HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole June 30 19981
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
Committee Of The Whole
June 30, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Council Vice -Chair Marlene Dawson in
the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
A]-,n PrPCPnt-
Kathy Sutter
Robert Imhof
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
CUP98 -0001, FILED BY TAMMY LONGSTAFF (AB98 -184)
Sutter moved to go into Executive Session for 45 minutes to discuss items #1 and #2.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION WITH ADMINISTRATION REGARDING EMERGENCY MARKET
ADJUSTMENTS — PERSONNEL (AB98 -020)
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING JUNE 19, 1998 LETTER TO COUNCIL FROM DAVE
McEACHRAN (AB98 -260)
(Clerk's Note: The executive session portion of the meeting ended at 6 :30 p.m)
Imhof stated that the Council sent a letter to County Prosecutor McEachran several weeks
ago. Subsequently, the Council received a reply. McEachran would be explaining certain points
in his reply letter.
McEachran stated that the first question Council had was regarding whether a county
employee could change the scope of a contract at costs far greater than original agreement
without Council approval. If the new work is to exceed $10,000 or 10 %, whichever is greater,
Council approval must be obtained.
Regarding the second question about settlements based contracted work, contract policies
apply to the contract, even on a settlement.
Question three is regarding the County Health Department. The Health Department does
not have to approve a clean -up project, but they should be involved because of their extertise.
I Question four is regarding cotractor knowledge of laws. Contractors should know State
2 and Federal laws to make sure they are in compliance.
3
4 Question five is regarding contractor qualifications. The person that would be working
5 with the contractor should have knowledge of whether or not the contractor is qualified to adhere
6 to the laws.
7
8 Question six is regarding accountability. The County is responsible for maintaining a
9 "paper trail" of information.
10
11 Question seven is regarding buried sewage lagoon sludge. The County approved three
12 lagoons in the 60s or 70s. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is not specific about
13 closing a sewage lagoon. If a lagoon is drained, then there must be an approved landfill or
14 application for a beneficial use on top of the land. There was no specific legislation to close a
15 lagoon.
16
17 Question eight is regarding management of clean -up projects by County employees. The
18 Sheriff's Department may clean -up drug labs and similar things. Public Works, Parks, and
19 Planning and Development Services Departments all have had responsibility for such work.
20
21 Question nine is regarding Prosecutor accountability for illegal advice. Attorney's in the
22 Prosecutor's office are accountable to the Prosecutor.
23
24 Brenner stated that there is no "paper trail" that advice was given to the contractor from a
25 Health Department employee. There is a difference of opinion as to what advice was given by
26 the employee. Also, the state statutes are clear about sludge clean -up. The sludge is the material
27 that needed to be addressed, not the lagoons. Laws regarding burial of solid waste have not been
28 changed.
29
30 Dawson stated that a mistake was made in an environmental area and has become very
31 costly. There have been other issues where costs of projects rose dramatically from the original
32 estimate. It is the nature of the game. The Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor has accepted
33 responsibility for the mistake and now the County should go on about its business.
34
35 Imhof concurred. He requested Randy Watts, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, explain
36 the situation.
37
38 Watts commended the Council for making the decision to close the lagoons. Once that
39 decision was made, the County began to gather cost estimates. The first estimate was $70,000
40 based on leaving the sludge on -site and cap it. Once that process began, the Health Department
41 stated that the sludge had to be removed. His focus was on getting the environment cleaned up,
42 as the Council had directed. 450,000 gallons of liquid waste and over 200 cubic yards of sludge
43 have been removed and properly disposed of at a licensed facility. When he shifted process, they
44 were committed to resolve the issue. His focus was too narrow on getting the job accomplished
45 rather than bringing the issue before the Council. The Health Department became involved by
46 getting a third party on -site to run tests, certify the clean -up, and to ensure it was done in
I accordance with the regulations. The third parry was hired to oversee the project and he assisted
2 in getting the best rate for disposal of the liquid and sludge. The costs incurred will be reviewed
3 for their reasonableness. The work that was done was work that had to be done. There is still
4 work to be done. The agreement is that the County will re- establish drainage on the property.
5 The quote on the remaining work will be brought to the Council.
6
7 Brown questioned the third parry that was responsible for overseeing the project. Watts
8 responded that there was an environmental consultant that deals with the Health Department on a
9 regular basis overlooking to make sure test results were appropriate and the material was
10 disposed of at a site that was appropriate.
11
12 Brown asked if the County would have been better off to have an engineer work on the
13 project. Watts stated that in the future it would be more appropriate to have someone else handle
14 such projects. Typically he handles litigation and settlements for damages. This was a unique
15 situation.
16
17 Brenner questioned when the environmental consultant was hired and was on of that
18 consultant's duties to determine whether the materials could be buried on -site. Watts responded
19 that the environmental consultant was hired after the Health Department's determination that the
20 materials had to be removed, after the project was begun and when the pumps were in the
21 ground. The Health Department was involved from the very beginning.
22
23 Hoag questioned who would be responsible to make sure regulations and law are
24 followed. Watts stated that he relies on staff involved in the field of the issue. He relied on the
25 individual who works in the area of enforcement for environmental clean -up. He followed the
26 enforcement officer's advice.
27
28 Brenner asserted that the Health Department employee did not advise Watts on the issue,
29 but referred him to Regina Delahunt, Health Deparment Evironmental Services Manager.
30
31 Imhof recapped the situation and stated that there is nothing more to discuss.
32
33 Watts state that an important point is that the system that was cleaned up was also a
34 system that the County designed. Mr. Hughes wished to provide low- income housing to
35 Whatcom County in the 1960s. He came to the County to ask how he could do that. The County
36 responded to him that they would design a sewage system. That is what the County did and what
37 he used on his property.
38
39 Brown asked for clarification on a past discussion about changing the pumps. The costs
40 changed at that time. Imhof stated that the materials couldn't be trucked out because to was too
41 cost prohibitive. The plan was to de -water and pump the materials.
42
43 Brenner stated that it will set a bad precedent to state that, if the County permits and
44 designs something, then they are liable if it is used in violation of the law.
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
Hoag stated that someone needed to take responsibility for authorizing the funding when
the law stated it could not be done. She questioned who is responsible for the original advice
that was incorrect.
4. POSSIBLE CONTINUATION OF TODAY'S 8:30 A.M. COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE LUMMI NATION, NOOKSACK TRIBE, WHATCOM COUNTY,
CITY OF BELLINGHAM, AND WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 (AB98 -235)
Imhof stated that he preferred that the initiating governments develop a memorandum of
understanding (MOA) jointly at the same table. There would need to be a representative from
the legislative authority and a couple of representatives from the administration of each
jurisdiction. Those representatives would need to determine goals and tasks to accomplish the
goals. The draft document could then be presented before each legislative entity.
Brenner concurred. State agencies are not required to be a part of the process.
Imhof stated that the agreement needs to also define how each entity would be
represented at the negotiating table. The planning should be kept local. The MOA should cover
the requirements of ESHB 2514. Anything above and beyond the new legislative requirements
should be documented and brought forward with the rationale.
Bob Andersen, private consultant, agreed with Imhof s stated concept. Because there are
certain timelines involved, there should be language to include milestones and measurements.
Sue Blake, Planning & Development Services, stated that the Council should be cautious
about the process. The MOA should not define the scope of work. That is a part of the
organizational phase I.
Sutter stated that the MOA should only agree that all parties will work cooperatively.
Brown stated the MOA should be based directly on wording in ESHB 2514.
Blake also pointed out that the Council's intended changes to the document would be
considered significant changes by the tribes.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated that the concept must be from
ESHB 2514. Goals, not tasks, should be specific, achievable, and measurable.
Imhof moved to request the administration jointly create an MOA with all jurisdictions.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7 p.m.
Dana Brown - Davis, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Chair