HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil November 10 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
November 10, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Alcn PrPCPnt• AhsPnt-
Kathy Sutter
Marlene Dawson
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Imhof announced that there will be an orientation for newly elected officials presented by
the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and it is a good program to attend. It
will be at the West Coast Tyee Hotel in Olympia.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — OCTOBER 13,1998;
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING — OCTOBER 13, 1998
Nelson moved approval of the minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
MIKE BRENNEN, BELLINGHAM/WHATCOM COUNTY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, TO PRESENT INFORMATION ON THE 1998 SKI TO SEA
FESTIVAL (AB98 -385)
This item was rescheduled.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 1
I (Clerk's Note: Due to audiotape malfunction, the beginning portion of the meeting was
2 not recorded. A portion of the comments of speaker Jean McKay were transcribed from the
3 notes of Council Member Connie Hoag.)
4
5 Jean McKay discussed Recomp's treatment of medical infectious waste. Experts at two
6 recent hearings testified that the plan filed by Recomp will not kill all pathogens from infections
7 waste. The public must be kept fully informed. To ignore the change in ownership and the
8 expanded plan of operation is unethical and possibly illegal. The County Council is responsible
9 for putting laws and regulations into place to protect the public. Action is needed now.
10
11 Ray Wilkett, 780 Adelia Street, Blaine, stated that at the City of Blaine stormwater
12 meeting held on November 5, results were announced of Drayton Harbor DNA tests on the waste
13 in the water. Tests were taken by a contracted company called Earth Tech and cost
14 approximately $300,000. The tests were very scientific. They were ran by a gentleman at the
15 University of Washington who has the authority to close beaches. The DNA test showed no
16 human waste in Drayton Harbor, but found that domestic animal waste was present. Waste from
17 harbor seals accounted for about 15 %. Canadian geese were quite active. 50% of animal waste
18 could not be determined, meaning it comes from deer, raccoons, opossums, and other such
19 animals. When tests are done, environmentalists state that the tests are not reliable. Some
20 environmentalist tests are questionable. The City of Blaine has copies of all of these. They have
21 not been released. 300 harbor seals live in the Blaine harbor. Each seal eats 10 — 18 pounds of
22 seafood per day. That is over 1,000,000 pounds. He did not want to be taxed to increase salmon,
23 which would increase seals, which would then increase the waste in the harbor. He suggested
24 the Council get the tests from the City of Blaine.
25
26 Nelson requested that a letter be sent to the City of Blaine from the Council Chair to get
27 the test results the speaker referred to.
28
29 Joe Elenbaas, 600 E. Smith Road, requested Council act on the issue of appointing a
30 replacement to fill the State Senate vacancy created by Ann Anderson's resignation. The County
31 Council, in the past discussed the option of waiting until after the election to appoint a
32 replacement. The 60 -day timeframe applied to the fact that, in most situations, an elected
33 County Commissioner resigned to fill a position, leaving only two remaining County
34 Commissioners. As of Friday, if the position is not filled, it goes to the Governor. The real issue
35 is that the County Council made an inappropriate motion to table. It is recorded in the minutes,
36 which are now law. They corrected the issue about the vote to table. They did not modify the
37 deadlock vote. It must be resolved. Parliamentary rules that the Council adopted bind the
38 Council. They must follow the procedures in all situations. They must continue to vote until
39 they have a resolution. The three nominees for the position are unanimous in the position that
40 the vacancy be filled by anyone.
41
42 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, read a proclamation on behalf of
43 County Executive Pete Kremen regarding home health care which declared November 1998
44 National Home Care Health Month in Whatcom County. A second proclamation was read
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
regarding Hospice Care and further declared November 1998 National Hospice Month in
Whatcom County.
Yvonne Goldsmith, Ferndale, questioned whether the issue brought forward by Mr.
Elenbaas would be discussed this evening. She was assured that the issue would be discussed
later in the meeting.
Brenner questioned when a legislator -elect could take office. Imhof stated that they
could take office immediately. Nelson stated that they could go to the meetings, but they won't
be sworn in until January.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the States constitution provides
that if there is a vacancy, they can take office immediately upon certification.
Brown stated that if they appoint someone, the position would not be vacant. Frakes
stated that they still could take office.
Brenner stated that the temporary person would only hold the position until it was
certified.
Charlie, Bellingham, discussed the lack of methadone maintenance treatment in
Whatcom County, and feels that lives could be saved, crime would go down, and they could stop
watching people die.
Imhof questioned Council Member Nelson about whether there is any program in the
County for such issues. Nelson stated that the Health Advisory Board is working to deal with
these issues. Methadone treatment centers were not listed as a high priority. Currently the
needle exchange program is the issue being addressed.
Nelson stated that there is a transportation system available to take people to Seattle for
treatment.
Brenner questioned the legality in Whatcom County vs. the legality in the State of
Washington. Nelson responded that an ordinance was passed years ago to prohibit methadone
treatment facilities in Whatcom County.
Brenner questioned how that issue could be addressed.
Nelson stated that the Health Advisory Board is looking at all of those issues.
Brenner stated that, as the Health Board, she would like that scheduled at the next
meeting.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
41
42
43
44
CONSENT AGENDA
Dawson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
approval of items one through six. Item #1 was amended to include travel and lunch expenses
for Kathy Sutter's trip to Olympia, which included roundtrip mileage and a Chamber of
Commerce Governor's luncheon. The total came to $171.88, which included a conference.
Motion carried unanimously.
1 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PAY COUNCIL MEMBER TRAVEL AND /OR
EXPENSES (AB98 -143J)
2. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 97 -051 TO ADJUST DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES DESIGNATED FORESTLANDS ROLL FOR
ASSESSMENT UNDER WCFCZD FUNDING MECHANISM (AB98 -389)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD A CONTRACT
FOR CEDARVILLE LANDFILL LEACHATE HAULING SERVICES TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SUMAS TRANSPORT, INC., IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB98 -390)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
JAIL AND VISITING NURSE PERSONAL SERVICES, TO PROVIDE FOR INMATE
HEALTH SERVICES IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY JAIL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$268,506.95 (AB98 -391)
5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL COUNTY ROAD CONSTRUCTION
FUND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF LAKE
WHATCOM BOULEVARD, CRP 997002, IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
$40,000 FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $251,900 AND RAISE THE TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TO $311,900 (AB98 -
392)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO BID
AWARD 98 -110 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING ANNUAL EQUIPMENT
RENTAL RATES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF ROAD EQUIPMENT, BASED ON
NEED, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AWARD GOING TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER, BASED ON EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY AND
SUITABILITY, WITH AMOUNTS TO ANY ONE VENDER THAT COULD BE IN
EXCESS OF $35,000 (AB98 -393)
PUBLIC HEARING
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
1. RESOLUTION VACATING A DEEDED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE NORTHERLY
EDGE OF SLATER ROAD, WESTERLY OF LABOUNTY ROAD (AB98 -356)
Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, explained that the applicant
requested a change in the area to be vacated. A substitute resolution is before the Council for
consideration. He recommended approval.
Brenner clarified that the only change is the numbers.
Sutter further clarified that the legal description changed.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Dave New, Jones Engineers, representing Cleo Callen, explained the proposal to use the
vacated area as a water detention pond. The right -of -way will remain, in this area, a half -width
of 75 feet on the north side. There is a job in the right -of -way that they are asking to be vacated.
It will not affect the Slater Road right -of -way, except to make it a bit narrower in that small area.
Imhof stated that one of the gas companies was concerned, but there is no effect on their
fuel line.
New stated that a second letter was written by the gas company which stated that they did
not have a line in the area. It should have been forwarded to the County Council.
Hoag stated that Council did not receive the letter, but she called and they stated it was
okay.
Henken clarified that, once the situation was explained to the gas company, they
withdrew their objection.
Hoag stated that there was also a concern from the City of Ferndale about the right -of-
way boundary which runs along the southern edge of the city boundaries and is located within
the City's urban growth area. They maintain utility lines could be impacted by the right -of -way.
They requested they be given an opportunity to review and comment. She did not hear whether
or nor they commented.
Imhof stated that it has been a month and they have not received anything.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Hoag requested clarification that the current proposal has not moved from the original
proposal. It only makes it smaller. Henken stated that it does not extend as far west as the
original proposal.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 5
2 Sutter requested clarification that the legal description is the correct legal description.
3 Imhof stated that the substitute description is the correct one.
4
5 Motion to approve carried unanimously.
6
7 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 17.20, FLOOD
8 PREVENTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (AB98 -363A)
9
10 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, requested changes to clarify
11 and make it easier to administer. He proposed the added language:
12
13 17.20.020 County Participation.
14
15 The County shall participate in the financing, labor, or supply of materials for
16 flood control projects authorized under RCW 86.12 on sites within Whatcom
17 County. Authorized projects are subject to fiscal constraints and guidelines
18 established herein for the prioritization of projects, provided that property owners
19 or sponsors shall pay 20 percent of the total cost of the improvements and benefits
20 requested. If a project is designed in such a way as to protect and enhance
21 existing fish habitat, or the project requires fish habitat mitigation because habitat
22 impacts are unavoidable to successfully complete the project, the property owner
23 or sponsor shall pay 15 percent, unless the county council approves a different
24 formula for financial participation in a particular project.
25
26 The changes make it clearer as to when the 85/15 program would apply.
27
28 Hoag stated that the proposal changed the committee's intent. They wanted the 15% to
29 kick in only if more than 30% of the project, after they deducted grant money, was going
30 towards fish mitigation. The way it is proposed, any project that requires any level of fish
31 mitigation would allow the 15 %. Every project will involve some sort of fish mitigation.
32
33 Henken stated that the problem with 30% is that it is difficult early on to determine what
34 percentage of a project is fish mitigation. Some projects are 100% fish mitigation projects. They
35 are working with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife when the project is being built. It
36 makes it difficult for Engineering to determine whether or not a project qualifies.
37
38 Hoag suggested the State pay their portion up front, and if it costs more than 30 %, then
39 they could be rebated the other 5 %. It wasn't the intention to switch everyone over to 15 %. The
40 intention was that if a large portion of the cost was going to fish mitigation, then that is a general
41 benefit to the County and would be more appropriate to come out of the general flood fund.
42
43 Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated that she worked with Henken to rework
44 the language. She used Ritter Road as an example. It was a non -fish friendly design. To design
45 fish mitigation for that design, it would have been as much as the original design. Instead of
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 6
I going down that path, they changed the whole design and philosophy to minimize impacts on the
2 existing fish habitat. It will still probably cost more than the original project design. To figure
3 out which portion is fish mitigation is virtually impossible.
4
5 Henken stated that any project not in the water is free of fish mitigation and will continue
6 to be designated at 80/20. The majority of anything that gets in the water will have 30% or more
7 of fish mitigation costs.
8
9 Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
10
11 Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Chair, urged passage
12 of the ordinance. It has been recognized for some time that the special districts, including the
13 sub -zones and the diking districts, have a financial burden to meet the 30% cost share for
14 projects. With the new Endangered Species listing looming on the horizon, it is getting worse.
15 The 80/20 would help. He liked the idea of the 85/15. Whatcom County's flood district is on
16 record as being in favor of fish- friendly projects. All citizens in the County benefit from
17 fisheries improvement.
18
19 Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
20
21 Brenner moved to amend language to include Henken's proposal.
22
23 Nelson stated that the 70/30 plan has problems when special projects came forward. He
24 would like to see consistency for property owners and the sub -flood zones. He understood that
25 they would be looking at a six -year flood program, in which projects that may not be getting
26 matches could be brought forward to the flood control districts. He questioned whether that was
27 still the intent, or are they going to require any project to have either a 15% or 20% match.
28
29 Brown stated that the Council could at any time waive the match.
30
31 Nelson stated that was his concern. He would rather see a pattern with the flood control
32 board having an ability to do this in a global aspect on the entire Nooksack. If they waive a
33 certain individual project, then it might impact another project.
34
35 Imhof questioned Henken about whether there is a mechanism for funding 100% of a
36 project. Hoag responded that the last sentence creates that mechanism.
37
38 Imhof asked Henken whether there is currently a mechanism for funding 100% of a
39 project. Henken stated that the only mechanism is to come before the County Council. It is the
40 same. That would normally go through the advisory committee first for recommendation.
41
42 Nelson stated that he would like to see language to include prior recommendation of the
43 flood control committee.
44
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 7
I Brown suggested language, "subject to recommendation from the Flood Control Zone
2 District Advisory Committee."
3
4 Hoag suggested language, "following recommendation from the Flood Control Zone
5 District Advisory Committee."
6
7 Imhof stated that it would still be up to the whim of the Council, so it doesn't really
8 matter.
9
10 Hoag stated that she originally brought forward the changes from 70/30 to 80/20 because
11 of all the fish mitigation that was required on projects, and because the County will not be
12 differentiating between the projects that have a lot of fish mitigation and projects that don't. She
13 preferred the current language be left at 70/30 unless it involves fish mitigation. Henken
14 mentioned projects on land that have no fish mitigation involved. They should still be 70/30.
15 That would help to encourage any projects to include fish mitigation.
16
17 Imhof stated that some projects don't need fish mitigation.
18
19 Hoag moved to amend to remain 70/30 in the top part, but change to 80/20 in the lower
20 part.
21
22 Brenner spoke against Hoag's amendment and stated that her reason for supporting it was
23 not because of the fish mitigation. It was because the sub - districts were struggling. Council felt
24 that it wasn't fair that they had to cut back their budgets as drastically as they did. It was also not
25 fair to tax people outside the flood plain a second time. This is a much more fair mechanism.
26
27 Brown stated that the 85/15 would allow projects to go forward that would not have
28 otherwise, because people could not afford them. It is a great advantage. The reason this came
29 back for a look was reflective of Brenner's comments. The Council should stay with the 80/20.
30 He would not support Hoag's amendment.
31
32 Motion to amend to continue the 70/30 program for projects with no fish mitigation failed
33 1 -6 with Hoag in favor.
34
35 Nelson moved to amend the last sentence of Henken's proposed language, in the last
36 sentence, to read, "...County Council approves the recommendations from the flood control
37 district in meeting goals of the flood control management plan."
38
39 Hoag stated that language doesn't provide the different formula. It is unclear that they
40 are not going to allow a different formula.
41
42 Nelson stated that would allow them to prioritize projects at full funding.
43
44 Hoag stated that "different formula" would leave it open to any formula.
45
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
45
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Brenner moved to change her amendment to read as follows:
17.20.20.1 County Participation.
The County shall participate in the financing, labor, or supply of materials for
flood control projects authorized under RCW 86.12 on sites within Whatcom
County. Authorized projects are subject to fiscal constraints and guidelines
established herein for the prioritization of projects, provided that property owners
or sponsors shall pay 20 percent of the total cost of the improvements and benefits
requested. If a project is designed in such a way as to protect and enhance
existing fish habitat, or the project requires fish habitat mitigation because habitat
impacts are unavoidable to successfully complete the project, the property owner
or sponsor shall pay 15 percent, unless the County Council approves a different
formula based on the recommendation of the Whatcom County Flood Control
Zone District Advisory Committee for financial participation in a particular
project.
Motion to amend the proposed language carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the proposed language as amended carried unanimously.
Motion to adopt as amended carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE
PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE YEAR OF 1999,
PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10 (AB98 -379)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the County Executive has provided a
balanced ordinance that sets the levy based on the recommended Executive's budget at 100% of
the 1998 level. The only permitted increase, unless there is an adjustment in the process, would
be for the amount for the new construction.
Imhof clarified that is road fund levy also.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved to approve the ordinance.
Nelson stated that the budget has been getting tight and there will be programs coming
forward such as water enhancement and personnel increases. He questioned where the County
would be at the end of 1999 if there are no increases in the levy at this time. Wareing explained
that in 1999 the County will reach the break point when the County will not be able to fund
expenses. They can no longer rely on the incoming revenue to fund the ongoing expenses. He
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 9
I suggested raising the tax rate to 102% of the current rate for both the road fund and the general
2 levy. That would give the County the ability to be within a reasonable proximity of the cost -of-
3 living, which by the end of the year should be 2 %. Whatcom County has been extremely
4 vigilant at keeping taxes down. The 1999 budget will be the fifth year with no increases in the
5 general levy. If there have been tax increases that the public has noticed, it has not been because
6 of the County. The County has been holding the line for five years, into 1999. The County can't
7 continue to do that.
8
9 Imhof stated that he would like to see this issue come before the Council concurrent with
10 the budget.
11
12 Brenner stated that the County has added taxes. The flood tax was added.
13
14 Imhof responded that the flood tax was cut in half.
15
16 Brenner stated that it was cut in half, but it was added on to people's tax. Even though it
17 is not all property tax, it still affects the taxpayer.
18
19 Brown suggested consideration of decreasing services rather than increasing taxes. There
20 has been new construction and tax increases. Revenue has been increasing. Spending is
21 outstripping the increases that are coming in. As the people are having their properties re-
22 evaluated, many are going up several times in valuation. Revenue is increasing. The amount of
23 employees hired in the last few years is adding up.
24
25 Wareing clarified that, as there have been reassessments, the levy has been re-
26 apportioned over the tax base in the County. The levy rate has been 100% for three years. There
27 was one year it was raised to 103% to create the rainy day fund. County government needs to be
28 credited with what it has done. Council needs to receive credit for holding taxes down. If taxes
29 have gone up, it is not because of the County, except in a few areas where there was a need to
30 raise assessments. The State, special districts, and school districts have been raising taxes
31 because they need the funds. The County has held the line. They have gone through the budget
32 to thin out extra money. There comes a point when the demand for services from the public
33 requires additional services to be provided.
34
35 Dawson stated that the year the levy was raised 3 %, they also cut services that year.
36
37 Nelson stated that 13% of his taxes goes to County government. The remaining goes to
38 fire districts, school districts, and the state education programs. The County is going into a year
39 that will deal with substantial issues such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, water
40 quality, and agricultural areas. Other impacts include the continuation of the Growth
41 Management Act (GMA) impacts, zoning changes, and criminal justice. They need to take a
42 hard look at how to deal with this. He is willing to look at where cuts could be made. At this
43 time it is inappropriate to vote on this with a zero increase.
44
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
Hoag questioned the increases in revenues from sources other than the levy. Wareing
responded that they expect to have approximately $225 million worth of new construction this
coming year. There would be approximately $450,000 that would be realized from property tax
from that new construction.
Hoag questioned the percentage of that new construction. Wareing stated that the total
property tax is approximately $16 million.
Imhof stated that of that $16 million, the amount raised from new construction is 3 %.
Hoag questioned whether the revenues have increased at a greater rate than the cost of
living. Wareing responded that they have not, because there has been a greater demand for
services.
Imhof stated that the County is also losing revenue from annexations.
Wareing noted that the City of Bellingham was not going to increase taxes because of
good economic conditions. Part of the good economic conditions was the annexation of the
Bakerview area and the completion of the annexation of Cordata. Those are the kinds of the
things that cause the County to scramble for revenue. The County has lost hundreds of
thousands of dollars, when one takes into account those annexations as well as the State of
Washington giving away sales tax revenues that were the County's sales tax revenues, to
manufacturing concerns. They gave them a tax break, including the County's share, in the
amount of $750,000 - $1 million per year.
Imhof moved to postpone for two weeks.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brown opposed.
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1999 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE
SCHEDULE (AB98 -380)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that the schedule is essentially the same.
Some fees have been deleted and some have been adjusted or added. There is a request from
Planning and Development Services for a clerk position to support code enforcement. In the
supplemental budget process, there have been two new code enforcement officers added to staff.
Part of the funds that they propose to pay for this position would have generated additional fee
increases. Those increases have not been included and will not be included unless the Council
authorizes the position through the budget process.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing
Nelson moved to postpone for two weeks.
Motion carried unanimously.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 11
2 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR
3 THE YEAR 1999 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS
4 THEREIN (AB98 -381)
5
6 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, gave a slide presentation to give an overview of a
7 summary of the Executive's recommended budget. (See handout on file) Council has been
8 provided with the Executive's document so they would be able to follow along. They reviewed
9 ongoing revenues and expenditures for two years. The current year, 1998, has budgeted revenue
10 of $43.9 million. Supplemental budgets brought in nearly $1 million of additional revenues, for
11 a total revenue base of $44.8 million for 1998. Budgeted expenditures were in the amount of
12 $43.9 million. Continuing appropriations were carried forward from 1997. Supplemental
13 budgets totaled $1.3 million. Reserves in the amount of $651,000 were used. One -time
14 expenditures totaled $2.7 million. In 1999, the County projects $46.6 million in revenue in the
15 general fund. Budgeted expenditures are in the amount of $46.6 million, leaving a positive
16 balance of $763 dollars. Next projects $1.6 million in capital projects and one -time
17 expenditures, primarily because a lot of the computer technology has been purchased and has
18 been processed. The general fund balance for 1998 began at $6.7 million. There have been
19 adjustments to that in the total increase of $1.1 million. They are projecting a 4% budget lapse in
20 the year 1998. That money will be rolled over to 1999 for capital projects and special one -time
21 pilot projects. There is an ending fund balance of $7.8 million. There is $94,000 in dedicated
22 miscellaneous reserves, $750,000 in emergency reserves, $1.25 million in the cash flow reserve,
23 $250,000 in a contingency reserve, and $5.5 million in the unreserved balance, for a total of $7.8
24 million. In 1999, that $7.8 million would be brought forward and adjustments made for a total
25 ending fund balance of $6.2 million. They have increased emergency reserve and the cash flow
26 reserve to a total of $4 million, which is the industry standard the County needs to protect itself
27 against unexpected economic downturn.
28
29 Notes #1 through #3 are the adjustments to the budget this year. Note #1 is a breakdown
30 of the projected 1999 revenues. The total budgeted revenue for 1999 is $46.6 million. Revenues
31 do go up, but it is not from property tax.
32
33 Brown questioned whether property taxes are going up. Wareing responded that the
34 property taxes that go up are from new construction.
35
36 Brown questioned whether the County receives increased revenue from property taxes.
37 Wareing stated that it is from new construction only.
38
39 Wareing discussed Note #2, changes in expenditures. The total budgeted expenditures
40 for 1999 are $46.6 million.
41
42 Wareing discussed Note #3, one -time expenditures. The total budgeted amount for one -
43 time expenditures for 1999 is $1.6 million.
44
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
Revenue sources include interest earnings, grants, retail sales tax, property taxes, and
miscellaneous other revenues. Information regarding other revenue sources that total $14.2
million was given. Grants in the amount of $6.4 million, interest earnings in the amount of $ 2.8
million, Retail and Use taxes in the amount of $6.2 million, property taxes in the amount of $16
million, and fund transfers in the amount of $753,000 total approximately $46.6 million in
revenue.
General Fund expenditures go toward the primary operation of County government.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Total expenditures, including one -time expenditures, for 1999 is projected at $48.2
million. In summary, the general fund budget for 1999 is $48.2 million, the road fund is $24.4
million, and the miscellaneous funds are $25.8 million, for a total of $98.5 million dollars. That
sounds like a lot of money. The City of Bellingham budget is at $150 million.
Brown asked for a comparison of the full -time employees (FTE) for the last several years
against dollars budgeted for each department. He requested information for the last 4 -5 years.
Wareing stated that they would be in past budget documents.
Imhof opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Susan O'Neill, 2902 Cowgill Avenue, Bellingham, stated her support for funding for the
Bellingham Festival of Music.
Brad Burdick, 4127 Malachite Drive, stated his support for funding for the Mt. Baker
Theater.
Beverly Sherman, 1401 W. Holly, #103, Bellingham, stated her support for funding for
the Mt. Baker Theater.
Wendy Eickmeyer, 3323 Carrington Way, stated her support for funding for the
Whatcom Symphony Orchestra.
Glenn Hallman, 1510 40th Street, stated his support for funding for the Whatcom County
Council on Aging senior programs.
Andrew Moquin, 216 Hawthorne Road, stated his support for funding for the Festival of
Music.
Dawson questioned whether they receive any money from the Convention and Visitors
Bureau. Moquin responded that they receive money from the hotel /motel tax. This year $45,000
will be allocated. Government support is needed to keep ticket prices affordable.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether the $45,000 is from the City of Bellingham. Moquin
responded that it is.
Bob Tull, 2480 Heights Drive, Ferndale, stated his support for funding for the Festival of
Music.
Sue Sharpe, 733 Sudden Valley, Bellingham, stated her support for funding for the
Domestic Violence Commission in the amount of $40,000 if possible. She encouraged
representatives from the County and City Councils and the commission get together to decide
how best to spend the dollars.
Dawson volunteered to be the County Council's representative.
Chuck Benjamin, Whatcom County Health and Human Services Director, stated his
support for funding for the Domestic Violence Commission.
Manca Valum, 3169 Mt. Baker Highway, stated her support for funding for the Domestic
Violence Commission.
Bob Van Weerdhuizen, Everson, stated his support for funding for the Starling Program
($15,000).
Don Pierce, 505 Grand Avenue, stated his support of the funding for the Domestic
Violence Commission.
Susan Trimingham, 619 15th St., Bellingham, stated her support for funding for the
Domestic Violence Commission.
Everett Veldhuizen, 1413 E. Pole Road, stated his support for funding for the Starling
Program.
Leslie Clark, 1364 Chuckanut Drive, represented People for Parks and stated her support
for funding for the Parks Department.
John Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, Lynden, supported funding for the Pest Control Board.
Brown questioned the request for funding for spray activities. Belisle stated that was
included because they realized that the pest for which they were spraying would not wait for
them to collect funds from the homeowner.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
Belisle stated that they would have the money so they could take timely action in case
there was a problem with the homeowner. The best scenario is that they would never have to
spend that money.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether there was a way to set it up so it could be designated as a
reserve fund. Belisle stated that there probably is a way.
Todd Sewell, 1197 Willeys Lake Road, Ferndale, supported funding for the Pest and
Disease Control Board.
Roe Castaneda, 6706 LaMonte Drive, Lynden, stated his support for funding for the Pest
Control Board.
Hearing no one else, Imhof closed the public hearing.
Dawson moved to postpone and have another work session on Thursday, November 19th
at 1:30 p.m.
Motion to postpone carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a short break.)
6. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON EMERY ROAD (AB98 -377)
Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that Emery Road is a
600 -foot long dead -end paved road. It is south off of the Birch Bay - Lynden, immediately west
of the Berthusen Road. It serves a subdivision and several other lots. A speeding problem has
developed in the area. It is currently an un- posted 35 miles per hour. He recommended it
become 35 miles per hour speed zone.
Hoag questioned the speed of the people who are speeding. Henken responded that
people are going approximately 35 miles per hour, which is too fast. They have not done any
speed studies.
Imhof opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, he closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt.
Motion to adopt carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169F)
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 15
I Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated that this is held in
2 committee for two weeks. A public hearing will be held in two weeks.
3
4 2. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGMEARING
5 SCHEDULE (AB98 -397)
6
7 Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated that she proposed a
8 framework in which to prioritize all future dockets. The highest priority would be placed on
9 items that are needed to bring the County into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or for
10 consistency among the regulations. Also, lot consolidation and cluster bonus issues should be a
11 high priority. The second priority goes to items necessary for environmental resource protection.
12 The third priority goes to rezone requests. The fourth priority would be all other items. That is a
13 basic outline for the Commission to use.
14
15 Sutter moved that the prioritizing outline be sent to the Planning Commission.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
20 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAPS AND TEXT (AB98-
21 171A)
22
23 Sutter reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated that the Planning
24 Commission recommendations have come forward. There are some problems.
25
26 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, distributed a handout illustrating how to
27 split the ordinance into two ordinances. They are:
28
29 ( #1) Ordinance adopting amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and
30 Title 20 Zoning Maps
31
32 ( #2) Ordinance adopting amendments to the Whatcom County Title 20 Zoning Text
33 amendments would be a separate item for 3 items, Great Western Lumber, Pole Road, and The
34 Logs Resort.
35
36 On those three items, the zoning text would be removed and considered as a separate
37 ordinance. The remaining amendments, both the plan amendments and associated zoning map
38 amendments would move forward on one ordinance. There would be a public hearing only on
39 the items that address the zoning text. That still allows them to batch the comprehensive plans
40 altogether in one ordinance and consider them at once. Legal concurs that this would work.
41
42 Sutter clarified that these ordinances are being brought forward for Introduction.
43 Goodwin stated that if they wanted a public hearing, they would set that hearing for November
44 24.
45
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 16
I Sutter recommended a public hearing on the zoning text because they are changes from
2 the Planning Commission's recommendations. They did hold their own public hearing, but since
3 changes were made, the Council needs to do that also.
4
5 Hoag requested that the Everett Rock Quarry be put into a separate ordinance. One
6 reason is that the Planning Commission decision was based on the previous Council decision,
7 which was under the assumption that the Planning Commission had looked at the issue of the
8 location in relation to Scenic Estates. However, at the time it went through the Planning
9 Commission, that criterion did not exist. There is an error. It would not be a difficult to
10 substantiate that from the record.
11
12 Hoag moved to amend the ordinance to separate out the Everett Rock Quarry. Legal
13 concurred that it can be separated.
14
15 Sutter stated that the problem is that all of the amendments have to be adopted
16 concurrently. If that one is pulled out and the others are adopted, then they cannot make any
17 changes to the quarry provisions. It would have to be docketed again.
18
19 Goodwin stated that if they wanted to do the change this year, then at this meeting they
20 would have to schedule the public hearing on the Lummi Rock Quarry. The Planning
21 Commission had approximately 10 hours of public hearing on this subject. That length of a
22 hearing would probably delay the adoption to the December 8 Council meeting.
23
24 Hoag clarified that they can't vote on the rest of the items at this meeting anyway.
25
26 Sutter stated that there is no room on the agenda for November 24 for a long public
27 hearing. There is no way to have a hearing on the same night it is to be adopted.
28
29 Brenner stated that supposition about the length of a hearing is not a justification for not
30 having a hearing. She suggested that the public hearing be limited to a specific topic. If there
31 has been an error, she wanted to know about it.
32
33 Hoag stated that the record was clear on the matter and it was not brought up at the
34 Planning Commission level.
35
36 Brown questioned whether the purpose of separating the issues was to allow a vote on the
37 issues at this meeting.
38
39 Hoag stated that the purpose was to avoid a public hearing on the remainder of the items,
40 which is not appropriate.
41
42 Sutter clarified that she did not state that a potentially long public hearing was a reason
43 not to conduct a public hearing. She stated that if they hold a public hearing, it would put the
44 issue onto the docket for next year. It has to be adopted concurrent with the other items.
45
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
44
45
Brenner questioned Goodwin about whether or not they could hold a hearing and adopt in
time for it to be concurrent.
Goodwin responded that they could if it is introduced at the current meeting, schedule a
public hearing on November 24th and also adopt on November 24th
Hoag stated that this motion does not make a decision, it only allows the facts to be
presented.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Sutter, Nelson, Imhof and Brown opposed.
Imhof stated that those two items would be added to the Introduction Items.
4. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR AND THOSE
MISSING IN ACTION FOR VETERAN'S DAY AND THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE VIETNAM WAR (AB98 -369)
Imhof read the resolution into the record.
Hoag moved approval of the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
RELATING TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169G)
Sutter moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Dawson moved acceptance of the Introduction Items with the inclusion of four additional
items (items #3 - #6, below).
Motion carried unanimously.
1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE
CUP98 -0025, FILED BY KRIS AND SANDRA OLGEIRSSON, CIO PHIL SERKA,
ATTORNEY AT LAW (AB98 -387)
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF
APPLICATIONS FOR, AND ISSUANCE OF, USE PERMITS AND BUILDING
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
PERMITS, AND BUSINESS LICENSES FOR ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, ADULT
THEATER, AND ADULT USE ESTABLISHMENTS (AB98 -394)
3. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1999 SIX -YEAR PHYSICAL
PLANT AND FACILITIES CAPITAL PROGRAMS RELATING TO
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY (AB98 -
398)
4. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 1999 ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB98 -399)
5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TITLE 20 ZONING MAPS
6. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY TITLE
20 ZONING TEXT
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dawson moved to appoint Yvonne Goldsmith to the vacancy left by Former State
Senator Ann Anderson, until the vote of the most recent election could be certified.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated information from the constitution
and another statute supported her position that the appointed person would take office until the
legislator -elect was sworn in. She is not aware of any authority that states otherwise.
"Qualified" means certified and sworn in.
Hoag questioned the definition of sworn in. Frakes stated that a swearing in is not a
formal process. Many different people can perform it. There may be a formal ceremony for
display rather than substance. The County Auditor stated that in other instances of vacancies, the
appointment terminates at the point she has advised.
Hoag questioned whether they have to re- nominate the nominees.
Imhof clarified that they only have to bring it off of the table.
Elenbaas was appointed to fill the vacancy 4 -1 with Dawson voting for Goldsmith and
Imhof and Sutter abstaining.
Hoag stated that Darryl Jones from the National Energy Systems Company met with her
to discuss a proposed expansion of the co- generation operation in Sumas. The project will
require review by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council because it exceeds the megawatt
threshold. The County needs to appoint someone to this Council to review the permit
application. She has done extensive research in the field of co- generation, and the project is
located in her district. For those reasons, she requested appointment to this board.
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, 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
Dawson nominated Hoag to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Brown questioned the make -up of the board.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to submit the County Executive's Water Resources Plan to the Water
Advisory Committee of the Water Resources Management Council, so that the County can begin
receiving public comment.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
Brown requested to attend a conference in Eastern Washington and would like
reimbursement.
Brenner addressed the issue of County policies for County Council staff. The Committee
recommended clarifying County policies for the staff.
Imhof announced he would be going to Yakima to attend an Washington State
Association of Counties meeting for three days.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 12, 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
County Council Meeting, 11/10/98, Page 20
Council Chair