HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular Council Meeting
June 30, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Alcn PrPCPnt-
Barbara Brenner
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Tom Brown
Connie Hoag
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
Ward Nelson
Imhof announced that the Committee of the Whole discussed the Draft Memorandum
Of Agreement between the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Whatcom County, City of
Bellingham, and Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (AB98 -235)
The committee recommended that all parties get together and work out a mutually
agreeable memorandum of agreement.
Imhof also announced that during Committee of the Whole executive session the Council
was briefed by legal counsel on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision filed by
Tammy Longstaff (AB98 -184)
Dawson moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The motion carried 3 -3 with Brown, Hoag, and Brenner opposed.
(Clerks Note: Normally a 3 -3 vote fails for lack of a majority, but WCC 20.92.810 states,
"The County Council shall affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner unless a majority of the
entire Council finds that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is: 1) Based upon an error of
law, or 2) Clearly erroneous on the entire record.')
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: JUNE 2 AND 16,
1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS; MAY 19 AND JUNE 16, 1998,
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS; MARCH 31 AND JUNE 9, 1998 BOARD OF
HEALTH MEETINGS
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
Imhof announced that the minutes from the meetings of June 16 Regular Council, and
June 9 Board of Health have been pulled for further review by Council Member Hoag.
Sutter moved approval of the remainder of the minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
The following people addressed Council:
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, spoke in favor of Introduction Item #4,
the review of the resolution supporting the Water Resources Management Council (AB98 -259).
Wayne Larson, 3096 Thornton Road, Ferndale, stated that Council needs to "stop the
bleeding" regarding the courthouse construction in the past and issue in Ferndale. He
volunteered to work for the County for one year with no wages or benefits, to work with Public
Works on setting policy and negotiating contracts. The only condition would be that he be able
to hire and fire his crew discriminately.
Hoag asked for clarification on Larson's subject of discussion. Larson clarified that he
was discussing the Ferndale Apartments sewage clean up (AB98 -260). He's heard the Council
has been accusing other people of the problem. The source of the problem needs to be identified
and made public. The lawyers accountants should not be negotiating the contracts because they
know little about construction.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road supported Larson's offer and stated that public agencies
don't know how to buy or bid. It is time to bring in people who know how to negotiate.
Ahwren Sheldan, Northwest Road spoke about the trees removed along Northwest Road
for the Bakerview Road project. The destruction of the trees was a terrible assault on nature.
Nelda Sigurdson, 5171 Ferndale Road, Ferndale, stated that another year has passed
without any solutions to the water problem. The people at the State Department of Ecology
don't have a democratic spirit in the way they deal with what they would like to see done in the
watershed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval of items 1 through 8 and 10.
Brown requested that item number eight be removed from the consent agenda for
discussion.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
Motion to approve items 1 -7 and 10 carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A JOINT
FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND WHATCOM COUNTY, SUPPORTING A
GROUNDWATER STUDY IN THE NORTH COUNTY AREA, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$18,030 (AB98 -243)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CASCADES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. AND WHATCOM COUNTY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REQUIRED BY PERMITS FOR THE DAVIS-
RIVERBERRY AND VANDELLEN PROJECTS ON THE NOOKSACK RIVER IN
THE VICINITY OF HOPEWELL ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,429 (AB98 -244)
3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 997014 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF SAXON ROAD BRIDGE
NO. 127A OVER THE SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK RIVER TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER ONE WAY CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,568,135 (AB98 -245)
4. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 996003 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AUSTIN STREET,
FROM LAKE LOUISE ROAD TO CABLE STREET, TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER FRIBERG CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $618,857 (AB98 -246)
5. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 997017 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF JACKSON ROAD,
FROM BROWN ROAD TO GRANDVIEW ROAD, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
BIDDER PARAGON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$299,685.10 (AB98 -247)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN REBECCA PETERSON, DB /A GENEVA
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, AND WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE
PROVISION OF PHASE II OF THE 1998 -99 LAKE WHATCOM EDUCATION
PROGRAM, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $32,200 (AB98 -248)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID NO. 98 -75
TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER LEN HONCOOP GRAVEL FOR THE
PURCHASE OF GRAVEL, CRUSHED, AND RIPRAP ROCK MATERIAL FOR THE
POINT ROBERTS LIGHTHOUSE PARK BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $102,113.55 (AB98 -249)
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 3
1 8 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN RESOURCES AND WHATCOM COUNTY FOR
3 RECYCLING HOTLINE OPERATIONS AND THE 1998 -99 CLASSROOM
4 PRESENTATION PROGRAM, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 (AB98-
5 250)
6
7 Dawson moved approval.
8
9 Brown stated he could not support the request. Existing County staff can handle the
10 hotline. The average amount of incoming calls is 2 — 3 per hour. The cost is $24,000 for that
11 service, a part of which is funded by grants. There are two County phone lines in place to
12 operate the hotline. It would be of greater benefit to continue education of existing staff on
13 recycling issues. There is a also a County staff person that provides Courthouse information on a
14 full -time basis. An additional 2 — 3 calls per hour can be handled by existing staff.
15
16 Imhof stated that Recomp and Sanitary Services have been answering a lot of the calls
17 themselves. This project has been supplemented for a number of years. Schools have their own
18 recycling programs.
19
20 Brenner stated that ReSources has been very valuable to the Ferndale School District and
21 the Bellingham School District. The phones ring more often than 2 — 3 calls per hour. The
22 community wants this service. The calls to Recomp and Sanitary Service probably are
23 concerning disposal, not recycling efforts. Programs have slowly been whittled away so that
24 nothing is left. County programs used to be the best in the State.
25
26 Hoag stated that the Council has in the past decided they prefer private organizations take
27 over services where possible. County staff should not be doing this. Her own experience is that
28 there are times when she cannot get through to the County phone system to retrieve her voice -
29 mail. Adding the calls to the switchboard is not a good idea. Also, ReSources' bid was 1/3 less
30 than other bidders to the project. They provide a good service that helps the County.
31
32 Dawson commented that the reason the County was number one in the state for recycling
33 is because the County had flow control. The County no longer has flow control. Brenner
34 responded that the number one programs were not dependent on flow control. The programs had
35 more funding than they do now and were innovative recycling programs.
36
37 Motion to approve failed 3 -3 with Brown, Dawson, and Imhof opposed
38
39 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
40 AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEUCCI CONSULTING AND WHATCOM COUNTY
41 FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING /HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
42 WASTE OUTREACH AND PROMOTION SERVICES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
43 EXCEED $35,000 (AB98 -258)
44
45 Dawson moved approval and stated that the reason this consulting firm was chosen was
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 4
I because they would give the issue a fresh look and their history does not include any type of
2 political agenda. They are in a better position to evaluate the program.
3
4 Hoag stated she did not vote for this item in committee because splitting this service off
5 from the hotline would increase costs by $8,000. Resources has been doing a good job. The
6 new consultant also represents Sanitary Services, which is a potential conflict of interest.
7
8 Brown stated the reason for separating the services was because the interview panel was
9 looking for new, different ideas and to reduce costs. This was the only bidder that responded
10 favorably for a new approach.
11
12 Brenner stated that she is disappointed that this service was split from the ReSources
13 services and that it would cost an additional $8,000. ReSources has been eliminated due to
14 personal reasons. The community will suffer due to the personal issues at play. Lisa Meucci is
15 extremely capable and does an exceptional job. Brenner then stated she would support the item
16 because she supports the program and would rather have Meucci do the program than no one at
17 all.
18
19 Hoag concurred with Brenner. She does not want the services pulled away from
20 ReSources and the political agenda talk. During committee, it was agreed that ReSources is
21 highly capable and it all came down to the political agenda of the people involved. She does not
22 like the way this has been handled and doesn't want to see people treated this way in the future.
23
24 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
25
26 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
27 EXPENSES AND /OR TRAVEL (AB98 -143D)
28
29 Dawson reported that there was an additional item in committee. There was discussion
30 on the Victim Restorative Justice Grant. This item was before the Council previously. The
31 Council requested that the item go out for personnel contracting. Gary Wood, Juvenile Court
32 Administrator, and Steve Paus, Juvenile Court Probation Officer, request reconsideration by the
33 Council.
34
35 Paus stated that some of the information provided was handed out at the committee
36 meeting (handout on file). The additional information was meant to clarify certain issues. He
37 authored the grant. Juvenile Court adopted a new mission statement in 1997. The statement was
38 meant to provide better services for victims of juvenile crime. As part of that, the grant proposal
39 was developed. This was put out by the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. It
40 was specifically to deal with restorative justice, which is to provide better quality services to
41 victims, offenders, and the community and to promote healing in all three factors. He then read
42 the mission statement into the record. The juvenile court process will not be so offender -
43 focused, but will look at victims as well as the community in addition to the offender. The grant
44 asks for two positions inside the Juvenile Court Administration to provide better access for the
45 victims to the court and for the court to hear issues that the victims have.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 5
2 When this came before Council previously, Mr. Nelson quoted from a section of the grant
3 indicating requests for information regarding the implementing agency. At the beginning of the
4 grant process, Paus stated that he believed it would be better to contract out the services. The
5 money must come to the government, but the government can either contract out the services or
6 function internally. Most of the grants written in the past have been the type of grant that
7 contracts out. The implementing agency is outside the system and the County is the applying
8 agency. The money passes through the department to the implementing agency. In this case, it
9 is important that the services be internal in the court. The reasons for that have to do with the
10 sharing of information amongst law enforcement and court services. In order to answer the
11 questions of the Council, he discussed the matter with George Reid, Information Services
12 Manager, and researched the law.
13
14 Another factor is that this was not done in a vacuum. This was developed in a committee
15 of five people, both inside and outside the court, to work on ways to better provide services to
16 victims. He listed the committee members.
17
18 Another issue brought up by Council Member Brenner was that other counties contract
19 out these types of services. So far, he has not been able to find any counties that contract out this
20 kind of internal service. He talked with the King County employee that handles the victim
21 program in their prosecutor's office. She indicated that they do not contract out for that service.
22 There is a mediation service, but she has not had a good experience with them.
23
24 Imhof stated that there are confidentiality issues and it would be more advantageous to
25 have this service in- house.
26
27 Hoag asked extensive questions about the information that could be released to a
28 contractor. On the third page of the memo from Gary Wood dated June 30, 1998, item #1
29 conflicts with item #4 on page four of the memo. She questioned whether police reports were
30 public or confidential. Karen Frakes, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, explained that
31 information from police reports sometimes is and sometimes is not public information. It
32 depends on the substance of the police report. Sutter stated that the information regarding the
33 victims is not available from the police report, however other information on the report, such as
34 the arrest or the offender, may be public information. Personal information on a victim is never
35 public. Frakes confirmed that certain cases are more sensitive than other cases. Sometimes the
36 release of victim information may be a violation of their privacy or somehow detrimental.
37 Sometimes, select information is confidential and sometimes the entire report is kept
38 confidential.
39
40 Hoag stated that item #1 one page three states that a contractor may obtain information,
41 but not as quickly as someone in the system. She questioned what would delay that information.
42 Paus responded that familiarity with the system would cause a delay.
43
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 6
I Frakes stated that this issue is regarding juvenile court records. Juvenile records are
2 handled much differently. There is greater restriction on the release of police reports. They
3 could be released to the victim for their recourse, but in general, they are not open to the public.
4
5 Paus confirmed that a contracted agency can have the information for victim assistance
6 purposes, however they cannot access this information via the computer. Information Services
7 requires guarantee that an employee keeps information confidential. Other contracting agencies
8 have access to the County's AS /400 computer system, but they do not access records from the
9 criminal justice services.
10
11 Hoag stated that the County was able to make an exception to allow outside agencies
12 access to the computer system to access real property information. She questioned whether an
13 exception could be made to an agency for victim assistance services. Paus stated that the real
14 property information is public information. Criminal justice information is not public
15 information.
16
17 Imhof questioned whether an outside agency could have the same privileges as the
18 agency that contracts with the County for diversion services, and whether the information on the
19 AS /400 could be partitioned off so that only the necessary information could be accessed. Paus
20 replied that the agency that contracts for diversion services only receives hard copy of
21 information. They do not have access to the computer system.
22
23 Brenner stated that the reason these agencies don't have access is because the County
24 does not want them to have access. These people are not the general public, but qualified,
25 certified people contracted out to carry certain tasks. Many of these professionals deal regularly
26 with confidentiality issues. Also, she made reference to other counties that contract out for these
27 services. Those counties are not all within Washington State. The County has an insider attitude
28 that does not want to contract out services. There is no legal reason why an outside agency
29 cannot perform the services.
30
31 Brown spoke in favor of contracting the services.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
34
35 Hoag suggested that a contractor be issued a password to access the AS /400. Paus stated
36 that a password would give information on who was using the system. A password couldn't be
37 given to someone who is not an employee. Hoag replied that just because it isn't policy now it
38 doesn't mean that it cannot be done at all. She would like to know if it is possible.
39
40 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, explained that access to the AS /400 is a security
41 issue. There are ways around the security issue. Information could be passed through the
42 Juvenile Department to be given to the contracting agency. Law enforcement information is
43 restricted to court personnel, law enforcement personnel, and other law enforcement agencies.
44 Access could be narrowed to certain fields of information, however it may take substantial
45 programming. It may be more viable to copy the reports and provide them directly.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 7
2 Sutter stated that giving someone access might allow access they are not authorized to
3 have.
4
5 Dawson stated that initially contracting out might be time - consuming because a Request
6 for Proposals (RFP) would have to be created, however it is a do -able situation.
7
8 Dawson moved to contract out for the positions.
9
10 Frakes spoke about RCW 13.50.050 and explained that all records other than the official
11 juvenile court file are confidential and may be released only as provided in this section, RCW
12 13.50.010, 13.40.215, and 4.24.550. The definition in RCW 13.50.010(1)(a) regarding the
13 juvenile justice or care agency includes diversion units, court, prosecutor, and the Department of
14 Social and Health Services and their contracting agencies. It does not include the court's
15 contracting agencies. It should be interpreted as only including the court. This information
16 typically cannot go outside of the courts or the other specifically enumerated agencies.
17
18 Imhof stated that the issue is a concern on the confidentiality of the entire process.
19
20 Frakes suggested the Council read the statutes and if they have any questions, they can
21 discuss them with her at a later time.
22
23 Brown suggested holding this item until the new information could be reviewed.
24
25 Wood explained that this is a three year grant and that not one dollar comes out of the
26 pocket of the County. He will add two positions, but they can be cut when the money runs out in
27 three years. Both workers would liaison directly with the probation officers. Victims make
28 comments and suggestions to the current Victim Assistance Coordinator, Sheryl Cartwright. She
29 needs a facilitator to the Probation Officers. This needs to be a "one stop shopping" operation.
30 Also, many people tell him that they don't want to have to go off -site to take care of their needs
31 that the County provides. They like to have the County services in one place.
32
33 Hoag stated that when she ran for the Council Member position, the public told her that
34 they wanted the government to be less involved in tasks that could be performed by the private
35 sector.
36
37 Hoag then questioned access limitations to the main frame computer by a contractor.
38 Wareing stated that the mainframes are not like home computer. Limiting the fields that can be
39 accessed can be done at a cost.
40
41 Hoag also stated that risks to confidentiality are the same whether the person is a County
42 employee or a contractor. Wareing replied that that is a legal argument dealt with by the courts,
43 the law, and by legal statute. Wood also replied that some of the other counties in the state have
44 been checked by his office to determine whether they contract out these services. Not all
45 counties were checked.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
Hoag stated that during a previous meeting, the Council requested from legal counsel
whether it is legally possible to contract out the services. Legal counsel has raised the question
as to whether or not this service could be contracted out legally. She requested this item go
ahead as approved at the previous meeting and reaffirm that the Council preference would be to
contract out the services if legally possible.
Imhof asked the Council if there was a motion to reconsider.
Dawson stated that her motion was to maintain their previous decision.
(Clerk's note: A motion to maintain the Council's previous decision is not necessary.
Therefore, Dawson's motion was not voted on.)
Brenner commented that activities done in other states could be looked at. Also, people
in trauma do not want to be in public places if they don't have to be. There is no legal reason to
require the positions remain in- house.
Imhof stated that there is no motion to reconsider, so discussion is done.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY TAX TITLE
PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION, REQUEST #98 -3 (AB98 -228A)
Barbara Cory, Treasurer, gave a staff report on public hearing items #1 and #2. The first
item is a piece of property that was included in the tax foreclosure sale in December. She
received a request to purchase the property. The Property Management Committee reviewed the
property and determined it cannot be built upon. The Committee therefore recommends sale by
negotiation. The Council needs to set the minimum price. The Committee does not make a
recommendation on the minimum bid. The foreclosure cost is $376.54 and the assessed value is
$600.00. The applicant to purchase is available for testimony.
Brown questioned whether the lot is usable for other purposes, such as recreation. Cory
responded that the land is tidelands. The person who would like to purchase the property owns
the property directly behind the lot. The other surrounding property owners were notified at the
time of the auction in December and no one expressed an interest.
Cory then supplied maps for this parcel and two other parcels in item #2. Maps were not
provided for the Cabana Club parcels that are timeshare units. The maps are plat maps.
Dawson questioned the acreage of the tidelands. Cory responded that the acreage is not
listed on the Assessor's information.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
Brenner questioned whether there needs to be a minimum bid. Cory stated that the
Council must set a minimum bid.
Brown stated that setting a minimum bid eliminates the County's ability to negotiate a
sale price. Cory responded that the Council could set the price at the foreclosure cost which is
the taxes owed plus the administrative processing costs.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Keith Steves, Richmond B.C., stated that he owns property immediately behind the
tidelands. All the lots along that stretch of property include the tidelands. He would like to
purchase the property to improve his title. There is no access to the property.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Brenner questioned the status of the property if it is not sold by negotiation at this time.
Cory replied that it would stay in the County's inventory until someone else made a bid for
purchase or the County made an effort to sell at auction.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution and make the minimum bid $400.00.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY TAX TITLE
PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION, REQUEST #98 -4 (AB98 -229A)
Barbara Cory, Treasurer, gave a staff report and explained that the Council needs to set
the minimum bid. Four applications have been received. The foreclosure cost for the first one is
$320.75 and the assessed value $1,070.00. The foreclosure cost for the second unit is $320.75
and the assessed value $1,070.00. The foreclosure cost for the third parcel, Hughes First
Addition to Blaine, is $490.38 and the assessed value $2,000.00. The foreclosure cost for the
last parcel, Lakeview Addition to Fairhaven is $271.18 and the assessed value $400.00. The
purpose of the Property Management Committee is to review properties for public use.
Brenner questioned whether the County could work with an owner to avoid the
foreclosure process. Cory responded that she has to go through the foreclosure process. After
that, she has the ability to do some negotiations.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
James Burell, 4305 — 172nd S.W., Lynnwood, owns #106 and has bid on #203. He
would be interested in two units but doesn't have a lot of money to work with. The time in
which this unit is scheduled for is during the winter months. He would like minimum bid of
$100 or $150.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 10
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
2
3 Brenner moved to set the minimum bids at the foreclosure cost to the County for all for
4 of the units.
5
6 Cory clarified that the Committee recommends that these parcels be sold at public
7 auction. If there is more than one bidder, the price could go a lot higher than the minimum bid.
9 Brown proposed a friendly amendment to reduce the minimum bid for the Lakeview
10 property at $100.
11
12 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
13
14 Burrell stated that during the auction, no one bid on the Cabana properties.
15
16 Imhof restated the motion to set minimum bids at foreclosure for the first three properties
17 and the minimum bid for the Lakeview property to be set at $100.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.28, CREATING THE
22 WHATCOM COUNTY HORTICULTURE PEST AND DISEASE BOARD (AB98 -237)
23
24 Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension Chairman, gave a staff report and passed out a
25 handout (handout on file). The proposed board would be similar to the Noxious Weed Control
26 Board. The introduction of dangerous pests and disease is a threat. These pests can be brought
27 in by transportation of imported products that are contaminated. The apple maggot is a threat to
28 the county. The real threat is a quarantine, which would have detrimental effects to the apple
29 producers. The State of Washington has an apple maggot working group comprised of
30 regulatory agency personnel and research personnel. They give recommendations to the Director
31 of Agriculture. The group has made it clear that they will evaluate counties that have detected
32 apple maggot. Whatcom County currently has had two detections of apple maggot that occurred
33 last year. The group would make a decision on whether to recommend to the Director of
34 Agriculture the imposition of a quarantine based upon the proactive efforts of the industry itself.
35 The apple industry in the county has made an effort, led by Dorie Belisle, to establish the
36 proposed pest board. The four members would be primarily farmers, appointed by the Council,
37 the Director of Agriculture will appoint a member, and Cooperative Extension would appoint an
38 ex- officio member. The gypsy moth has been dealt with successfully in the County. Research
39 entomologists with the Washington State University state that Whatcom County is a popular
40 entry point for pests.
41
42 Imhof questioned whether the board would take over the starling bird problem.
43 MacConnell stated that the board could not deal with weed problems, however if starlings are
44 determined to be a horticultural pest, then the starling issue could come under the jurisdiction of
45 the board.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 11
2 Brown questioned the location of the two apple maggot detection areas. MacConnell
3 responded that one location was in Sumas and the other in Silver Beach. Neither location was in
4 an orchard, but in backyard apple trees. They were found by a monitoring program by the State
5 Department of Agriculture. The apple maggot quarantine in Whatcom County has been
6 removed.
7
8 Brown asked if a private property owner could purchase a trap to place on their property.
9 MacConnell stated that the local apple growers have purchased traps and they would provide him
10 with one.
11
12 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
13
14 Dorie Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, Lynden, requested Council establish the board as
15 permitted by state law, RCW 15.09. She is an apple grower. This request, however, comes from
16 both the agricultural community and from urban residents. The Council has received many
17 letters of support.
18
19 (Clerks Note: Tape 2, Side A)
20
21 Belisle continued to read portions of a letter by the United States Department of
22 Agriculture (USDA). She then presented a petition of Whatcom County residents that support
23 the creation of the board. She requested the board be available for the 1998 growing season and
24 also the Council support the proposed 1999 budget for the board.
25
26 Henry Bierlink, 9713 Double Ditch Road, Lynden, spoke on behalf of the Agriculture
27 Preservation Committee. He commended the apple growers for their organization. This Board is
28 important to the agriculture community. Limiting the agriculture of the county to berries and
29 dairy farming is not an option. The agriculture community needs to diversify. He urged Council
30 to form the Board. The Committee considered including starling (bird) problem into this Board.
31 The State Revised Code of Washington (RCW) would not make it easy to include the problem,
32 however there may be a way.
33
34 Brown stated that several months ago a meeting of the potato growers expressed their
35 concerns regarding blight. This proposed Board could potentially address these concerns. Craig
36 MacConnell, Cooperative Extension Chairman, responded that there is a different board formed
37 under the RCW called the Washington State Seed Potato Commission. Due to the Commission's
38 work, the legislature created a seed potato district in Whatcom County. The State Department of
39 Agriculture manages that district. To be allowed to grow a large area of potatoes, one must be in
40 the certification program. Pests on potatoes could be included in this board.
41
42 Doug Venn represented the Beekeepers Association in Whatcom County. He urged
43 establishment of the board. Beekeeping and horticulture are mutually dependent. The Mt. Baker
44 Beekeepers Association unanimously passed a resolution in support of the formation of the board
45 at their June 10, 1998 meeting (handout on file).
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Sutter questioned section 2.28.050 of the ordinance regarding powers and duties and
asked if there is a definition of pest and disease. MacConnell responded that there are several
definitions. In this case, it would be up to the board to determine whether the pest or disease is
within their purview.
Hoag commented that other counties with Horticulture Pest and Disease Boards had
itemized which pests they could address. She questioned if this should be included in the
proposed ordinance. MacConnell stated that the Noxious Weed Board has developed their own
list of weeds that have priority. When the Pest Board is formed, he expects the Board will also
create such a list. The priority list would change over time.
Brown stated that the state publishes different classes of weeds and questioned if they do
the same for pests. MacConnell responded that they do not.
Hoag stated that there has been concern that it is not in the best interest of the commercial
apple growers that certain pests exist. However, a backyard apple grower would not have a
problem with that pest. MacConnell stated that commercial agriculture would drive the Board's
actions, as it should.
Imhof stated that the Board would come before the Council each year with their budget
and if the Council is not happy with the Board's efforts, then the Council could choose to cut
their funding.
Sutter called point of order. She asked about powers and duties section of the ordinance.
The ordinance omits education efforts of the board.
Sutter moved to add to section 2.28.050 a provision for the education of the public
regarding pests and diseases as one of the powers and duties of the Board. This would not be
part of the written notice, but would be an education outreach effort. Belisle clarified that these
laws are state law and cannot be changed at the local level. However, item #6 provides the
County the ability to incorporate education into the powers and duties of the Board.
Hoag stated that the ordinance could restate the law to suit the County's intentions. The
education provision would be included in the ordinance for the County and would not change
state law. Sutter stated that her motion would simply assign the duty for education regarding
pests to the Pest Board.
Sutter restated her motion.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 13
I Hoag suggested that the motion be included as item #6 and the language in that item be
2 moved to an added item #7.
3
4 Sutter accepted Hoag's friendly amendment.
5
6 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
7
8 Sutter stated a concern that the terminology of equitable title in section 2.28.060. This
9 term is not appropriately used for referencing real property. Another concern with that section is
10 regarding situations where an owner does not control a property, as in a lease situation. This
11 situation is considered a title in property and the owner is not responsible for the activities
12 conducted on the property. She asked for a legal opinion.
13
14 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, responded that this language comes out of
15 state law. Under state law, the owner can be held responsible for activities. The equitable title
16 language is not familiar. This state law language is virtually verbatim from RCW 15.09.
17
18 Sutter also expressed a concern regarding right of entry. Frakes replied that the state law
19 requires probable cause. This provision is not a requirement, but the Board may choose this
20 option if they choose to do so. There is protection in the RCW for entry without probable cause.
21 If inspectors are entering private property without probable cause, the County would be liable.
22 The County must have confidence that the Board will use their power appropriately as provided
23 under state law.
24
25 Hoag asked Frakes to clarify whether the County would be able to restrict the state law,
26 which states that an inspector may enter someone's property. Frakes responded that the County
27 could decrease the power of the Board in the ordinance. The process of obtaining a search
28 warrant is a cumbersome process. State legislation determined that a priority is getting rid of
29 diseases and pests. They want to encourage easy access to information that will lead to quick
30 eradication.
31
32 Imhof moved to amend section 2.28.070 to remove the reference to the RCW and instead
33 quote the appropriate section of the RCW with the language change that would state that entry
34 must be with consent of the owner.
35
36 Mr. Belisle stated that the problem would be with the action that must be taken to
37 eradicate pests. If a sample must be taken at a certain time, going to court for a search warrant
38 would take too long. Frakes stated that case law exists which requires that administrative search
39 warrants must have probable cause that a violation is occurring to be issued. Without having
40 access to property, it would be difficult to obtain proof of probable cause.
41
42 Hoag asked if a neighbor's complaint could establish sufficient probable cause. Frakes
43 responded that that would probably not be sufficient.
44
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 14
I Brenner proposed a friendly amendment that a card be used to notify property owners of
2 an attempt to obtain consent to access the property.
3
4 Dave Wareing, Executive Office proposed the following language change to section
5 20.28.070, after the word property add, "after making a reasonable attempt to contact the owner
6 or custodian of said property..." This language could be added to the card.
7
8 Hoag stated that if Wareing's proposed language is included as well as the reference to
9 the RCW chapter, a contradiction would be created.
10
11 Sutter suggested striking the reference to the RCW and instead state, "in the event
12 permission to access is denied, a search warrant should be obtained." Hoag replied that the RCW
13 chapter contains other information that should be included in the ordinance.
14
15 Brown asked Frakes whether an inspector who entered property and noticed other,
16 unrelated, violations of the law would be able to use the observations as evidence against those
17 unrelated violations. Frakes responded that if an inspector is legally in the place where the
18 observations of the violations take place, that evidence could be used.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: The following transcription of the comment made by Wareing is verbatim)
21
22 Wareing: If I may, Mr. Chairman, an additional bit of word - smithing here, if you go in after
23 "chapter" and say "subsequently, the board shall have any power executable, or
24 exercisable pursuant thereto," if you include that subsequent to "subsequently the
25 board shall have any power..." and add that in there, then it shows that that's a
26 successive step and the preceding step has to be taken.
27
28 Imhof accepted Wareing's suggested language as an amendment to his motion.
29
30 Brenner stated that the upcoming Litter Control ordinance was amended to limit
31 enforcement to only the provisions in the ordinance. She asked Frakes if that kind of limitation
32 could be included in this ordinance. Frakes responded that an inspector would not have the
33 authority to cite someone for a violation. The information on the violation would be given to the
34 enforcement agency to take action.
35
36 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
37
38 Sutter stated that section 2.28.140 regarding the Abolishment of Board references the
39 Board of County Commissioners. That should be changed to reference the County Council.
40
41 It was agreed this was a scrivener's error and no vote was taken.
42
43 Hoag stated her concerns about section 2.28.080. There is a growing organic farming
44 movement in Whatcom County. The review outlined in subsection 3 should be designated for
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
certified organic fields. If a certified organic field is sprayed, it cannot be used as an organic
field for three years. That would destroy the market.
MacConnell stated that organic farmers use sprays, but they are a different class of
sprays. Hoag responded that she was referencing sprays that could not be used on organic fields.
She suggested a language change to subsection 2, "Any action that the board determines requires
the destruction of infested plants or application of sprays that would not be allowed on a certified
organic field, absent..." In subsection 3, add language regarding spraying when the application
of sprays or removal of plants is referenced.
Brenner suggested the language change, "...whenever the Horticulture Pest and Disease
Control Board finds that an owner of land has failed to control on his property and prevent the
spread off his property of horticultural pests and disease." At times, bugs exist in organic
produce. Organic farmers work very hard to prevent the spread of pests off of their property.
They have buffers and other methods of preventing the spread.
Brenner stated that commercial, non - organic growers do not want organic farmers
causing spread from the organic property to the commercial property.
Imhof moved to hold in committee.
(Clerk's Note: Imhof s motion was not voted on)
Hoag stated that this item does not need to go to committee. Only section 2.28.080
would cause a problem for an organic grower. If language were added to provide for review for
organic growers, the problem would be taken care o£ For an organic field to be sprayed, it is
akin to destroying plants in other fields.
Mr. Belisle stated that the ordinance does not specify that a field would need to be
sprayed. It states that the crop may need to be destroyed. A crop can be destroyed organically.
Sutter suggested that one of the board members must be an organic farmer or have
practical knowledge of organic farming methods.
MacConnell clarified that the property owner is the first person responsible for dealing
with the pest problem. The Board would not come into play if the property owner chooses to
deal with the pest.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
MacConnell continued to state that the point of the ordinance is to bring responsibility to
the property owner. It would be up to the property owner to choose how the crop would be
destroyed.
Dawson moved to adopt the ordinance as amended.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 16
2 Hoag moved to amend the language in section 2.28.080 to state: "...Any action that the
3 board determines requires the destruction of infested plants or application of non - organic sprays
4 on a certified organic field, absent the consent... measures other than removal of the plants or
5 non - organic spraying in the event of a certified organic field will control... homeowner to show
6 cause why the plants should not be removed or non - organically sprayed at the owner's expense
7 and for an order authorizing removal of said infected plants or non - organic application of sprays.
8 The petition procedure..."
9
10 Hoag's motion failed 2 -4, with Hoag and Brenner in favor.
11
12 Sutter moved to hold in committee.
13
14 Motion carried 4 -2 with Brown and Dawson opposed.
15
16 OTHER ITEMS
17
18 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
19 PURCHASE OF LIGNOSITE FROM GEORGIA - PACIFIC, A SOLE SOURCE, FOR
20 USE ON COUNTY ROADS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 (AB98-
21 230)
22
23 Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
24 approval.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 8.28, LITTER AND
29 ILLEGAL DUMPING ENFORCEMENT (AB98 -211)
30
31 Brenner reported for Public Works and Capital Projects Committee and moved to amend
32 section 8.28.130, Enforcement of Chapter, of the substitute ordinance submitted during Public
33 Works and Capital Projects Committee. The section should read:
34
35 "The Whatcom County Health Officer shall work with the County
36 Sheriff and Parks Director to designate trained employees who shall be vested
37 with police powers to enforce and administer the provisions of this chapter
38 and all rules and regulations adopted hereunder in areas of their jurisdiction.
39 The Health Officer shall also have authority, subject to the purchasing
40 provisions of the county ordinances, to contract with other state and local
41 government agencies for services and personnel reasonably necessary to carry
42 out the enforcement provisions of this chapter. All the foregoing enforcement
43 officers may serve and execute all warrants, and citations relating to this
44 chapter in their designated jurisdictions, and other process issued by the courts
45 in enforcing the provisions of this chapter and rules and regulations adopted
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, 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
hereunder. In addition, mailing by registered mail of such warrant, citation, or
other process to his last known place of residence shall be deemed as personal
service upon the person charged."
Brenner stated that the purpose was to ensure that enforcement officers could
issue citations to regulate the ordinance.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner thanked the Litter Prevention Committee and Ravyn Whitewolf, Solid Waste
Engineer, for all of their hard work.
Brenner moved to adopt the amended substitute ordinance.
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
CUP98 -0001, FILED BY TAMMY LONGSTAFF (AB98 -184)
See "announcements."
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT CHERYL M.
OWENS TO HER FIRST THREE -YEAR TERM ON THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
ADVISORY BOARD (AB98 -251)
Dawson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO SIGN AN APPLICATION
FOR A "CLASS E & F" LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE BEACHWOOD PARK
GENERAL STORE, 5000 HELWIG ROAD, BLAINE (AB98 -252)
Dawson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Dawson moved to accept the introduction items.
Motion carried unanimously.
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 18
1 1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO.
2 APL98 -0005 & APL96 -0002, FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN FOR ENVIRO -CHEM /
3 KEITH SCHEFFER (AB98 -240)
4
5 2. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO.
6 APL98 -0005 & APL96 -0002, FILED BY JONATHAN SITKIN FOR F.L. AND BETTY
7 SMALLWOOD (AB98 -233)
9 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
10 CHAPTER 16.08, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA), AS
11 REQUIRED BY THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997, AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE OF
12 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEPA RULES (AB98 -253)
13
14 4. SIX MONTH REVIEW OF RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE WATER RESOURCES
15 MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AS PROPOSED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY
16 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (AB98 -259)
17
18 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
19
20 Sutter stated that she attended a seminar in Fife regarding watershed planning on ESB
21 2514. She has written notes if anyone would like a copy. Also, she attended a briefing in Sedro-
22 Woolley at the Department of Natural Resources with Jennifer Belcher, Commissioner of Public
23 Lands. The meeting was regarding the Bellingham Bay clean up and Cherry Point, particularly
24 the herring stocks. The Council should be kept up to date on this issue. In addition, she has old
25 photos from the Bellingham Herald in her office if anyone would like to see them. Lastly, she
26 purchased a book entitled Washington State Resources that is a textbook written in 1957.
27
28 Ferndale Apartment Sewage Lagoon Clean Up (AB98 -260): Brenner stated she would
29 like to request an audit through either the County Auditor or State to address responsibility for
30 the issue. There needs to be an outside investigation to determine where the mistake was made
31 so the mistake does not happen again.
32
33 Brenner moved to request the State Auditor's office investigate the issue. Imhof asked
34 that she check with legal counsel on how best to pursue the issue.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
37
38 State Department of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
39 Registry regarding health risk assessments (AB98- 156C): Hoag announced that this item was
40 discussed in Natural Resources Committee. The Agency followed up on the petition regarding
41 EDBs and the preliminary report says there is a risk for inhalation and trans - dermal exposure.
42 The final report is not yet out. They will report back in approximately one month.
43
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Whatcom Conservation District presentation regarding a manure management
ordinance (AB98 -254): Hoag stated that the Natural Resources Committee met to discuss a
manure management ordinance.
Hoag moved that Council reconvene the Portage Bay Closure Response Team so they
may draft an ordinance to bring before the Council on July 14, 1998. Committee would like to
hold a hearing on July 21 in Lynden to get input from farmers and affected people. The
ordinance would then come before the Council for introduction on July 28.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension Chairman, and George Boggs
would have the information to reconvene the Response Team. The hearing will be held at a
location out in the county, possibly the Lynden Senior Center. Sutter clarified that the meeting
will not be a formal public hearing.
Committee to appoint one member to serve on the Water Utility Coordinating
Committee (AB98 -255): Hoag reported that the committee appointed Kathy Sutter to serve on
the Water Utility Coordinating Committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Marina Engels, Recording Secretary
These minutes were approved by Council on 91998.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Council Member
Regular Council Meeting, 6/30/98, Page 20