.
She as real concerned about what they are doing.
Terry stated they sent a letter along with the survey. The committee also
asked to find out who wanted sewer at a reasonable cost. They did not say what
reasonable was. In the letter that went out with the survey, she said her estimate
of reasonable cost was $100 per front foot. That was based on a figure the water
and sewer district gave her three years ago. All the residents had that information.
She said she felt that should be reduced some by the water and sewer district
contributing to replace the existing water line and also by grant money.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Roger Brown stated they updated some figures that were prepared for a
proposed LID in 1997. Those figures came in at $170 to $206 per front foot. He
provided that information to Muriel Terry. There is a question about whether the
district should participate to lower the cost of the assessment and whether or not
grant funds would be available. Those are questions that have to be answered later
in the process. They don't really have a proposal.
Hoag stated by the time there is a proposal, the people are committed and
have to pay the cost.
Terry stated her area is much larger than the area proposed in 1997. If
there is a larger area, the cost should be less per front foot. In addition, Water and
Sewer District Commissioners stated they would try to get an updated estimate.
Brenner questioned whether the district would consider running the line
through property belonging to people who don't want the sewer, with the
agreement that they would be charged a latecomer's fee if they ever decided to
hook up.
Roger Brown stated they haven't done it. Administratively, it is quite
burdensome. It is difficult enough when there is one developer. It isn't impossible.
Brenner stated there are few properties that are asking to not be included.
The properties on the edge are not islands. She didn't know of any urban growth
area that is totally regular. If it was inside the boundary and totally surrounded, it
would be a different matter. If they can get the water district to do a latecomer's
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
agreement, she would support running it through the property. If not, she
supported running the line around the property.
Councilmember Brown stated he was hard to convince to run an LID through
someone's backyard that doesn't want it. If they look at the testimony and what
started this, it was the fact that they are in a septic tank area in Drayton Harbor.
He won't support this issue because it was the septic tanks in that area that started
this issue.
Imhof suggested a friendly amendment to accept the staff's
recommendations as proposed on packet page 258.
Sutter accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag moved to refer this back to committee. The concern was about
imposing fees on people that really don't know what is hitting them. The fees
quoted by Roger Brown were almost double of those quoted by Mrs. Terry. If they
look at that survey that went out, it gives people a false impression of what they
are saying they want to be a part of. A lot of people have mentioned to her that,
when the actual proposal came forward, they could opt out if the cost was too high.
However, they will not have that opportunity. These are serious costs. People
need to be properly informed. The Council needs to ensure the boundaries are
drawn where they need to be.
Goodwin stated the staff recommended that the Burke property be left out.
Motion to refer to committee failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Hoag stated it is not just to put a fee or a tax on people who have not said
they want it. If they are going to err on the boundary, they should not include
people who want in rather than forcing people in that don't want to pay for this.
Imhof explained that this is not a regular issue. It is a health issue due to
the number of failing septics in the Drayton Harbor. The ground does not perc.
Septics are failing. Some people may not know that or may not want to address
that. Including the properties is the way they address the problem in Drayton
Harbor.
Sutter agreed that this is a public health issue. The ground would not perc
and is saturated most of the time. There is a threat to human health from infection
from raw human sewage problems. Sewage is going into Drayton Harbor, where
people harvest shellfish for eating. Sometimes they have to do things that a few
people may not like or feel is in their best interest, in order to do the right thing for
the most people.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Brenner moved to exclude the Lincoln Road properties and include the
properties on Drayton Harbor Road.
Hoag stated she agreed that they are working in a delicate watershed. The
testimony from the Health Department said all the septic systems in this area have
been fixed. There has been no documentation of any sewage from any septic tanks
getting into Drayton Harbor. When this was initially brought to the Council as a
health issue, they talked to some of the residents about running a sewer line on the
basis of it being a health emergency, and not change it to a short -term planning
area. The residents did not want it on that basis. It was not a health issue. They
wanted to subdivide their property. If they can spread that cost among more
property owners, then it reduces their own costs. That is why they want the map
expanded to include as many people as possible. That is not just or fair. The
people that want this should be able to get it. They are included in a concentrated
area that can easily be addressed. There is no reason to include the people along
the outer edges that do not wish to be included.
Brenner restated her motion.
Brown requested clarification on the ownership of properties in certain areas.
Terry explained the ownership.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Sutter stated there is an ordinance that attends, which makes a change to
the Comprehensive Plan. It also includes making Drayton Harbor a stormwater
special district, so it is subject to the same development regulations as the Lake
Whatcom watershed.
Dawson questioned whether this was the staff recommendation.
Sutter stated it is. Before they vote, she wanted to address Brown's concern
regarding provision number three on page three of the ordinance. He has a valid
point. If the district is going to go through the motions of figuring out where to
locate the sewer, and the Council moves the boundary, then their work is for
naught. She moved to amend the ordinance by deleting item three on page 253 of
the packet. This item gives a real uncertainty to the water district when they do
their planning.
Hoag stated this item allows the County, if they do create an illogical
boundary, to adjust that boundary so there is something they can defend in front of
the Growth Hearings Board. It needs to stay in.
Dawson agreed.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Brenner stated they've already said what they would like the boundary to be,
at its largest. If the water district comes up with an irregular or illogical boundary,
it would be up to them to defend it against the Growth Hearings Board.
Imhof stated it isn't the water district that comes up with it. It is the LID
boundary they are talking about. Those who want to be in the LID create the LID
boundary.
Roger Brown stated the LID boundary is a decision of the Water District
board. The boundary that the board will draw will be based on their judgement
about where the special benefits to properties occur.
Brenner stated that, if the Growth Hearings Board overturned it because it
was illogical, the County doesn't have to do anything about it.
Hoag stated the Council would be creating a short -term planning area. The
district doesn't create a short -term planning area (STPA).
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Hoag, Dawson, and Brown opposed.
Hoag moved to amend packet page 253, "2. The STPA final boundary will be
established..." That would differentiate between the provisional STPA that is
established now and the final STPA that is determined by the LID.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved that the Council consider the area on Lincoln Road only on
the stipulation that the board will do a latecomer's agreement on that area.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that wasn't something
they could legally require. She wasn't under the impression that is something the
district wanted to agree to.
Imhof stated Roger Brown couldn't speak for the board.
Hoag stated she used to work for the phone company and her husband works
for the electric company. With line extensions to areas that don't have service, the
first person that wanted it would pay the initial cost. If other people wanted to join
later, they would share the cost of that initial thing. It is something that is done
with utilities all the time. She supported Brenner's motion to make it provisional so
that, if the board finds that they cannot do that, they can come back and explain
why. There is no reason why it can't be done. It is done all the time.
Brenner restated her motion that the area the committee did not include on
Lincoln Road, and the Council just included, be given the status of a latecomer.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Only the property owners who want to be on now will pay. The lines will run
through and the board will charge a latecomer fee as the others sign on.
Hoag stated the majority of the land that is owned in that area belongs to
people who did not want to be a part of this.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Sutter, and Nelson opposed.
Motion to adopt the amended ordinance carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
3. ORDINANCE REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE
TENTH OF ONE PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX FOR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE PURPOSES (AB99 -448)
Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Chuck Eggert, 1333 Roy Road, Lake Samish, spoke in favor of the tax. With
I -695 looming, they have no idea what is going to happen. It's time the County
Council supported criminal justice funding in Whatcom County. They expect to
have a good, safe community. They expect to have law enforcement on the road
and people in jail.
Marvin Wolff, 5413 Barr Road, spoke in favor of the tax. The criminal justice
system has fallen behind in it's ability to function efficiently in the county due to a
lack of resources. He was not talking only about additional sheriff deputies or the
backup in the courts. The entire system is bogged down. The only part of the
system that has resources to deal with criminal justice are the criminals. The only
people who are endangering their lives every day are the people in the law
enforcement programs. Deputies have to respond at night without any hope of a
backup. Over the years, the County has neglected to provide funding for criminal
justice in proportion to the crime increase in the area. The people who are not
living in the county will bear about one -third of the increase.
George Astler, Birch Bay, stated it takes a lot of courage to pass this, but he
felt it is necessary. Since this area voted down I -695, the people will support the
Council. They are going to be doing other things with I -695 later. It is an
important issue.
Al Jensen, 7168 Ashley Court, Ferndale, stated the Council has an
opportunity to step up to the commitment the Council made to the community to
provide the needed criminal justice funds. He is a law enforcement officer. The
criminal justice system is so overburdened that he is forced to tell crime victims it
may be a year or more before their case comes before the court system. This isn't
right to the citizens. He watched fellow officers respond to calls knowing that they
have no backup, or that the backup is miles away. They respond to calls that other
agencies routinely send multiple officers to. This tax will begin to assure that the
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
criminal justice system will have some of the necessary funding. The tax will allow
those passing through the county to support their impact on law enforcement. He
urged the Council to keep this community a safe place to live. They owe it to the
citizens and to those in law enforcement.
Paul Harris, Lynden, urged Council's support of the tax. It is an acceptable
tax to the public, without a risk of public relations fallout. Many taxes are seen as
an expense because people don't perceive a value. In the marketing world, price is
only a question in the absence of value. With this tax, there is great value
attached, and the public will not perceive it as an expense, but as an investment.
Harold Odegaard, Sumas, stated police response time in Sumas is
approximately two minutes. His daughter lives in Maple Falls, and the response
time is much greater. It takes more deputies. He encouraged the Council to
support the tax. The County could be liable if someone gets killed because the
response time is too slow. There isn't proper protection in the foothills.
Dale Brandland, County Sheriff, stated he applauded the Council for the
political courage to bring this proposal forward. Whatcom County is in very difficult
times. The Council is recognizing that Whatcom County is in a difficult situation
right now. They have troubling times ahead. They are struggling with the deputy
and detective response time. They've invested a great deal of money in the
criminal justice planning process. Soon there will be some draft results of that
process. He was afraid that, if the tax wasn't approved, they wouldn't have any
money to do with that plan. He encouraged Council to approve the tax.
Valline Landsbury, 2255 Yew Street Road, Bellingham, spoke against the tax.
She questioned why the Council and Executive let the system get so bad instead of
making it a priority in the budget a long time ago. It is a high priority of
government. Letting it get bad says that the Council and administration have not
taken it seriously enough to put the priority higher in the budget. It should have
come before non - essential items. It's hard to argue against a tax for more law
enforcement, but it is a cop out to say they need more money. The Council can
now spend the money they might have spent on criminal justice on other things
that are not essential. Also, the voters of Whatcom County previously voted down
this tax. They can't have it both ways. She questioned how much this would bring
in annually.
cities.
Nelson stated it would bring in $1.9 million.
Imhof stated about $900,000 will go to the County and the rest will go to the
Landsbury asked about the overall budget for criminal justice.
Nelson stated it is about 51% of the budget.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Dawson stated it was more like 70 %.
Landsbury stated this tax will go on forever. No tax is ever taken off.
Nelson stated that was not true. They reduced the tax for six years.
Landsbury stated it is rare. This money will be the money used for criminal
justice. They have just taken care of the budget and don't have to consider
criminal justice again. That isn't fair.
Hoag stated that is not what they are saying. Fifty to seventy percent of the
County budget is currently spent on criminal justice. He wasn't saying $1.9 million
would be 50% of the criminal justice budget.
Lansbury questioned what percentage of the criminal justice budget the tax
would be.
Hoag stated she believed it is one - fifteenth or one - twentieth of the budget.
Lansbury questioned how long this will go on and how long criminal justice
will need it to get caught up.
Brown stated criminal justice would need it forever.
Herman Shoen, Snowline, stated someone asked him what happens when
they need a deputy Snowline right away. Nothing happens. Anytime on an
afternoon shift there are four deputies and a sergeant on duty in the entire county.
He urged the Council to pass the tax.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor, urged the Council to pass the
tax. He prosecuted the case that was mentioned in Glacier. The 911 tape- recorded
the incident. It was chilling. Every part of the system is very understaffed.
Criminal justice is a system, it's not just one part. This will not take care of all of
the funding they need, but it will help. He urged the Council's support.
Manca Valum, 3169 Mt. Baker Highway, stated they've heard a lot about the
negative aspects of what is going on in criminal justice in the community. They are
sitting on the verge of a great opportunity. She sat, as a citizen member, on the
Whatcom County Law and Justice Planning Steering Committee. In the course of
her participation, she had the opportunity to review a tremendous amount of data
and participated in making recommendations. What she sees coming out of the
group are some very concrete ideas about proactive interventions in criminal
justice; things that will help coordinate response and intervene early on with
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
chronic offenders who do not need to plug up the system. She has worked in the
field of domestic violence for twelve years. They are not going to get in front of the
problems until the systems of response necessary to intervene are developed. The
Law and Justice Planning Group will suggest ways to do that. The resources are
going to have to be there to implement some of these strategies. Having worked in
a domestic violence shelter, she didn't want to live in a town without a shelter or a
fire department. However, a shelter and a fire department don't solve those
problems. It takes other strategies to solve them. It will ultimately take the
resources that they can create with the tax. Some of the options that will be
recommended include strategies for how to mobilize and leverage other resources
from outside of the community.
Paul Roley, 1200 Undine Street, stated he has no problem with the police
response times. He also has no problem with the additional tax, and admits the
need for it. He has as fears that there truly is a voters revolt. He believed the
County Council is more responsive and responsible than the Bellingham City
Council. However, the tax will be another straw on the camel's back. He sees the
need for it, but it is a dangerous course at this point, particularly before they show
the public that they are trying their best to cope with the financial problem posed
by the passage of I -695 and by the general tendency to spend wildly.
Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
Imhof moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner spoke against the motion to approve. One person testified that the
deputies are in danger due to a lack of resources, and 30% of the tax will affect the
Canadians. That leaves 70% for the population of the county. She felt it is
regressive. She would support it if she felt it was necessary. The person who
testified to this information sat on the blue ribbon panel. A good chunk of the
money is going to the City of Bellingham. The blue ribbon panels said the City of
Bellingham had ample resources and staffing. She sympathized with the people
living far out in the county. She had always supported more deputies. Last year,
she proposed two more deputies, but neither the administration nor the Sheriff
spoke in favor of her motion, and it was voted down. There are very high needs in
criminal justice. There is also waste, incompetence, and harassment. The Council
should not reward everyone in the criminal justice system. They should have found
the money in the budget along the way. One of the reasons for domestic violence
is a lack of the ability to support a family. That isn't an excuse for domestic
violence, but they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whatcom County has wasted a lot
of money on cases it shouldn't have been involved in. Some of the people they've
prosecuted shouldn't have been prosecuted. This will not guarantee that
everything will be more efficient and people will do a better job. This will guarantee
more money. More money will not necessarily fix the problem. They don't even
know yet what the fallout from I -695 will be. They have no business approving this
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 19
I tax unless they know there will be fallout. If there is, they should let the people
2 vote for it again.
3
4 Hoag explained that the criminal justice budget has grown at a rate greater
5 than other departments and greater than the rate of population. It's not that there
6 has not been money put toward criminal justice. They still have problems in the
7 system. One of the problems is not just a money problem, but how they deploy the
8 resources that are available. In the last budget, she suggested allocating money
9 for satellite stations that would result in quicker response times for areas such as
10 Maple Falls, Sumas, Everson, Nooksack, Custer, and Birch Bay. That has not been
11 implemented. I -695 put a $600,000 hole in the criminal justice funds and a
12 $500,000 hole in the Health Department budget. They just completed two weeks
13 of budget negotiations with the departments. I -695 passed after those
14 negotiations. She saw a need for additional funds for criminal justice. If they pass
15 the sales tax and are able to fund criminal justice, they could use some of the
16 money scraped from cutting other departments to fill the hole that is in the Health
17 Department. However, she was concerned about the political process and the
18 timing for this, in light of "the son of I- 695," which is being proposed to repeal any
19 taxes imposed between July 1999 and January 2000. They don't have the results
20 of the criminal justice study. The timing seems awkward. If they pass this tonight,
21 she was concerned it would be seen as a knee jerk reaction to I -695 and as
22 disregarding what the voters said in 1997 when they defeated it. If "the son of I-
23 695" goes through this would be repealed. She suggested waiting to see the
24 results of the criminal justice study and to educate the public on the need for the
25 tax, and then to put it to a vote of the people. She felt the public needs to be
26 educated as to why this is needed. She has heard that the reason the criminal
27 justice tax was defeated was because it was not proven to the public that the funds
28 were not in the budget. At that time, however, they did not have holes in the
29 budget that have been created by I -695. Once again, they are pulling this out for a
30 quick vote. She was concerned they have not educated the public about why this
31 tax is needed.
32
33 Dawson stated she didn't believe this would be repealed because it is a state
34 tax that is permitted for criminal justice. A state legislator told her it is critical that
35 the County help itself before the State can step in and help.
36
37 Brown stated there have been excellent points raised, but the plan has not
38 been presented. There is no guarantee that decreased response times will happen.
39 Over the last few years, four deputies have been added in the Deming Area and two
40 more have been added for Peaceful Valley. They are still hearing the response
41 times have not improved. It is a knee jerk reaction to beat I -695. Over the last
42 five to six years there has been over a $1 million increase in criminal justice
43 funding. They have not heard where or how much the State surplus funds will
44 come into the county for the first year. There will be funds coming from the billion -
45 dollar surplus. This council voted to spend close to $200,000 over the last two
46 years to fund a bona fide criminal justice plan that would tell them what the County
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
needs, how to go about doing it, and how to build community support so they can
implement necessary taxes. That plan will be unwrapped on December 5t". Raising
the taxes will backfire because another one -tenth of one percent sales tax that has
to go to the voters will be voted down because they are jumping the gun on this.
Imhof felt it was prudent to impose the tax. It is an issue they need to deal
with. They will not collect all of the money until well into the year 2001. The
criminal justice plan will be in place and they will decide what to do. They will need
money to implement that plan. They can no longer keep their heads in the sand,
and need to deal with the problem.
Nelson stated it is not a regressive tax. Property tax is a regressive tax that
impacts those on fixed and limited incomes. This is a tax of choice. People have a
choice on what they purchase. The tax amounts to $.10 per $100. They will
receive better revenue from this to fund the problems in the county that everyone
admits to. He agreed they need the study, but they also need to fund it. With the
impacts of I -695 putting a hole in the criminal justice budget, they would be
regressive in their decisions if they don't vote for this.
Brenner said this tax could be repealed if "the son of I -695" passes. It is
ironic to have a State legislator pass the ball to the County. The reason I -695
passed was because the State legislature didn't do their job. The tax isn't a small
amount to those who are less affluent. She agreed property taxes are regressive.
They are both regressive taxes. When they were talking about raising the salaries,
it was said that I -695 would not be a big deal. Now they are saying it will create a
big hole. They should wait and find out what the affect of I -695 will do, and make
decisions then. If there is a big hole in the budget, she would support putting it on
the ballot or voting for it.
Hoag asked legal counsel about whether or not this could be repealed if "the
son of I -695" passed.
Dave McEachran, Prosecutor, explained that there is no way to definitely
answer the question without reading the language. There is a referendum process
that would allow the people to repeal the ordinance by referendum.
Imhof stated the effects of I -695 are not yet known. It may be challenged
and the second part of it may be null and void.
Motion to adopt carried 4 -3 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag opposed.
(Clerk's Note: Council took a five - minute break at 9:15.)
4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL PLANT AND
FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAM RELATING TO BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AB99 -427)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, 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
Sutter stated the ordinance amending the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan regarding Capital Facilities (AB99 -407) needs to be
considered at the same time and the public hearing should include that as well.
Dawson opened the public hearing for both ordinances and, hearing no one,
closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval of both the resolution and the ordinance. The
resolution came forward with a recommendation of 2 -0 from Finance Committee.
Sutter stated the ordinance came forward with a unanimous recommendation
from Planning Committee.
Brown stated he opposed the ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan record
specifically states that changes would be made to the format and the way certain
uses would be done for the Parks Department. They were never accomplished and
changes were never made. There was a decision made not to follow through.
Hoag asked for clarification about where the Comprehensive Plan changes
are located.
Nelson stated the ordinance is the Comprehensive Plan change and was
before the Planning Committee earlier that day.
Nelson stated the resolution that was before the Finance Committee is the
funding. It is similar to the six -year road program. It is located on packet pages
nine and ten.
Brenner questioned what changes were contained in the last- minute
information from the packet.
Imhof stated the only change was the inclusion of Interstate 5 in the
program.
Knapp stated the second change would be work consistent with the physical
plant, but it is not new material.
Brenner stated that is not the only information that is new to the information
that they have been working on the last couple of weeks.
Knapp stated the only thing they added was the administration's chart.
Dawson stated the change should be considered an amendment.
Imhof stated they worked on the two -page document in Finance Committee.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 22
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 stated the resolution sets the levels of service and projected need for
funding.
Brenner stated she was not comfortable voting on new information that she
hadn't seen before.
Nelson stated this came to the Council as an introduction item on October
26. On November 9, it went to Planning and Development Committee. At that
time, they decided it should have gone to Finance Committee. Today, it was before
the Finance Committee. One item was added.
Sutter moved the added item as an amendment.
Brenner stated she would support it without the changes.
Hoag stated she would abstain from the vote. Even though it was
introduced, no committee has reviewed this document and she wasn't comfortable
with the document.
Nelson stated the motion is for approval.
Brown stated he scanned the document briefly because it is a part of the
Comprehensive Plan process. It hasn't changed except for the addition of the I -5
language.
Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the ordinance carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Brown
opposed and Hoag abstaining.
5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF
CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB99 -429)
Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Nelson moved to approve the budget. He also moved that the budget
adjustments be adopted with the understanding that the money for the programs
being cut in the amount of $50,000 be held in reserves until there is clear indication
of the effects of I -695. He did not include the imaging for the Auditor's Office.
Hoag stated she asked to see what the cuts consisted of. She received
information from the Executive's Office, but it is next to impossible to see what is
being cut. There was originally a 1.5% that was proposed, but it was scaled back
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 23
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
to a one percent cut. She moved to refer to a budget work session on December 1.
She didn't support a one percent across - the -board cut. There are some
departments that could cut without affecting essential services. There are other
areas where they can't cut one percent.
Sutter questioned whether they could adopt the budget at a workshop.
Imhof stated they could at a special meeting. They've been working on this
for five weeks. The Finance Committee has done an admirable job of pulling it
together. They have the proposed budget as corrected. There is no need for more
micro - managing of the budget. At this time, they need to move forward and get on
to other business.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Nelson stated that these are proposals that came from each of the
departments, and he hasn't heard anything from them on that. They are not
saying they are eliminating this. They are looking at the impacts of I -695, which is
why this was put forward. They are only looking at $50,000, which is considerably
less than what had originally proposed. He would rather wait and see what the
impacts are going to be. They have approved supplemental budget requests in
amounts greater than $50,000.
Dawson agreed. They don't know what the impacts are.
Brenner stated she didn't believe those departments can take those hits. It
shouldn't be an across - the -board reduction. They've always said the highest
priority is essential services and public health and safety. They are not following
through on that by treating every department the same. Micro - managing is a term
thrown around anytime someone disagrees with something certain people want to
do. It is not micro - managing to get the answers to their questions.
Brown stated that if the budget goes forward as proposed, he couldn't
support it in light of I -695. It adds full -time equivalent (FTE) employees. To start
adding more people at this time doesn't seem reasonable. They need to readjust
the staffing. It doesn't make sense to bring someone on and then find out there
are going to be impacts. This needs to be in a work session that will allow the
councilmembers to bring forward all their proposals for discussion. There is some
funding that needs to be added. They need to look at the mineral resource study
program that was supposed to be funded. It is mandated that it be done in five
years. If they don't get started, it can't go in. They need to find funding to support
the water planning unit caucuses so they can function. A work session would be
more comprehensive than going through it right now.
Dawson stated the few FTE's that were discussed are fully paid from the fees
they will be bringing in. The building industry is very interested in having an
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 24
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
additional person in the Planning Department because they need help on getting
developments approved.
Hoag stated they are not challenging the FTE positions that will be paid for.
However, there are a lot of new FTE's in this budget that are not paid for by
anything other than taxes and general fund money. She questioned from where
Councilmember Nelson is getting the $50,000 figure. According to the information
she has, the total is $176,587.
Nelson stated the amount doesn't include the amount from non - departmental
in the amount of $239,000. Some of that was for imaging.
Brown stated some of the $239,000 was also for the criminal justice
integration system.
Nelson stated he is leaving that amount in the budget.
Hoag stated she was at the Finance Committee meetings. At those
meetings, each department said what they want to have and gave their
justification. After that, I -695 was passed and they are now looking at the reduced
amounts from the various departments. The Council hasn't seen any of the
justification for the reductions. She received some information about the cuts that
the rest of the councilmembers did not receive, so they are not voting based on
that information. A lot of the cuts come from areas such as postage. She
questioned how they would cut postage since the postage rates are set. In order to
do their jobs, they need to look at what they are spending the money on in light of
I -695.
Motion failed 4 -3 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Sutter asked to move to this item to the end of the agenda.
The Council concurred.
OTHER ITEMS
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS
CHARACTER PLAN TEXT AND TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT RELATING TO
POINT ROBERTS (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -411)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and moved to adopt
as amended by the committee, to amend Exhibit 1 on packet page 142, "...shall be
in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Unifeffig Building Gede as
Whatcom County Code Section 15.24." The reason is
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 25
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
that mobile homes and manufactured homes are not subject to the Uniform
Building Code. The section of the code that deals with manufactured homes 15.24.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BLAINE UGA (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99 -
430) (AB99 -410)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and moved to amend
the 4t" bullet from the bottom on packet page 137, "...as included in the current
Blaine Groundwater Management Program X993, including..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved approval of the ordinance as amended.
Hoag moved to amend the sentence at the top of the page on packet page
134. The language is outdated and refers to action taken in 1998. She questioned
whether the Blaine City Council has adopted the water plan.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated she would look into it and fix it.
Motion to approve carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL
UGA (PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON
FILE IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -409)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and moved to adopt.
Sutter moved to amend number nine on packet page 155, "An adequate
supply of commercial and light impact industrial land is +mper-tant essential to
economic development in East Whatcom County."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend the second paragraph under Columbia Valley /Kendall
on packet page 159, "The lots are affordable and still within cemmuting range te
current and projected development will
provide an available workforce for future economic development."
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 26
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 6 -0 with Nelson out of the room.
Sutter moved to amend policy 2Z -11 on packet page 161, "...encourage the
use of the highest pessible Steffi9wateF develepment standa appropriate
stormwater Best Management Practices and connection to..."
area.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved the ordinance as amended.
Dawson stated she would be abstaining because she owned property in that
Motion to adopt the amended ordinance carried 6 -0 with Dawson abstaining.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -406)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and moved
approval as amended.
Sutter moved to amend the top of the page on packet page 173, page 6 of
the ordinance. If this change is approved, they will need to schedule a public
hearing before adoption. "...This overlay zone is directed at parcels that Paz
have been designated as agricultural open space
for County property tax purposes within the past seven years, and /or those that
include more than fifty percent agricultural protection overlay (APO) soils."
1-7— ;
27—
purposes within the past seven yearsi and
3-;—Have been used fer cernmercial farming purposes fer the past five years.
Brenner questioned whether the committee approved the wording after
"and /or."
Hoag stated both of those changes were made separately in committee, and
both came forward with a recommendation for approval.
Sutter stated they deleted item number three because those that have been
used for commercial farming purposes are already in agricultural open space, and it
is redundant. There is no way for the staff to check and see whether or not they
have been commercially farmed for five years. Item number three was deleted,
and the remaining language was re- worded.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 27
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
Brown stated this is a somewhat more lenient approach.
Hoag stated that, if they retain the current language, it is in conflict with the
County Code. If they make the amendment, the two will not conflict. Also, staff
demonstrated on a map what would happen to the APO if this language was
passed. It would virtually disappear. Henry Bierlink from the Ag Preservation
Services called to say they do not like the language that came from the Planning
Commission. They support the Council's change.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter stated a hearing will be held on December 7.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN AND
THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP FROM UR3 TO
LII FOR 10.74 ACRES (BELLINGHAM UGA /MARINE DRIVE REZONE)
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -405)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and moved to adopt.
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated it came
forward with a recommendation for approval with one amendment on packet page
187, "Screen ...a fully enclosed structure is only allowed if screened from view by
the of adjoining residential neighborhoods by a fence or other impenetrable
screen."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend the same page, "Applicable Law. This Agreement
shall in all respects be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the
Whatcom County Code."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved approval of the ordinance as amended and with all scriveners'
errors corrected.
Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONE MAP
REGARDING RURAL AND RURAL FORESTRY DESIGNATIONS FOR 5.84
ACRES IN THE FOOTHILLS SUBAREA (WARNICK AMENDMENT)
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -408)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 28
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
adopt.
Sutter reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, LII
AND HII ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE URBAN FRINGE PLAN
(PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE
IN AB99 -430) (AB99 -404)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services and stated this came
forward without a recommendation on a 1 -1 vote from committee.
Imhof moved to adopt.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.68.657 on packet page 214, "...enclosed to
~.,:}" ate prevent detrimental impacts."
Sutter questioned whether this change would be substantial enough to
require a public hearing.
Hoag stated it would.
Nelson questioned whether the intent was to prevent the impacts.
Hoag stated they should be sufficiently enclosed to prevent off -site impacts.
Nelson questioned whether this was for heavy industrial zoning.
Hoag stated that was correct.
Nelson stated the reason they have heavy industrial zoning is because they
recognize there is noise, glare, and all sorts of things that go on.
Hoag stated this is for the Gateway Industrial zone, where there are Heavy
Impact and Light Impact Industrial zones next to residential areas. This was the
wording that had come forward because they wanted to limit the impacts.
Sutter stated residential is not indicated in the language. It does not specify
manufacturing next to residential areas. She questioned whether there is heavy
industrial zoning next to residential zoning, or whether there is a light industrial
buffer in between the two.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they are
fairly close in that area. At the location where Tilbury Cement is along Marine
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 29
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
Drive, there is a small area of urban residential across the road. Mostly, there is a
Light Impact Industrial buffer between the two. The map of that area is on packet
page 199.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the
dilemma with industrial areas is that they typically can mitigate, but can't prevent,
impacts. They mitigate by using solid screen buffering and other alternatives.
Preventing an impact means the industrial capability wouldn't be there.
Brenner stated it would be different if this was an existing heavy industrial
area. However, this is a case where the residential development is already there.
She liked the idea of doing something to prevent the heavy industrial area going
into the residential area.
Goodwin stated this zoning code does increase the buffer to 100 feet.
Brenner stated 100 feet from heavy industry is not very far.
Knapp stated solid screen buffering is added to the regulation.
Brenner stated solid screen buffering isn't enough when the use is only 100
feet away.
Brown stated they are getting too restrictive. He supported leaving the
language as it is.
Sutter stated the current language applies to all zoning. It doesn't specify
only residential.
Hoag stated it would not be detrimental to a neighboring industrial use. It
would only be detrimental to residential uses. The comment from Rod Pemble, who
is the president of the neighborhood association, during the Planning Commission
meeting was that they welcome the new language. There have been air pollution
complaints for 20 years. They proposed the amendment to prevent the impact.
They propose looking at the facility up -front and require mitigation to prevent the
impact before the problem begins. In this area, the residential areas need to be
protected from detrimental impacts.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to put the setbacks at 200 feet
only in the area where Heavy Impact Industrial zoning abuts Urban Residential -
three units per acre (UR3).
Hoag did not accept the friendly amendment.
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 30
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 moved to amend that the setback be 200 feet only in the area where
Heavy Impact Industrial zoning abuts Urban Residential -three units per acre (UR3).
Hoag stated she appreciated Councilmember Brenner's effort, but if the
impacts are not addressed, all they are doing is removing land from industry. They
need the land for the industrial base.
Brenner stated this is still better than it was.
Hoag stated she didn't believe so, because it reduces the industrial land base
but doesn't solve the problem.
Goodwin called their attention to section 20.66 on packet page 197. Other
existing language in the code addresses all of those items. It is very specific.
Hoag stated the performance standards are those based on heavy industrial
areas and not what they'd allow in residential areas. Goodwin stated they are
based on the receiving property. If there is a residential area next door, there is a
lower standard.
Brenner questioned whether the lower standard was a residential standard.
Goodwin stated it is. All of these issues are already covered in other sections of the
code.
Brenner stated she knew of heavy industry that promised not to produce
detrimental effects, but nothing has happened to mitigate the effects. She wasn't
comfortable with the wording as it was.
Hoag stated the language in section 20.66 sounds good, but it doesn't really
protect people like it should. It doesn't protect people who are not deemed to be a
"normal" healthy person. If it is going to be detrimental to the neighboring use, it
should be mitigated.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Brenner opposed.
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TEXT
REGARDING THE CHERRY POINT PIER DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING
COMMISSION BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION ON FILE IN AB99-
430) (AB99 -403)
Sutter reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated it
came forward with a recommendation for approval as amended.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 31
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 moved to amend item 16 on packet page 219, "...Additionally, it
protects the marine habitat because n9ultiple no piers, which may impact this
habitat, would n-et be allowed unless beth ef the pi except those currently
permitted by the County, provided they are able to obtain all State and Federal
approvals. Should neither be approved, one additional pier could be allowed. A
moratorium is required to implement the policy..." She understood the intent, but
the language makes it sound as if they will allow multiple piers if those two piers
are approved. Her proposed language says, if the two proposed piers are approved
by the County and get their federal and State approvals, then no more piers can be
constructed. If those two piers don't get their federal and State approvals, then the
County will allow one pier.
Imhof asked what happens if one pier is approved and the other isn't
approved.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they
would not allow a second pier if only one pier were approved.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
Hoag proposed a friendly amendment, "...Additionally, it protects the marine
habitat because ngultiple no piers, which may impact this habitat, would fleA be
allowed unless beth ef the pi except those currently permitted by the County,
provided they are able to obtain all State and Federal approvals. If, however,
neither is approved, one additional pier could be allowed. A moratorium is required
to implement the policy..."
Sutter accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner asked about the two permits. Knapp stated there is one going
forward. The other is the Scheckter permit.
Brenner stated she didn't want to ensure there would be one monopolistic
pier out there. She wanted to ensure they are able to keep it open for multiple
uses. Knapp stated the multi -use would provide that. Also, the Port of Bellingham
is capable of having multiple uses.
Dawson stated the State might ensure multiple uses. It may be part of the
permit.
Brenner questioned whether the County has currently permitted both of
those piers. Knapp stated they have.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 32
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 moved to amend section 23.100.210.21(a) on packet page 223,
"Development of a limited number of industrial multi -use piers on piling..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section 23.100.210.21(a) on packet page 223,
"...Further Heweve , Washington State natural resource agencies..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section 23.100.210.31(x) on packet page 224,
"...additional pile supported or floating multi -use pier."
Brenner questioned what the purpose is. Knapp stated there is a
commitment to have a multi -use product flow. There is an economic incentive to
do that.
Brenner stated the language "multi -use" doesn't ensure there is more than
one owner of the pier.
Hoag stated it is not talking about multiple ownership.
Brenner stated it is redundant. People are going to use it for whatever is
economically feasible.
Sutter stated they will use it to what they are permitted to. If they are
permitted for multiple -use, that is what they have to use it for.
Brenner stated they are not going to use it for multiple uses if it is not
economically feasible.
Hoag stated the Council sent this to the Planning Commission with the
instruction to revise the Comprehensive Plan to include the consideration of only
one additional industrial, multi -use pier. However, the language that came back did
not specify "industrial multi- use." They are including that language to make it clear
that is what they are permitting.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS FORWARDED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL (AB99 -436)
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 33
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 reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
these come forward one at a time. She moved to uphold the Planning
Commission's recommendation for denial on the Manthey et al. /West Smith Road,
File #CMP99- 00002.
Hoag stated she appreciated the Planning Commission's efforts on this. She
supported their Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action.
Brenner stated she would uphold the recommendation, but the Manthey's
originally didn't want a rezone. They really wanted to have parcels available for
their children. Parts of their property do not have good agricultural soil, and it
abuts lots of residential development to the west. The County still needs to work
with them to work something out. She was disappointed the County had to spend
so much time on this. She hoped for some proposals from the Planning
Department staff that will deal with the issue.
Motion to uphold the Planning Commission's denial carried unanimously.
Sutter stated the next item is the Bellingham Urban Growth Area (UGA) at
the Mt. Baker Highway, file #CMP99- 000010. This is one that came forward from
the Associated Project Consultants to do a mixed commercial /residential
development in the Mixed Use zone at the Mt. Baker Highway and Britton Road.
The Planning Commission voted to deny the request on a 3 -3 vote, with one
abstention. The proponent came forward and asked that the County Council hold
its own public hearing. There is no recommendation from the committee due to a
1 -1 vote.
Brenner moved to hold a public hearing.
Brown stated there are some reasons for approving this. This is in the
vicinity of the Britton Road. There was some concern regarding signalization and
road improvements. It is essential to get this type of zoning in place beforehand.
Like it or not, they will help cause that widening and signalization to go forward.
Once it is properly zoned, they will bear the substantial costs for road
improvements in that area when they put forward a proposal. Costs could include
the signalization and, as part of the mitigation, the State highway will take a
portion of the right -of -way they'll need for road improvements. In light of I -695,
this becomes a developer contribution to help that project go forward. It is worthy
of a public hearing.
Brenner stated that including that section will square off that section, which
is irregular now. The developer wants to do this.
Hoag stated the City of Bellingham has commented on this. They are not in
favor of it. It is their UGA. She was tired of the County Council ignoring the City of
Bellingham's requests. The Planning Commission's findings say that the City of
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 34
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
Bellingham has commented that the proposed rezone request is not consistent with
adopted City and County plans and policies. They would like to review it in the
context of their five -year review process when they look at all the available land
and determine the appropriate boundaries at that time. There is a process that is
set up for this. This is skirting the process. It should come forward during the five -
year review. It also does not conform to the Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirement that counties consider input from cities in an attempt to reach
agreement on location of urban growth areas. She didn't support the Council to set
the hearing just for the sake of setting a hearing. The typical process is that if
something comes forward and they want to change it, then a hearing is scheduled
so the public can talk to the Council about its proposed changes.
Nelson stated he hoped to have some discussion with the City of Bellingham.
For a long time, he has been concerned about how they do their urban growth
areas. They will build residential housing at major intersections where multiple
traffic accidents occur. It has never made any sense. He welcomed the chance to
discuss how they handle intersections. It is appropriate for the County to deal with
that, particularly at this intersection. There is a lot of traffic at that location. A
public hearing is an appropriate medium for that discussion.
Brenner stated this is a small piece of property and a high impact problem.
If they can get the developer to cure the problem and the city's problem, they
should.
Motion to hold a hearing carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Sutter reported on the application requesting a rezone from Commercial
Forestry to Rural Forestry, file #CMP99- 00011. The proponent has asked for a
public hearing. They would like to work with the County on a property exchange
for property on Blue Canyon Road. The property on the lake wouldn't be
developed, in exchange for the ability to develop this property.
Nelson moved to hold a public hearing. It is a worthy proposal. The
proponent will present this to the Forestry Forum, where people who live in the
watershed and the foresters in the area could provide input.
Hoag stated she would support the public hearing. It would benefit the
county.
Brown stated one of the reasons he supported this was not because of the
exchange. This goes back to the Comprehensive Plan directives that say they
should have rural forestry between commercial forestry and other uses. They also
voluntarily put restrictive covenants on the timber harvest so there would always
be a shield between the rural and commercial forestry areas. This is an excellent
proposal.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 35
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
Hoag stated she requested that the covenants be brought forward for
consideration at the next meeting. Also, she wanted to see the recommendations
from the Forestry Forum.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.80,
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, BUFFERS AND BUILDING
SETBACKS (PLANNING NO. 48- 98:ZT) (AB99 -376)
Sutter reported for Planning and Development Services, stated this was
addressed in committee on November 9, and it came forward with a
recommendation for approval.
She moved to amend the first bullet point on packet page 271, "...side or rear
yard setbacks... front yard setback; however..."
Nelson questioned whether they would impair emergency access in areas
that have limited space. Goodwin stated this is only into the front yard setback.
Normally, the alley would be the backyard setback.
Brown questioned how they could allow a roof to go into an alley. Goodwin
stated it is only 18 inches into the rear yard setback.
Sutter stated an alley isn't part of the setback or the property.
Goodwin stated this is existing language. The roof overhangs are already
allowed 18 inches into the setback. The only change is to add the word "setback."
It wouldn't go into the alley.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend the end of the second line on packet page 278,
"Forest industry buildings, stationary equipment e€ or storage area..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to include a definition of solar access in section WCC 20.97. It
is referred to in this ordinance, but there wasn't a definition. Staff suggested the
standard industry definition. "Solar access means a property owner's right to have
the sunlight shine on the owner's land."
trees.
Brown questioned whether a property owner could tell a neighbor to cut their
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 36
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
Goodwin stated it only applies in three areas. They all refer to a reduced
building setback. Trees could still cast a shadow. If a building is in the setback, it
can't cast a shadow.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved approval of the ordinance as amended.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.255(2), "...or areas used to contain,
house or feed animals en adjaeent pFepeFties or store manure or feed, shall be 300
feet."
Motion carried 6 -1 with Imhof opposed.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.251(3) at the top of ordinance page
ten, "...for side and rear yards and shall be screened from neighboring uses in
accordance with 20.80.345."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.220(3) on ordinance page eight so side
yards must be kept open. It is a clarification in language that moves the language
about the side yard from the first paragraph down to item (3), which is where it
was in the original.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to accept the handout as a substitute, amended ordinance that
reflected the amendments made during Planning Committee.
Goodwin stated she was sure every amendment made during committee was
included in the substitute ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt the substitute ordinance carried unanimously.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (PLANNING NO. 69- 98:ZT) (AB99 -331)
Sutter reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated this
was addressed in committee on November 9, and came forward with a
recommendation for approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 37
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
Sutter stated she would be working from the substitute ordinance distributed
earlier. She moved to amend section 20.90.020(l)(a), "The Council may grant up
to five (5) three (3) one (1) year extensions based on demonstration of significant
progress toward completion."
Brown questioned whether one couldn't get an extension because a loan has
not gone through.
Sutter stated that if one is working on getting a loan, it is considered
progress.
Brown stated that should be noted for the record that language does include
work toward obtaining financing for the project.
Nelson asked for the reasoning for the amendment.
Hoag stated there is language in that same section, the sentence beginning
"The fulfillment of all conditions...," that discusses a binding commitment, which is
good for one year. If a person was allowed up to five extensions, there would be a
total of six years in which the County would have a binding commitment on this.
The County would not be able to require any new regulations or standards that
have been adopted in that time frame. This is a situation that happened recently.
Goodwin stated that situation was a subdivision application, which is a
different issue, but that was the circumstance.
Nelson stated each extension will have to have approval.
Hoag stated that was correct, but there was no criteria for an extension.
They inserted criteria. A binding commitment of six years is too long.
Dawson stated that, in terms of a large project, it isn't too long.
Hoag stated one couldn't even get vesting for more than five years. Six
years is too long.
Nelson stated the Council has the ability to approve or deny the request.
Hoag stated they can only deny with good reason. They can't deny it
arbitrarily.
Imhof stated he could support the reason, but not the three years. He asked
that amendment be divided into two motions.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 38
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
Dawson stated the first motion is to amend language in section
20.90.020(1)(a), "The Council may grant up to five (5) three (3) one (1) year
extensions..."
Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Sutter moved to amend section 20.90.020(1)(a), "The Council may grant up
to five (5) one (1) year extensions based on demonstration of significant progress
toward completion."
Hoag proposed a friendly amendment "The Council may grant up to five (5)
one (1) year extensions based on demonstration of hardship or significant progress
toward completion." With that language, the Council can take into consideration a
reason why they have not been able to make significant progress toward
completion.
Sutter stated determining hardship is subjective.
Sutter accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2) on substitute ordinance page seven,
"Approval of site specific rezone proposals must consider the cumulative effects of
recent rezones in the area and be supported by written findings..."
Imhof stated that requirement would be onerous after they require the other
conditions. He would not support it.
Hoag stated the reason the committee approved the amendment was to
consider the cumulative impact of multiple rezones to a higher density. There is no
way to account for that in the current code.
Nelson stated other language requires that the rezone will not have a
significant negative impact on public health, safety, morals, general welfare, or
community needs, and will not adversely affect the surrounding area.
Sutter stated it must also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated the cumulative impact on all the conditions needs to be
considered.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Hoag, and Dawson in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 39
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 moved to amend section (2)(b) on substitute ordinance page seven,
"That the proposed amendment to the zoning beaFs a substantial Felatienship te will
not have a significant negative impact on public health, safety..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(b) on substitute ordinance page seven,
"...adversely affect the surrounding properties or neighborhood as a=whe;e."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(c) on substitute ordinance page seven,
"That there are changed conditions or new information since the previous..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(d)(i) on substitute ordinance page seven,
"...such as highways, streets, public safety and fire protection..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(d)(ii) on substitute ordinance page
seven, "not create exeessive significant additional requirements..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(d)(iii) on substitute ordinance page
seven, "if located within af� non - industrial Urban Growth Area..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (2)(d)(iii)(b) on substitute ordinance page
seven, "shall be gene developed in a manner... annexed into the a city, and"
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section (6) on ordinance page eight, "Concomitant
rezone shall net be used is not generally necessary for a rezone..." There may be
cases where the County may want to use the concomitant agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to accept the substitute ordinance as amended.
Motion to adopt the substitute ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 40
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
13. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20.83 AND
20.38, REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NON - CONFORMING
USES (PLANNING NO. 54- 98:ZT) (AB99 -328)
Sutter reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated this
was addressed in committee on November 9, and came forward with a
recommendation for denial.
Sutter moved to adopt.
Brenner stated amendments were made during committee.
Sutter moved to accept the substitute ordinance.
Sutter moved to amend section (1)(f)(ii) on substitute ordinance page four,
"...in the Lake Whatcom or Drayton Harbor watershed; or"
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.)
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
Sutter moved to amend section .072 on substitute ordinance page five, "Any
owner of lots subject to consolidation hereunder, except lots within the Lake
Whatcom or Drayton Harbor watersheds, may apply for..."
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
Brown questioned whether the intent was to not give any recourse to people
living in the Lake Whatcom or Drayton Harbor watersheds.
Sutter stated that was correct.
Hoag stated the criteria for the lot is that; it does not match the underlying
zoning; is be less than two acres if outside a UGA and is less than 6,000 square feet
if inside the UGA. There are certain parameters that have to be met for
consideration.
Sutter moved to amend section .072 on substitute ordinance page five, °(5)
Suitability of lots for development, based on geo- hazards."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to approve the substitute ordinance.
Hoag stated the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (DCTED) sent the Council a letter about this. Their comments were
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 41
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
that the lot consolidation ordinance is an excellent tool to prevent flood plains,
shorelines, Lake Whatcom, and to preserve rural character, however the proposed
changes will make it less effective. CTED recommended keeping the Hearing
Examiner as the official to grant relief from this ordinance.
Hoag moved to amend section .072 at the bottom of substitute ordinance
page five, "...may apply feF administFative appFeval to the hearing examiner for
relief..."
Sutter stated it is a burden to the property owner and to County staff. There
have been many applications for lot consolidation relief, and 80 percent of them
were granted. She didn't see the reason for putting people through that and going
through the expense if they are going to be approved anyway.
Hoag stated there are 20 percent that are denied. Hopefully staff will not be
giving this any less scrutiny if they are making an administrative decision. If it
goes to the Hearing Examiner, there is another party reviewing the application in a
public setting. That is important.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
Brenner stated the ordinance is an improvement, but it still takes property
away from people. The size of the lot shouldn't be important. Whether or not the
lot is able to have adequate septic and water is what is important. Also, every one
of the conditions specifies a portion of the lot. The purpose of zoning is that one
person can have a very small portion of their lot be in the Lake Whatcom watershed
and the lot owner should be allowed to develop the lot. Because they are working
hard to protect the Lake Whatcom and Drayton Harbor watersheds, she would
support that language in those areas. This regulation is only for one person who
owns adjacent properties. There are places where the adjacent properties are in
the name of two different people, but are owned by the same person in reality.
That is discrimination against one class of people.
Brown stated it is ironic they are consolidating lots that are less than two
acres, and yet there is a movement to go into clustering that creates a lot of these
one -acre lots in the agricultural lands. He questioned what is wrong with a two -
acre lot that already exists. It doesn't make sense.
acres.
Hoag stated cluster only happens when they are also preserving 20 to 40
Brown stated one can also have cluster developments elsewhere.
Brenner moved to amend section (f) on ordinance page five, "(i) One of the
lots is le` s than twe ~„s unable to sustain approved septic and adequate water
supply; or"
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 42
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
Motion to amend carried 5 -2 with Imhof and Hoag opposed.
Brenner moved to amend section (f)(ii) on substitute ordinance page five, "A
No buildable portion of one of the lots is located +n outside
of the Lake Whatcom Watershed." It would be consolidated if there wasn't a
buildable portion of one of the lots outside of the watershed.
Goodwin stated this ordinance does not need to be adopted during this
meeting because it is not a Comprehensive Plan meeting.
Nelson moved to hold to the next Council meeting.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Sutter opposed.
14. YEAR END APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
FOR THE YEAR 2000 (AB99 -375)
Nelson moved to appoint Joe Burton to the Board of Equalization.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to appoint Chris Hatch and Jason VanderVeen to the Open
Space Advisory Committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag has stated that the Planning Commissioners have said that Danna
Beech diligently studies her information in preparation for the Planning Commission
meetings. The Council appreciates and needs that time and commitment.
Brenner stated Beech has put in a lot of time on this. The Council is lucky to
have her.
Brown nominated Danna Beech to the Planning Commission to serve her
second term.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown nominated Ron Roosma to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy
left by Sam Crawford.
Hoag nominated Chris Hatch to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy
left by Sam Crawford.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 43
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
Brown stated he supported Roosma because he has a lot of expertise in
Whatcom County. He's been in the farming industry, logging industry, and has
done site preparation and construction work. All of this experience provides a
Planning Commissioner with hands -on experience.
Roosma was appointed 4 -3 with Imhof, Hoag, and Brenner voting for Hatch.
Imhof made the following nominations to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, by acclamation:
• Robin Robertson to the Public Interest Group position
• Herb Barker to the Waste Recycling Industry position
• Norman Nichols to the Waste Collection Industry position
• David Bader to fill his second term in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility
position, and
• Larry McCarter to the Citizen position
Hoag stated it was not appropriate for Larry McCarter to be a citizen
representative since he is the president of Recycling Disposal Services. They try to
set up the advisory boards so there is broad representation. Everyone is a citizen,
but a citizen representative is supposed to be someone who is not directly involved
in the industry. She understood McCarter is a very good person, and she wanted to
see him appointed to the Disposal Facility position. It wasn't appropriate to have
him be the citizen representative. She wanted to hold that position open until they
have a citizen applicant. She requested that the Disposal Facility position be voted
on separately because she wanted to nominate McCarter for that.
Motion to approve by acclamation carried 5 -2 with Hoag and Dawson
opposed.
15. CLARIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT #15, SOMAS AREA (AB99 -364)
Hoag stated there were two vacancies filled at a previous meeting, but they
didn't clarify which appointee would fill which term. There were two different
terms.
term.
Imhof moved to appoint Shultz to Visser's term and Olasson to Mellema's
Motion carried unanimously.
16. RESOLUTION SETTING A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR WHATCOM COUNTY
COUNCILMEMBERS FOR 2002 AND 2003 (AB99 -449)
Imhof moved to approve the resolution and to amend the amounts to
$15,500 for the year 2002 and $16,500 for the year 2003.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 44
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
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
17. RESOLUTION SETTING THE LEVY RATE AND ELECTION DATE FOR THE
EVERGREEN WATER /SEWER DISTRICT (AB99 -201A)
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING POINT ROBERTS WATER DISTRICT NO. 4
COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN (AB99 -458)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.40 TAX ON
BINGO, RAFFLES, PUNCHBOARDS AND PULL TABS (AB99 -459)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 10 (AB99 -
460)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO ADD
A NEW CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY
ZONE, AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTIANIGN TO LAND
CLEARING AND STORMWATER REGULATIONS (AB99 -286A)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS MADE IN THE MAY 20, 1997
FINAL DRAFT (AB99 -461)
(Clerk's Note: A five - minute break was taken at 11:40 p.m. End of tape four,
side 8.)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE YEAR 2000 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE
(AB99 -431)
Nelson moved approval.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 45
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 she didn't understand how the fees were raised after the
administration asked the departments to raise revenue due to I -695. It looks as if
fees were raised due to I -695. They were told by the Health Department and
Planning and Development that they weren't raised due to I -695. She wanted to
see what the actual costs are. They don't have any idea what the impacts of I -695
are going to be. The Council needs to know those impacts before raising fees to
offset subsidies that may or may not be cut by I -695. Fees are supposed to reflect
actual cost. There is no argument about whether or not I -695 is going to take
away fee subsidies.
Hoag moved to accept the November 19, 1999 version of the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated technical corrections were submitted by administration during
the Finance Committee. Her motion was to include those technical corrections.
Brown moved to delete the annual license fee for multiple dogs on page four
of the substitute ordinance. It seems like they are rewarding people for having a
lot of dogs. If there is a kennel where a breed is raised, they might be able to allow
a break. Everyone should pay the same.
Hoag stated they couldn't give a kennel a break if they remove that fee. The
Council had received letters in the past from owners who use multiple dogs to work
in a farming situation. That is why the fee is in there.
Brenner offered a friendly amendment to eliminate the fee, except for
farming practices.
Brown accepted the amendment.
Hoag questioned whether the fee language would remain with the
specification that it is for farming practices only.
Dawson stated they would have to define farming practices.
Brenner stated they've defined that through the Right -to -Farm ordinance.
Hoag clarified that farms are the only ones that pay the multiple -dog fee, and
everyone else pays the regular fee for each dog. Hoag stated she wanted to
separate the two portions of the motion into two votes.
Brown agreed to separate the motions.
Sutter stated she didn't agree that a farmer with 100 dogs would pay the
same fee as a farmer with 4 dogs.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 46
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
Imhof stated it has worked before, it will work this way.
Brown stated he proposed this because there are problems in the county with
people who have many, many dogs. Those people get a bonus for having multiple
dogs. Brown restated his original motion, withdrawing the friendly amendment, to
remove the multiple dog fee.
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Brenner moved to have an annual multiple dog license fee for farming
practices only.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Brenner spoke against the Unified Fee Schedule. When the Council gets fee
raises at the last minute, they should make sure those raises accurately reflect the
costs. The Council hasn't had the opportunity to do that.
Nelson stated if they had to do that, they should look at the decreases as
well.
Motion to adopt the unified fee schedule as amended carried 6 -1 with
Brenner opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT -D)
S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY
FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF
CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN (AB99 -429)
Nelson moved approval with the changes proposed to leave in approximately
$50,000.
Hoag moved to have a special Council meeting on December 1, 1999 to go
over this. They know cuts have been proposed for departments, but they don't
know what those cuts are. She wanted that information itemized.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Hoag questioned whether this discussion could still go on, since it was past
midnight, and the public notice stated the Council would be meeting to vote on the
budget on November 23rd
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated the public notice says they
would meet on November 23rd or a later date.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 47
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 moved to reduce funding for the countywide imaging project by
$69,000 as proposed by the administration. That is something they can easily
delay for a year without affecting services to the constituents, and give the County
a chance to ensure all essential services are funded.
Brown stated these are one -time expenditures for which they can get the
project through while funding is still available. They don't know what is going to
happen by the end of the year 2000, but for now he was confident the County
would receive revenues from the State, and there are other funds available to carry
through. They should instead not allocate any more full -time equivalent (FTE)
employees.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Sutter, Hoag, and Brenner in favor.
Hoag moved to add funding for the starling program in the amount of
$15,000. It is very important. They still have a problem with the starlings. This is
a small way to help the farmers.
Nelson offered a friendly amendment to fund at the current level of $10,000.
Imhof agreed with Nelson.
Hoag stated the reason she asked for an increase was because they want to
expand the program. The current program only traps for six months. Birds are
coming in from Canada after the trapping season ends. That is the
recommendation from a national group who is advising them. Private farmers are
putting up their own money to support this. She would not accept Nelson's friendly
amendment. $15,000 is pocket change compared to the other changes they are
considering.
Brown stated he would support it at $10,000. The original intent was to get
the program started, and every year the County has kept it going. This is not the
year to expand it.
Hoag stated the program they have has been very successful, but it's not
enough. The birds also pose a health hazard.
Motion failed with 3 -4 with Sutter, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Imhof moved to add $10,000 to the starling program.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Hoag moved to add funding for Planning Commission training in the amount
of $3,000. It comes highly recommended.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 48
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 who does the training and what it involves.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the
training consists of a series of workshops throughout the year that are specifically
oriented to Planning Commission. The short course is also available. There are a
number of workshops and special training sessions that would go on throughout the
year. The short course is typically presented by a variety of individuals from other
jurisdictions and other fields. There are particular conferences they can go to. This
last year, they sent the Planning Commission chair to the National Planning
Conference in Seattle because it was close. He found it very beneficial.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Imhof, and Dawson opposed.
Hoag moved to add $50,000 for an aggregate study for Planning &
Development Services Department. This is the study required by the
Comprehensive Plan and has to be done within five years of the Plan's adoption,
which was 1997.
Knapp stated the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) plans to do
this study later this year.
Dawson stated it would save the County some money.
Knapp stated that was correct. The County would have their work to work
from. He proposed this be postponed to the following year.
Hoag questioned whether DNR is scheduled to begin this in six months or
complete it in six months. Knapp stated he didn't know when they would start it.
During the next six months, they should know more about what they plan. They
are going to do significant work.
Imhof stated they could deal with it in a budget amendment.
Knapp asked that this be postponed, and do a budget amendment when they
have more information.
Hoag stated she preferred to set the money aside to make sure it gets done.
If it's completed in the next six months to a year, that would be fine. Otherwise,
they are going to run out of time on it. Knapp stated he would support the
administration's position to postpone it.
Hoag stated the last she heard about DNR's study, it was not a quality study.
It was not a study of the quality of the aggregate, which is what the County is
required to do. It was simply a study of quantity, which the County already knows
on the mineral resource geographic information system (GIS) map for the
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 49
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
Comprehensive Plan. Knapp stated the County could fill in with anything the DNR
doesn't do.
Brown stated he wanted to propose this in the amount of $75,000. This is
not going to be a short and sweet study. They will have to redo the DNR study, if it
gets done. They have to assess each type of aggregate that is available and the
probability of getting it out. He would be amazed if it gets done in two years. They
shouldn't put it off. Knapp stated DNR would be starting in the next two months
and should be finished in six months.
Brown stated the County could be doing its groundwork and tying the study
in at the same time.
Dawson stated the County needs to find out what DNR will be doing.
Nelson stated this could come back as a supplemental budget request as the
administration finds out what DNR is doing.
Hoag stated, if they are going to be done in six months, there is no reason
the County can't begin this study next year, during the year 2000, which is what
they are budgeting for. She was concerned that a supplemental budget request
doesn't come forward. The Council is saying this needs to be done now.
Nelson stated Hoag could bring it forward.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brown and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add $10,000 to the Planning and Development Services
budget for the Conservation District (CD). This is for the CD to create farm plans in
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). They have been getting $15,000 per year for this.
They have some money left over from last year, so she reduced the amount to
$10,000. They requested $15,000. This is a very important part of what the
County is doing. In the Drayton Harbor and Lake Whatcom Overlay ordinances, the
County is referring even more people to them. The funding needs to be there for
the CD. They need to have the funding there to do this.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Sutter, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add $5,000 for Planning and Development Services to
develop criteria for annexations. This came out of the Planning and Development
Committee. The committee dealt with annexations earlier in the year. Under the
Comprehensive Plan, there aren't criteria for the Council to evaluate annexations.
The Planning staff talked about adding criteria. They need $5,000 to accomplish
that.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 50
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
Imhof stated he would speak against a lot of these proposed amendments.
What the Finance Committee does during budget hearings is put together a
responsible budget. They need to determine what will happen with I -695 and the
ending fund balance. It is prudent that these things be addressed, but not now.
They can do a budget amendment in April after the books close for the year 1999
and they know the ending fund balance. They will have a better handle on what
the finances are. These amendments have some merit, but they are one -time
expenditures and are small items. They can deal with them at that time when the
County has a better handle on what is going on.
Brenner stated a one -time expense should be reflected in a fee. A proponent
for an annexation, be it a city or a private party, should put into that cost rather
than have it spread out.
Hoag stated this is about drawing up criteria that would be used to evaluate
whether or not an annexation should be considered and whether or not it should be
put on the docket. It is not specific to any annexation. In terms of I -695 and the
budget, she will be moving to take out more money than what she will move to put
back in. This is important for the County to process what they have to do.
Brenner questioned whether this is something the Planning Department
currently requested.
Hoag stated they requested it in their additional services request, but it was
denied by the administration.
Brenner stated she'd like to hear from Michael Knapp.
Hoag stated this was not discussed in committee.
Nelson stated that in committee, he asked each department if they had any
concerns about the additional services requests that were not approved, versus the
ones that were approved.
Hoag stated Nelson did ask that question during committee. During
committee, Knapp said this is something they would like to have funding for.
Knapp stated this was a request from the Planning and Development
Committee. The Planning Department put it in the budget process. It was
evaluated with everything else. They wanted it to respond to the committee. If the
committee wants the department to do that work, this is the money they need to
do it. They are responding to their request.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 51
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 moved to return to the Council's budget the one percent cut for
professional services to cover the cost of a code scrub and review in the amount of
$5,384. They should not be putting this off. There is money in the budget to do it.
According to the third quarter report, they ended up with $9 million more in
revenues than they anticipated. There is no reason to take this money out of the
Council's budget at this time.
Brown stated they should go forward with the code scrub. It always ends up
as a low priority, but they should go ahead with this.
Brenner agreed. It is not only a small cost, but the Council office has one of
the lowest percentages of increase requests. The whole idea of across - the -board
cuts seems less than candid. It would be fair if they are all getting the same
percentage of increase.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to add two new Sheriffs deputies and an additional jail
corrections officer. She didn't have a specific cost for these additions.
Dawson stated they need to look at the full proposal that will be coming
forward and deal with it in a unified manner.
Hoag called for the question.
Brenner stated they know they are going to need more deputies. If the
County Council had agreed to fund more deputies each year, they wouldn't have a
deficit.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brown, Brenner, and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add one additional jail corrections officer because they need
immediate help.
plan.
Brenner stated this is an immediate need. They can't wait until they get the
Motion failed 3 -4 with Sutter, Hoag, and Brenner in favor.
Hoag moved to carry over funding for Sheriff satellite stations that was
budgeted last year.
Brown stated he supported the use of satellite stations, but wasn't sure this
was the best location in the county. Because the Sheriff has said he will not
support these stations, he can't see setting the money aside. They should see what
comes from the Criminal Justice Task Force.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 52
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
Dawson agreed that, if the Task Force supports it, there would be more
pressure on the Sheriff. It is hard to make someone do something that they don't
want to do.
Brenner stated the Council has the purse strings and could better negotiate
their direction with the Sheriff. The suggestion of the satellite stations has been
brought up repeatedly. In Planning and Development Committee, they were made
aware that the Birch Bay and Foothills areas are similar because they have
concentrated populations. Those are the two worst areas for response, considering
the density of the population. It made a big difference when a deputy lived in the
Foothills area and could respond immediately.
Hoag stated the Criminal Justice plan does not look at satellite stations. She
asked them to look at it, and they told her it wasn't within the scope of what they
were doing. There will not be a recommendation, pro or con, from the Task Force
regarding the satellite stations. The Sheriff asked her to make a list of what her
proposal is about, and bring it to their staff meeting for discussion. There have
been a lot of rumors about what the satellite station would be about. Her proposal
was to create two stations, one in the Birch Bay- Custer area, and another in the
Nooksack- Everson area. There is broad support from the Sheriff deputies about
this. The deputies have to continually make stops at fire halls and other places to
use the phone. There can be more efficient service.
Dawson questioned whether it is a problem to bring this forward with the
plan. At that time, the Council will look at what they want and bring other things
forwa rd.
Hoag stated the money was not spent, it is still there, and she wanted it
carried over.
Brown stated he wouldn't support it because of the locations Hoag proposed.
That will not decrease the response times to the Acme Valley or the Middle Fork
Area. It puts the deputies in close proximity with other law enforcement officers
and they lose the reason for doing it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape five, side A.)
Brenner stated she was disappointed that the locations have been decided on
two areas that are already close to two existing cities, with their own police forces.
She agreed with Brown that a satellite station should be located in the Foothills.
The Council still needs to make a statement that it is an important issue. Whether
or not the Sheriff responds, she would support the request and hoped the stations
would be located in densely populated areas that are not near cities.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 53
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 it has not been decided. That was just the proposal. Those
locations were chosen because the deputies could radiate from that area. If they
look at the areas they could cover, they could get to almost every place within 15
or 20 minutes. That is much better than now, when they are coming from
Bellingham.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to remove the Facilities Management upgrade on preventative
maintenance software in the amount of $16,000.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Hoag, and Brown in favor.
Hoag moved to remove the funding for replacing the corridor carpet on the
4t" floor in the amount of $7,800. All of these things she mentioned are in light of
I -695 to make sure they have the money for essential services.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to remove funding for clerical support for a grant writer in the
amount of $20,092. $40,000 for a grant writer is sufficient.
Brenner stated it is generous of the Council to fund a grant writer. The
person should have the clerical skills to do what he or she needs to do.
Hoag stated the grant writer could also use existing staff.
Brown stated there was a proposal from the Council of Governments (COG)
about the grant writing position they are putting together to serve all of the
entities. He suggested the Council move the funding over to support that activity.
Dawson stated there wasn't support to do that. The County has too many
demands of its own, and the work would be diluted by the demands of the other
jurisdictions.
Brenner stated there would also be competition between the different
jurisdictions in the County for a grant. According to Jim Miller, it would not be
based on how much the County puts in.
Hoag stated the County would contribute a large portion of the funding, and
then all the jurisdictions would take turns on receiving grants.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Imhof opposed.
Hoag moved to remove funding for Information Services for an additional
full -time equivalent (FTE) employee to staff the information kiosk in the amount of
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 54
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
$29,646. There are several positions requested by Information Services. The
County has been building up the computer programs, but has not put much on the
ground in terms of services to the customers. She supported the request for a
Programmer Analyst, and will not move to remove that position. She wanted to
remove the other items because the County is not getting its "bang for the buck."
These should be postponed in light of I -695.
Sutter questioned whether these are new or currently existing positions.
Imhof stated the PC /LAN Tech position currently exists. The Webmaster
position is an upgrade from a .5 FTE to a full -time FTE.
Nelson stated the kiosk has been getting increasing demands. They are
supporting staff break times with other staffing.
Imhof stated the help desk is for the staff to get computer help, and is
located in the basement.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the help desk position is
currently funded.
Brown stated he couldn't imagine the County going into this budget cycle
without reducing some FTE's, or at least holding the line. Instead, he finds they are
raising taxes and approving more FTE's. He would not bring forward his list of
proposed changes because everyone is tired, and there is no support. He
appreciated Councilmember Hoag bringing these forward because it represents the
preparation that will have to be done.
Motion to remove funding for the added FTE for the information kiosk carried
4 -3 with Dawson, Imhof, and Nelson opposed.
Hoag moved to remove funding for the PC /LAN Tech I in the amount of
$44,193.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Hoag moved to remove funding for the help desk in the amount of $36,674.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Hoag, Brenner, and Brown in favor.
Hoag stated she believed the help desk position was a new position.
Sutter stated the administration said it was existing.
Brown stated the position was approved as a one -time expenditure, and the
request is to continue it forward.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 55
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 moved to remove the funding for an increase in the Webmaster
position in the amount of $24,059.
Sutter stated a Webmaster position is vitally important right now. They are
getting more and more online requests. They are trying to provide more and more
services to the community online. They need someone who knows what they're
doing. It is a position the County needs.
Brenner stated the County has needs that are much higher than that. They
have to prioritize at some point. Their answer to everything is to have it all now
and raise the taxes. That is not the right way to do things. They are supposed to
prioritize. They are putting off the most essential priorities.
Hoag stated there is a half -time position already doing that work.
Motion to remove the funding carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Sutter, and Imhof
opposed.
Hoag questioned whether the Exigent maintenance was for the previous
imaging system the County has or for the new system they just approved.
Desler stated it is for the system they just purchased. It is maintenance for
the next year.
Hoag moved to remove funding for the 5.0 FTE's for countywide microfilming
in the amount of $150,000. It doesn't provide an essential service and the County
can wait.
Imhof stated the County is just getting to the point it is caught up. They
have to keep up with this work, or it will be self- consuming.
Brown stated that is something that needs to be finished. It is a large sum
of money and they don't want to put it off until future years. It needs to be done.
Brenner stated the citizens would rather have more deputies on the streets.
Motion to delete funding for microfilming failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in
favor.
Hoag moved to remove the wide -area network integration in the amount of
$150,000.
Brown questioned whether this has anything to do with criminal justice.
Hoag stated she didn't think so.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 56
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
George Reid, Information Services Manager, stated the wide -area network
integration is the integration of all the personal computers throughout the county,
including law enforcement, to share data and information. The data integration is
another project.
Hoag asked the benefit of this project to law enforcement. Reid stated they
would have access to the data that is stored on various servers around the county,
including the AS400.
Hoag questioned whether they could already get to that information. Reid
stated they used to be able to, but it is no longer wired that way. It is all
connected through the phone and the wide -area network.
Hoag questioned whether they could access their own computer without this.
Reid stated they could be isolated to certain areas if they want to, but that is not
the intent. The intent is to share the information with all the departments. Included
in those departments are the Prosecutor, Public Defender, Sheriff, Jail, Alternative
Jail, and all the law enforcement offices.
Hoag withdrew her motion.
Hoag moved to remove funding for the countywide imaging project in the
amount of $100,000.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to remove funding for Deputy One Public Defender, which is the
12th Public Defender, in the amount of $51,048.
Brenner stated they keep adding more Prosecutors, even when the City of
Bellingham takes back their cases. There are people who aren't guilty and deserve
to have this. They are a vulnerable population. The County doesn't pay any
attention to the Public Defender's office. They are overloaded. They don't cost the
County a lot of money. They don't have enough staff to do their job.
Hoag stated she proposed it in the last budget because of the caseload
reduction due to the City of Bellingham's taking over their cases. She was told they
should leave it in to see how the year goes. She has not seen a re- evaluation other
than just the request.
Brenner stated that is a fair concern. When they look at the amounts with
the Prosecutor's Office, it is a lot lower than it should be.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 57
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 moved to remove funding for the Coordinator increase for the Noxious
Weed Board in the amount of $8,891. It is not an essential service and is fine the
way it is now.
Brown stated that would leave the position at half time.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson, and Sutter opposed.
Sutter moved to eliminate $15,000 for the Economic Development Council
(EDC). They aren't doing the job the County has asked them to do.
Dawson stated the Council should write a specific letter to the chair of the
EDC and ask them to carry out their responsibilities.
Brown stated if the funding is cut, they'll ask.
Hoag stated she supported the motion. She asked the EDC to concentrate
on supporting and expanding existing business instead of trying to recruit new
business. She also asked for economic development of the agricultural industry,
which is one of the biggest industries in the county. There are lots of things that
could be done very inexpensively that would add a lot more value to the product for
the farmers. She has not received any response.
Dawson stated she talked to the chair of the EDC. There isn't anyone from
agriculture who serves on the Council. There is a program at the college that works
with existing businesses.
Sutter read the EDC objectives for 1999. The EDC has not informed the
Council about economic development activities and needs. They have not informed
the Council about why businesses are not locating in Whatcom County. The
communication is not there. Except for budget time, the only time the EDC has
come before the Council was during the Comprehensive Plan process. She had to
repeatedly beg them to do a land supply analysis to submit to the Comprehensive
Plan record. It took her months to get them to agree to do that. It wasn't much of
a document. She couldn't continue to give county money to an organization that is
not performing even marginally to help the economy in the county.
Brenner agreed with Hoag and Sutter. There are other reasons that are of a
strange personal nature that doesn't inspire confidence in the businesses to deal
with the EDC.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Dawson opposed.
Sutter moved to contribute an amount not to exceed $22,000 to COG for a
grant researcher. That money comes from the $15,000 removed from the EDC and
the $20,000 removed from the grant writer clerk position. There are some
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 58
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
jurisdictions, the City of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham, who don't
anticipate using the service, but will contribute anyway because they see the value
of it. The Port is interested because they are currently doing economic
development plans with areas in Whatcom County that aren't a jurisdiction,
including Pt. Roberts, the Foothills area, and Birch Bay. They are doing the job the
EDC should be doing. Whatcom County's share for the program would be
approximately $21,500. The contribution is based on the population of the
jurisdiction. This position is a grant researcher.
Dawson questioned what types of things they would be researching.
Sutter stated they research any money that is not coming into the county
currently. There is money that is available to jurisdictions.
Dawson questioned whether they would be duplicating efforts.
Sutter stated they wouldn't. The County is hiring a grant writer. That is
different than a grant researcher.
Brenner stated Councilmember Sutter is right ideally. However, after
witnessing the most outrageous type of appearance of fairness problems with COG
in their hiring process, she wouldn't support any money for COG.
Hoag stated she was concerned about competition among jurisdictions. They
are getting into semantics when talking about the difference between grant writers
and grant researchers. The Council was told the County's grant writer would be
looking for grants for the County. That is what the writer would be doing. They
were told at the Finance Committee that the competition between jurisdictions
would not happen if the County had its own grant writer. They were told that the
County would make a grant application if eligible, and whoever had the best
proposal would get the grant. It puts the County in a weaker position instead of a
better position.
Sutter stated the County's grant writer could spend more time writing grants
if someone else did the research. It would also be much better if the County
cooperated with the fellow jurisdictions instead of competing with them. Lastly, the
decision about who is going to apply for a grant lies with the full Council of COG,
which is comprised of the elected officials from all the jurisdictions.
Brenner stated that comment bothers her as a taxpayer. They can always
find something that will theoretically make things better. At some point, they need
to hold the line. She agreed that this would be competitive stuff. It irritated her
that the County will be submitting the biggest portion of funding, and they only get
one vote.
Sutter stated the County gets two votes.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 59
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 it is outrageous that they are throwing money at this and not
funding more deputies.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Dawson, Hoag, and Brenner opposed.
Sutter stated that there was a letter addressed to Executive Kremen from
Michael Bodtke regarding the funds being allocated to the Planning Unit for their
expenses. They are asking for $5,000.
Brown stated they were only allocated $45 per planning unit per year.
Sutter questioned the amount they would get.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the administration advised the
caucuses that they would receive $500 each for support of postage and printing for
this year and next year. For any other charges, they need make a to request in
writing. Depending on how much the collection of caucuses asks for, that decision
will be made. They needed to begin receiving requests so they can look at
alternatives and evaluate the cumulative impact.
Brenner stated Dewey Desler is a fine person, and the Executive should pay
him out of his own pocket. She moved to eliminate the position of Deputy
Administrator. It isn't fair for the voters to pay for two executives.
Dawson asked if there was any elected Executive or Mayor that doesn't have
a deputy assistant.
Imhof called for the question.
Motion failed 5 -2 with Brown and Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to eliminate three deputy prosecutors. The Council was told
that the workload would reduce when the City of Bellingham took over their own
cases. She hasn't seen any reductions at all. There should be some reductions
some where. The County just keeps adding more.
Brown stated Brenner has a point. When the negotiations went on with the
City of Bellingham, they said the caseloads would be reduced by 30- something
percent. Even after that, the Council added prosecutors. They need to wait for the
criminal justice study to come out.
Hoag stated she did get the information from the Public Defender, and
apologized for saying she didn't get it.
Imhof called for the question.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 60
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
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to delete one deputy prosecutor.
Brown stated they should wait until they get the criminal justice plan.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to delete a program coordinator and substitute with a
registered nurse (RN) in the Community Health and Wellness Division.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated neither
coordinator is a nurse, however they both provide different functions to the
community. One is an HIV outreach program coordinator. The other is the
community health assessment program coordinator. The community health
assessment program coordinator looks at all the health indicators for the
community and looks for different trends. The HIV outreach coordinator oversees
the youth outreach program, along with other HIV and AIDS intervention programs.
Brenner stated a RN could do a lot with HIV concerns and would have a lot
more understanding of health problems. That should be the emphasis.
Nelson stated the motion would require an increase in funding.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner questioned whether the County was waiting on the criminal justice
study before acting on the 911 emergency services enhancement program. There
is a fellow in Ferndale whose wife was having a heart attack. He called 911, but
couldn't get through. His wife died. The opinion is that it probably would not have
made a difference, but he was told that was a total fluke, yet within a couple of
days it happened again.
Desler stated there is a larger study the Council approved. The County is
organizing the study through the Emergency Services Division to examine all
emergency and public safety communications for the future in the County. It
includes fire, emergency medical services, and police. This spring, they will see a
fair amount of recommendations. It is probably a three -phase effort. He wasn't
aware of any major improvements that have been scheduled for the 911 central
dispatch system, other than the fire systems being set up as their own dispatch
operations.
Brenner stated they should get their money's worth. The phone company
denied this happened. A Ferndale City Councilmember is working on this. She
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 61
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
wanted this investigated. People should be able to get through to 911 in an
emergency.
Hoag recommended that next time the budget modifications be allowed to be
brought forward in committee. She requested that during the Finance Committee
and was told she would have to do it on the floor at the regular meeting. She felt
bad for the staff that had to stay. She also felt that some of her suggestions might
have broadsided someone. That wasn't her intent. What she had were
suggestions, and wanted to discuss them. This would work much better if it was
brought up in committee.
Imhof stated any major changes should be brought forward before the
budget process.
Desler questioned which budget numbers are being used as a base. The
general fund is at $50,047,338.
The Council concurred.
Desler questioned whether they did not include the $239,000 in cuts that are
in the handout.
Nelson stated pieces of that were deleted.
Desler stated there are total deletions in the amount of $88,797 and some
additions in the amount of $40,384.
Hoag stated the $239,000 was recommended by administration to not be
taken out. The Council didn't touch any of those funds.
Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried 5 -2 with Brown and
Brenner opposed.
Imhof thanked Councilmember Nelson for his leadership as chair of the
Finance Committee, and the Councilmembers and administration for the work they
have also done.
Nelson thanked the staff for staying until the late hour.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape five, side B.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Dawson stated the Council has been asked to provide input on mandated
programs that could be reduced at the State level, such as the Becca Bill and any
other unfunded mandates.
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:18 a.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
Regular County Council Meeting, 11/23/99, Page 63