HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 29 19982
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 29, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
UPDATE ON THE COUNTY /TRIBES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PLANNING
(AB98 -101)
Sutter stated that the Tribes have requested that this item be postponed until the next
committee meeting.
2. UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE WATER TEAM (AB98 -303)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that they have tried to create an
organizational structure that has a chance to move ahead with regard to endangered species.
They looked at issues relative to salmonid species in the WRIA 1 Nooksack Basin. They have
mutually agreed that they needed the State to do a framework from a statewide perspective. He
just received a draft State plan. It is not complete, but they finally have something produced by
the State that they could look at with other jurisdictions to look for activities, proposals, and
policies. The copy of the plan was given to him by George Boggs of the Whatcom Conservation
District. There are some pages that are not included. He questioned whether the committee
members would be getting back to him with comments and questions. One of the issues relative
to this plan is whether they have put off some activities. It was to ensure some level of
coordination, so they are not moving in different directions. There are not a lot of resources to
apply at the moment.
Hoag stated that she didn't like the process being followed. In the interest of time, she
requested his presentation first, then would allow comments.
Monsen stated that the Water Team has been focused on preparation of 1999 budget
proposals. They don't have documents to distribute because the financial elements of that
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, 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
46
47
48
49
planning have not been completed. They should expect to see that within a couple of weeks
because the budget is coming out. Regarding specific issues relative to watershed planning
under ESHB 2514, some detail is relative to endangered to species. They have seen all of the
policy and program elements about shellfish protection. They are making sure the package is
there and, from a budgetary standpoint, they are implementing plans as adopted. Regarding
Lake Whatcom, they are trying to determine what is to be accomplished financially with the City
of Bellingham and Water District #10. Related to that, they have selected a consultant to begin
contract negotiation. They have begun putting together a scope of work. He expected they may
see a proposed contract with a consultant in about a month.
Regarding groundwater quality protection, there has been a lot of discussion about the
issues and the current efforts.
Hoag questioned what is happening at this point in time. She requested an update of
where they are.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, spoke to
ground water issues in the North County. (Handout on file.) There have been various efforts. A
health assessment is to be completed by the State Department of Health (DOH) by the end of
October. They petitioned ATSDR to do an exposure investigation related to inhalation exposure.
They have agreed and will do air monitoring in residences. They will compare the results with
exposure models. The scope has been finalized to look at all the issues that had been raised in
the community. Recently an interagency meeting included DOH, the State Department of
Ecology (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the County to discuss process
and options for identifying alternative water supply for north County residents. Sampling efforts
include notices sent to north County residents. Many people volunteered to have their wells
tested. The EPA concluded their testing program, and it will take two to three months for the
results. DOE completed Phase I sampling. They are in the process of completing Phase II
sampling, to be done by the end of October. The United States Geological Service (USGS) is
sampling now and plans to be finished by October 2, with raw results in a month or two. They
should have all of the data together by the end of the year. If there are holes in all data, the DOH
stated that they have additional funds to fill in the gaps.
Hoag questioned whether there was any resolution on one north County well that
typically had a lot of chemicals. It was located in Ferndale. Delahunt stated that there hasn't
been a resolution on why. They are working with the well owner for new well site location. It is
difficult to determine the exact cause. They will use DOH funding to do more sampling in that
area.
Monsen continued to discuss questions and issues.
Brown questioned the most recent testing results for Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor
Shellfish Protection Districts. Both are doing testing. Delahunt stated that she will provide
those results.
Monsen stated that they have worked with the Department of Fisheries to hire a fish
biologist. There are five applications; one did not meet qualifications. Applications are from
individuals out of school, with no field experience to provide guidance and leadership. They are
trying to expand the applicant field.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brown questioned who is deciding on the fish biologist to employ and whether other
jurisdictions are sitting in on the hiring process. Monsen responded that he and Bob Everett
have reviewed applications. The Tribes have seen the names only to see if they have any other
background information on the individuals. They will not independently pick someone.
Hoag stated that the Council seems to be cut out of the process. The Council is supposed
to make policy decisions. When they approved the position, she questioned why they were
working through Fish and Wildlife rather than just post the job. She was told that it was
important to get someone going quickly and there are people immediately available. Now,
months have passed and they still don't have a fish biologist. The Tribes have completed their
enhancement and habitat plans and were waiting for the Governor's report. According to the
Tribes, the County cannot address the problems because they have no fish biologist. Also, the
Tribes should not have say on whom the County hires.
Bob Mitchell, Everson, stated that the Tribes were not given the veto right. He asked that
they provide additional information on the applicants, so the County could make a better
decision on the kind of people they would be choosing from. Neither Tribe has gotten back to
him.
Hoag stated they have veto power in the memorandum of understanding over the
decisions that they come up with. She objected to the applicants' information being given to the
Tribes. Mitchell stated that they are not running a biologist past the Tribes to hire. They merely
attempted to try and see who the applicants were.
Monsen stated that he had not had any response from the Tribes.
Hoag stated that it would have been more appropriate for the names to be forwarded to
the Council, not the Tribes. This is for the County's fish biologist. The Tribes have their own
fish biologist. She objected to the way the process has been handled. Monsen stated that the
Council does not have a part in an administrative hiring. They should let the Tribes have a
chance to comment.
Hoag disagreed.
Brown stated that the Tribes have their own personnel and their own opinions. The rest
of the County should have its own representative. The County has been running everything past
the Tribes for approval, but they have not reciprocated.
Mitchell stated that the Tribes have never been asked to approve or disapprove of anyone
on the list. They were asked if they had any information on the applicants.
Hoag stated that it is not appropriate, like Brown said, that the County is giving the
names to the Tribe because the Tribes should not have say in who the County hires. The County
should not be asking them because, of course, their bias will come through in what they say and
how they respond to the list of names. That is not appropriate in the negotiations that the County
is dealing with.
Sutter stated that they were not asking them for their permission, only for their opinion.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
She questioned who has been appointed to the Land Use Team. Monsen stated that no one has
been appointed. That is the next step in the process. The hold -up is the 1999 budget, allocation
of resources, and hiring people to accomplish the tasks.
Sutter stated that the Tribe already has their draft plan. Monsen stated that they've been
working on that for two to three years with the State.
Sutter stated that don't need to hire people to sit down and look at their plan. Monsen
stated that they do need to hire someone.
Sutter stated that this is an urgent issue. They have known about this for months.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that the limit that
the staff faces is that there are current programs under way. When they have something as
significant as Endangered Species, they have to ask what the County gives up to do the job in
terms of staff. It is important to recognize that a new job that is as complex as ESA requires that
they give up something else.
Sutter stated that it doesn't have to be staff. She questioned whether it has to be County
employees. Monsen stated no. The reluctance to move ahead is to get a sense of the State's
point so not to waste effort.
Hoag stated that the Council never gave direction to wait for the State to decide what to
do. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drawn up in March or April to work on
ESHB 2496 and ESA. They have not heard anything since. The Conservation District was
going to administer ESHB 2496, but it was scrapped and the County passed up $50,000 that they
could have used to hire someone. The Tribes and administration need to work with the Council
and move quickly. The Council cannot make policy decisions if they are not given information
on what is going on.
Monsen replied that the draft memorandum discussed ESHB 2496, but the adopted
version specifically removed the reference to ESHB 2496. They have been in discussion this
summer with the Tribes about ESHB 2496. Up until a month ago, the Tribes agreed that the
County could independently be the lead in ESHB 2496.
Hoag stated that, at the time the federal funds were applied for, the County would take
the lead and the Conservation District would do administration. She questioned why that
changed.
Monsen stated that the Tribes wanted to reconsider, they did not agree to it. They said
that to the administration. The County kept the position that the County must remain the lead.
Hoag questioned whether the County administration tried to report to the Council when
the tribes backed out. The Council was surprised when the $50,000 was missed. The Council
has been asking for information.
Monsen stated that the County couldn't miss an opportunity for funding if they are not
aware of the funding. The understanding was that previous funding and future funding must be
applied for by the lead. There was no lead designation early spring. There wasn't a way to
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, 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
46
47
48
49
apply for funding.
Dawson requested feedback on the communication policy regarding reservation water
issues. She questioned whether committee feels that people involved in the negotiation should
come back to the County Council and provide direction as to how to vote as a County.
Sutter stated that anything that involves a policy decision is the Council's position.
Dawson stated that the Council was not included in that decision.
Hoag stated that it is clear the Council needs to be included. She requested they come
back to the next meeting to discuss ESA, including what they plan on doing.
Monsen stated that he will have more information on ESA in two weeks. Regarding on-
reservation negotiations for a water supply, they are at a point in the negotiations where
decisions will be made. Procedurally, the technical committee was formed out of the
negotiations to come up with alternatives and a suggested preference. That has been presented to
the groups as a body. They now need to bring forward what the conclusion of that technical
group was so they can offer some direction. That will come forward at the next meeting.
Sutter questioned who was on the Fisheries Management Team for the Tribes and the
progress of establishing the County management team. There are resources that don't involve
budgetary issues.
Knapp stated that it is important to recognize that the committees don't function by
themselves. There is administration of the committees, which requires input from staff. They
would try to put together a Land Use Committee, but he questioned who would staff it.
Hoag stated that the Conservation District has offered staffing. Boggs stated that was
correct and he provided information that would detail the resources that they have available.
(Handout on file.) They will help with administration.
Hoag asked that a draft of a plan be presented at the next meeting. She wanted to resolve
the fish biologist without input of the Tribe. Monsen asked the Council to ask the Tribes to not
be involved. Hoag stated the Tribes do not have a typical involvement in hiring. Monsen stated
that it is important if the person is expected to work with the Tribes. It is important to develop a
history with the individual to be able to work with the Tribes.
Hoag disagreed.
Monsen stated that he was not proposing that they have veto power over the hiring of the
individual. Only that a working relationship is fostered.
Hoag stated that the County is looking for the most qualified fish biologist that is
available. They are not looking for someone who will be approved of by the Tribes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Pat Jones, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated that if the tribes would have input
into the selection, then the BIA would also like an input to the same extent. The comment is
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
inappropriate that any external party has input in the selection process.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE LUMMI NATION, CITY OF
BELLINGHAM, AND WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1,
SUBMITTED BY THE LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL CONCERNING
ESHB 2514 (AB98 -351A)
Hoag stated that she would like to discuss this item after discussion of Committee
Discussion and Recommendations to Council item #2.
(Clerk's Note: Committee moved to the next item.)
Sutter moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned whether the Resolution needed to reflect the changes made to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as suggested by Barry Hill.
Barry Hill, Whatcom County Watershed Program Analyst, stated that it might be a good
idea to add language, "as amended."
Hoag suggested language that reflected language as amended on September 29, 1998 by
the Whatcom County Council. "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom
County Council that the Whatcom County Executive shall execute the final version of the MOA,
as amended September 29, 1998 by the Whatcom County Council, for ESHB 2514 submitted by
the Lummi Nation."
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee moved to Other Business.)
2. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH LUMMI NATION, CITY OF
BELLINGHAM, WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1, AND
WHATCOM COUNTY SUBMITTED BY THE LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS
COUNCIL (AB98 -351)
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, suggested a Council
Member be a part of the process.
Hoag stated that she attended meetings, but was told her presence was not welcome. Her
idea, then was to have regular updates. That is where the problem has come. Each time they
have requested updates, they have been given very little information.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Sue Blake, Planning and Development Resources Water Resources Planner, stated that
they handed out a response regarding how the Council Members want to be informed. One
option is update by audiotapes.
Barry Hill, Whatcom County Watershed Program Analyst, distributed the amendment to
the MOA. The Tribes have raised concerns about speaking freely at the table. Wording was too
general regarding items introduced being used against someone. The Building Industry
Association (BIA) suggested a change. Tribes then suggested additional language. If the
Lummi Tribe brought to the table a proposal or document, it should not come before another
proceeding that they are a party of. The Lummi Tribe, the County, and the City of Bellingham
attorneys have crafted further language. It states that anything someone brings to the table
cannot be brought against them in an administrative or other proceeding. There is a question as
to whether it is enforceable. All attorneys reviewed language. Everyone agrees it is satisfactory.
Sutter questioned the new sentence added at the end and suggested adding to that,
"...legal or administrative proceeding without the consent of the Lummi Nation." There may be
an occasion when they would like some answers. This prohibits that.
Steve Bucknell, State Department of Ecology (DOE), questioned whether the definition
of "protected material" handles the problem.
Hill stated that it may be a moot point because judges would decide what is admitted
material.
Pat Jones, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated that the concerns on the MOA
were brought up by the BIA. The concern is with the way the MOA was drawn up. It stated
that data, information, facts, and knowledge could not be used. They believed the City, the
County, the Tribes, and Water District #10 cannot enter into an agreement that affects a third
party that is not included in the agreement. If the data resides inside the tribal boundaries, it
cannot be touched by the Freedom of Information Act. As long as copies exist outside of the
tribal boundaries, it can be used. The BIA recommends adoption. Watershed planning will not
successfully move ahead without the Lummi, who won't move ahead without the MOA.
Sutter stated that the Planning Unit section on packet page 161 says that it is understood
they don't have to participate. However, if anything in the plan requires their participation, they
must be included. They can't obligate any State agencies.
Jones stated that the legislation provides a representative of each branch of government.
The State of Washington is a single branch of government, so there should only be one
representative, only to the extent they are vital to the process.
Hoag suggested that they add a sentence to the Planning Unit that includes, "Pursuant to
a structure as cited in ESHB 2514."
Sutter stated that it can't be constructed in any other way.
Brown stated that he does not want a representative from each agency. Also, there is no
indication that there will be anyone representing the business, agriculture, timber, or
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
environmental communities.
Jones stated that it is of great concern to BIA that the public sector has input. The
agreement with he Lummi Tribe does not preclude that. State law mandates that interested
parties be represented. The Planning Unit should include all interested parties, including private
parties.
Hoag questioned if it was optional how the agencies were represented at the table.
Sutter stated it is not real specific. They can participate in an advisory capacity, or if
obligated by the plan, they must participate.
Bucknell stated that it is a fairly broad representation, but if they obligate any agency,
then that agency needs to be at the table. Also, the specifics of how the State sat at the table
would be worked out between the Planning Unit and Governor. DOE understood there would be
a caucus format in which one or two people would represent all the other State agencies. If an
issue arose specific to an agency that didn't have one of his or her own as a representative, then
an expert would be brought in on that issue.
Sutter confirmed Bucknell's comments and read from ESHB 2496.
Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services Water Resource Planner, stated that
given that the City of Bellingham passed the MOA with the recommended changes, the Council
must consider that.
Bob Andersen, R.S. Andersen Planning Design, stated he worked on the document and
recommended that they act on the MOA with changes recommended by Barry Hill in a sense of
good will and trust. There are concerns about the details of the MOA. Those issues will surface
as the process begins.
George Boggs, Conservation District, stated that parties can always give consent. The
Conservation District (CD) approved it with the changes. He recommended that they adopt it
without delay.
Brown stated that the position of the document with the proposed changes address his
concerns.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the MOA with the proposed
changes. The City Council passed the MOA with the proposed changes.
Hoag stated that significant concerns should be addressed. She stated that they have a
letter to Merle Jefferson with the Lummi Tribe. It pointed out a number of concerns. She
questioned the status of the decision - making and senior and junior water rights.
Hill stated that the first concern had to do with senior and junior water rights in the
current draft. The intent was regarding how they want to see the process go forward. They
responded in writing by adding another bullet point to the MOA under the Termination and
Preservation of Rights section. The Tribes have stated that they are not bound by estimations of
tribal treaty rights, but it didn't specifically say that the other initiating governments were also
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, 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
46
47
48
49
not bound be estimations of tribal treaty rights. Regarding the decision - making concern,
representatives of any of the initiating governments may have policy requests or other requests
from within their organizations that could be conflicting with what is being decided. There may
be an occasion where one of the parties may wish to say that they want to vote a certain way,
with a stipulation. The Tribal response was that all parties were accommodated before a
decision was reached, not they one would have a veto power and force a decision a certain way.
It was an endorsement of the process. They made a change in the MOA in response to the first
and third items, not the second. The response to the third item, having to do with the language in
the Planning Unit, they added a sentence.
Hoag questioned whether the Planning Unit would be making decisions, given the
language about the voting process. Hill responded that it is not defined how the entire Planning
Unit would make decisions. It just says that the participating governments in the Planning Unit
would have a vote that would have veto power.
Hoag questioned what would happen if they are not able to accommodate everyone's
concerns. Hill responded that was a matter of how hard they want to keep working on it. No
one has to continue to participate in the process. Any of the initiating governments are free to
discontinue.
Hoag questioned the original Purpose Statement and stated that the County has no control
over tribal laws. She questioned how they could guarantee that any agreement on planning for
the watershed would not violate their laws. It is not part of the County jurisdiction.
Pat Jones stated that when one enters into a contract or negotiation with a foreign
government, they agree to obey each other's laws. That is the risk when entering into an
agreement with a foreign government.
Brown stated that they have the right to not agree to the process.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that it is just the reality of dealing
with another sovereign entity. It is not going to stop anyone from going any place that they
would otherwise go.
Bucknell stated he believed one of the reason's that language is included is so that the
Tribal leaders can assure their citizens that Tribal laws will be followed.
Sutter stated that, in that case, County laws are not included. She was concerned that the
Comprehensive Plan would not be taken into account.
Hoag questioned whether they could come up with something in the planning that would
conflict with County laws. Gibson stated that they could try, but the County could just say no.
Bucknell stated that the four -year clock is running. Everyone agrees that 4 years is not
enough time. The key is to get going and take one thing at a time. There is an increased interest
in taking action sooner than later.
Dawson stated that the tribes would have to start complying with the federal laws. The
Tribe is required to abide by federal environmental laws. Therefore, there is not much to worry
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, 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
about. A court has stated that they have to comply environmentally.
Hoag questioned what would happen if a party wants to terminate and whether it would
terminate only the one party or the entire process. Gibson responded that there is a tie to
funding, but any party can terminate. They can't force an agreement with the process. The
decisions being referred to are not decisions with the MOA, but as to what the process produces.
Sutter stated the MOA only covers assessment, not the plan development.
Andersen stated that the County doesn't need state law or an MOA to do the right thing.
When someone drops out of the process, the rest can continue to do the right thing.
Hoag stated that they are dealing with controversial issues. She questioned whether, if
they reach a stalemate and someone drops out of the process, the remaining people can continue
with the process and are the people who dropped out still bound.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Hoag stated that she would like to know, going in, what exactly they are signing on to.
One of her concerns was that the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in March or
April had a veto section. The Tribes and the County would each get one vote. The Tribes were
going to specialize their expertise in fisheries. The County was going to specialize their
expertise in land use. If one jurisdiction did not agree with the other about their area, then they
could veto. She didn't want to be in the same situation with this. This should be a good faith
planning effort that, from the beginning, is structured to be a win -win situation for everyone
involved.
Jones stated that no government can be bound by the outcome of the process unless they
agree to it. If the County dropped out and the others continue, they cannot bind the County.
There may be other incentives to keep everyone at the table.
Gibson agreed with Jones.
Boggs stated that the process is still legitimate. They can't bind someone that was not in
the process. They should go forward in good faith.
Sutter questioned whether water rights are a legal or a scientific issue. Gibson responded
that although there is a legal aspect to it, in order to determine what water the Tribe is entitled to,
the issue relates to fisheries, in- stream flows, and other things which rely on scientific data.
Jones stated that it is not the best choice of words. Water rights are a legal concept.
There is a great deal of science that goes into the supportive components of what ultimately
constitutes waters rights in a quantitative way. Water rights are simply a legal issue.
Engineering and science are neutral on the subject.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 10
2 Brown moved to recommend approval with the changes brought forth by Barry Hill,
3 dated September 28.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 (Clerk's Note: The Committee moved to Item #1 under Committee Discussion and
8 Recommendations to Council.)
9
10
11
12 OTHER BUSINESS
13
14 Hoag stated Finance Committee scheduled an approval, as part of a budget request, for
15 two positions in Planning and Development Services to enforce the manure management
16 ordinance. She would like to get someone on as soon as possible and suggested having an
17 interim dairy inspector to begin this week. There is a candidate that has been interviewed by the
18 Planning Department and the Dairy Federation president. Both found the candidate to be highly
19 qualified.
20
21 Brown stated that there was a discussion earlier in the meeting about how relevant it was
22 to have another party, the Tribes, review a potential employee. Now, Hoag is suggesting a
23 private entity be included in the hiring process of the enforcement officer. That seems like a
24 conflict.
25
26 Hoag stated that they asked for a recommendation for another candidate from the farmers
27 and found out that the person was not supportive of the manure ordinance. Another name was
28 brought forward as a candidate, and she asked VanWeerdhuizen to give input because he is on
29 the Dairy Advisory Committee. It was not the same because the County is not going into
30 negotiations with the farmers.
31
32 George Boggs, Conservation District, stated that it is evident that VanWeerdhuizen's
33 opinions reflect the County's opinions.
34
35 Brown questioned whether VanWeerdhuizen rejected the first candidate. Hoag clarified
36 that he did not reject the first candidate. He met with the second candidate and felt she was
37 highly qualified. Regarding the first candidate, she submitted the name to the Planning
38 Department, John Gillies of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and anyone she could
39 find to ensure that the person that was hired was someone that was good. They were very short
40 of time. She asked the agencies for their response. Those agencies asked for references from
41 farmers, who said that the first candidate would not be a good inspector because he did not
42 support the ordinance in the first place.
43
44 Brown questioned how Hoag became involved in the hiring practice when none of the
45 other Council members can. Hoag stated that she came up with the idea of an interim person.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
She suggested it to Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director. He asked her
if she knew of someone. She simply searched out a candidate and made a recommendation to
Planning and Development Services. She doesn't have any veto power on the candidate.
Hoag moved that the committee recommend to the full Council that the County hire an
interim enforcement officer.
Sutter clarified that the Council doesn't hire, and the appropriate action is to recommend
to administration that they hire an interim enforcement officer.
it.
Nelson asked how they would pay for it. Hoag stated that administration is looking into
Sutter stated that it seemed Hoag already gave direction to administration.
Brown stated he would not support the idea because he was not informed of the process.
Hoag stated that she was not trying to be more involved than anyone else in the process.
The deadline of October 1 was coming up, and she thought it was a good idea and everyone else
thought it was a good idea. She scrambled to get everyone together to fill the position.
Sutter stated that the Council does not need to be involved. It should have been brought
forward to Finance Committee. Hoag stated that Finance Committee ran long and they didn't
get to it.
Nelson outlined the process for doing this. There hasn't been a notification to the public
for additional staff. The position is not an approved position until the ordinance goes through
the process.
Gibson stated that a department can hire extra help, temporaries, if extra money is in the
budget.
Nelson stated that the Council can't make a decision on a departmental administrative
function. Hoag is putting the Council in the position of approving additional funding for an
additional position that has not been through proper process.
Gibson stated that it seems the administration is questioning whether the Council wants it
done enough to go ahead and hire temporary help, or feels that they should wait and go through
the regular process.
Nelson stated that Hoag could bring this up to the Council and could move to direct
administration to hire extra help on an interim basis.
Hoag asked Gibson if she could bring this up under Other Business and let the Planning
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, 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
Department know that the Council would like a temporary hired. Gibson stated that she could.
Hoag moved to recommend to full Council a request to administration to hire an interim,
temporary person to enforce the manure ordinance at its effective date.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 9/29/98, Page 13