HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole September 29 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
46
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee Of The Whole
September 29, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter
Marlene Dawson
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Brown moved to go into executive session for 10 minutes to discuss agenda item #2.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH OWENS DAVIES MACKIE FOR
LEGAL DEFENSE OF APPEALS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD (AB98 -120A)
The Council came out of executive session.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that she gave all Council Members
a copy of an order that was entered into. It is a very strong order. The County could not have
been more successful in court. Prior to the hearing on August 17, 1998, or soon after the
hearing, Mackie exceeded his previous limit on the contract. She discussed the issue with Imhof.
Since Council was not going to be in session until September, the Council at that point needed to
proceed. Before the last Council meeting, Mackie may have gone over the limit by $2,000. His
current bill is $27,000 for work that has already been done and is not covered by the previous
contract. There are a few other areas the County is fighting, including an appeal filed by
Sherilyn Wells in Skagit County regarding the City of Nooksack. The County received a
decision from that court that indicated the case may go forward to trial. More motions would be
brought forward. The County will have to see the results of those motions. In Whatcom County,
Nate Kronenburg filed an appeal. That is scheduled for a motion to dismiss on October 16,
1998.
Imhof questioned why one would file in Whatcom County and one would file in Skagit
County. Frakes responded that every person who appeals a case has a right to choose where it is
filed, within certain restrictions. It has to be your own county or a neighboring county. Wells
probably felt that Skagit County is removed from the politics in Whatcom County. She could
only guess Wells' motivation.
Committee of the Whole, 9/29/98, Page ]
I Frakes continued to state that there was something in the Court of Appeals that, at this
2 point, is not actively going on. However, the Council can be sure that the County will be at the
3 Court of Appeals on this last decision, within the next 30 days.
4
5 Sutter stated that the County still has another order coming up on the procedural issue.
6
7 Hoag asked for clarification on the two suits filed after Nooksack was served. Frakes
8 briefly stated that the statutes require that an administrative appeal is filed within 30 days after
9 service of the decision. The Board is under an obligation to serve participants with the order. In
10 this case, the City of Nooksack had been a participant in one of the early case from 1994, and
11 wasn't involved at all in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan case. However, the Board had a master
12 list of service for the 1994, 1996, and 1997 cases and served everyone on the list with its final
13 order of the 1997 case, except Nooksack. It is the County's position that Nooksack was not a
14 party and they didn't deserve the notice. Nooksack got what they wanted, so they didn't care if
15 they received notice. It is the other side's position that they should have been served. They are
16 making an argument that anybody, not just the City of Nooksack, can take advantage of the new
17 appeal period. She did not believe it is a correct argument. It is being argued in court. On top of
18 the $27,000 that the County owes Mackie, he estimated another $20,000 of additional costs
19 through the end of the year. She rounded it off and asked for a maximum of $50,000.
20
21 Brenner questioned how much has been paid to Mackie to date, including the requested
22 $50,000. Frakes responded that she did not know.
23
24 Hoag stated that it seems to go on and on. She questioned whether the County was done
25 with the Growth Management Hearings Board as far as Mackie is concerned. Frakes responded
26 that part of the decision is being remanded to the Hearings Board. That is part of the cost. That
27 should be a pre - summary proceeding, given the court's order. The court narrowed the scope of
28 the issue that will be going back to the Hearings Board. Those remanded issues are covered in
29 the requested extra $20,000.
30
31 Hoag questioned whether there is any end in sight. Frakes responded that there is. There
32 will be appeals, but the work on the appeals is going to taper off because so much work has been
33 done already. Because this is an appeal on the Superior Court level, the briefing is virtually
34 identical when one goes to the Court of Appeals. There is not any additional research to be done,
35 only fine - tuning. It is not labor- intensive.
36
37 Brown stated that the people continuing to appeal are driving the issue along.
38
39 Hoag questioned whether an appellant only has a certain amount of time. Imhof stated
40 that every decision generates another appeal process.
41
42 Frakes stated that there is an issue in this case that could go to the Washington State
43 Supreme Court. That is the procedural issue that she discussed. The issue is that, at the
44 beginning of this case in Whatcom County, the clerk was not initially accepting notices of
45 appearances from anybody except the Board's attorney. That really has nothing to do with the
46 order. Mackie came up with an idea to get rid of the people who didn't have any interest in it.
Committee of the Whole, 9/29/98, 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
Every time the County served people in the case, it was a major expense. A lot of people were
requesting to no longer be a party. The County brought forward a motion to ask the court for an
order requiring people to file a notice of appearance within the next 30 days. If they didn't they
would be dismissed from the case. Nobody appeared at the hearing when the County entered
that order. She sent every party respondent a copy of the order. The court said that was legal. It
is something they feel is a good issue. It was worth it to proceed.
Brenner questioned whether the State Supreme Court stated they would not hear it.
Frakes replied that the Supreme Court would not hear the case. Imhof clarified that the Appeals
Court decision stands.
2. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO. CUP98 -0016,
FILED BY PAUL GOMEZ (AB98 -305)
OTHER BUSINESS
Hoag stated that the Lake Whatcom Management Committee requested a response
from the Council regarding the preferred format of the updates they will receive.
Imhof stated that he would give the information to each Council Member.
Hoag stated that the Committee requested a consensus from the Council on what they
want, rather than have seven different opinions.
Imhof stated that the Committee can put their information on the Internet, and Council
Members can access it through the Washington State Extension Service.
Hoag stated that she preferred to have the information on audiocassette. The Committee
stated that they would put it on cassette for the Council Members.
Nelson and Brenner stated they also wanted it on cassette.
Hoag stated that the Committee could then send only the data sheets to the Council
Member.
Sutter stated that there were other formats in which the Council Members could receive
updates, such as a verbal update, which she preferred so she can ask questions. Those updates
should be quarterly.
Council Members concurred.
Hoag stated that if the Council only receives quarterly reports, they would not receive a
very in -depth report. She suggested receiving a summary in addition to the quarterly reports.
Committee of the Whole, 9/29/98, 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
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that there was discussion about information
provided to the Council at a previous meeting. The discussion was regarding market salary
adjustment for personnel (AB98 -282). He and Karen Sterling - Goens, Human Resources
Manager, were offended that there was a concern that they provided dishonest information. He
assured the Council that they did not provide dishonest information. They provided information
that they felt was accurate. He asked Wendy Wefer- Clinton, who prepared the information, to
address the issue that was the point of contention. He provided that information to the Council
Members.
Hoag stated that the handout says that two Council Members accused Wareing and
Sterling - Goens of not being truthful. She was certain that she was being implicated. That is not
what she said. She stated during that meeting that the information was misleading. If she had
known this was coming forward, she would have brought her information to him.
Imhof stated that this would be dealt with at another time. Wareing and Hoag would get
together another time.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
These minutes were approved on October 27 , 1998.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Member
Committee of the Whole, 9/29/98, Page 4