HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 29 19981
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
September 29, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Tom Brown
Absent:
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHANGE OF CONTROL OF WHATCOM
COUNTY'S CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE (AB98 -343)
Brenner questioned whether the resolution changed the terms or only allowed AT &T to
become a part of the franchise. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that he had
not reviewed it, but it seemed that way.
Brenner questioned whether AT &T would have to adapt to the County franchise
agreement. Gibson stated that was correct.
25 Brown commented that the County government's county phone numbers are not listed in
26 the telephone book.
27
28 Dawson moved to recommend approval.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 97 -054, AUTHORIZING A CHARGE TO
33 PROVIDE REVENUE FOR FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT SUB -ZONES
34 (AB98 -316)
35
36 Gibson stated that the County cannot give a credit. That would be a public gift. If the
37 Council is intent on rectifying what they believe is a problem, then it can be done prospectively
38 by modifying the formula for future collections. The County can't give money back once it is
39 collected. Nothing compels the Council to allow collection in the future.
40
41 Brown stated that the only way to do it would be to prevent future collection.
42
43 Brenner questioned whether there is an appeal procedure, like the Whatcom County
44 Board of Equalization (BOE), and why the County can't refund the money. Gibson stated that
45 the BOE re- addresses the issue of assessed value, not the issue of the tax.
46
47 Dawson stated that if a person feels that their property does not affect the flood plain,
Public Works 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
they could make an argument to the Sub -Zone Flood Control District Committee members, and
then get a reversal by the County Council.
Bob Mitchell, Everson, stated that they have the ability within the Public Works
Engineering Division to handle the tax roll there. The committees still need a process to take the
people out of the tax role. The sub -zone committees could make a recommendation to delete
someone from the roll to the full Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, who would
then make a recommendation to the County Council. It would not authorize a refund, only take
them off the tax role for the future.
Brenner questioned whether the County could issue a credit. Gibson stated that a credit
is also a gift of public funds.
Nelson stated that seniors receive benefits of reduced tax. If a senior is taxed at the full
rate, they may request a refund based on the fact that they are a senior. This is an analogy to
someone who would be assessed the flood fee, but would request a refund because they are not
in the flood zone. The County is taxing someone, without the correct information on which the
tax is based.
Gibson stated that the ordinance specifies that someone in the flood zone be assessed.
Nelson asked Mitchell on what basis someone would be removed from the flood district.
Mitchell responded that the reason would be they are draining out of the watershed and the sub -
zone and into another area. They are incorrectly included in the flood district.
Nelson asserted that someone who is incorrectly included in the flood district is the same
as a senior citizen who is incorrectly assessed at a higher rate.
Brenner stated that the analogy is about finding out more information than was available
when the assessment was collected. If someone is not a significant contributor, in that the
contribution could be measured, then they should not be included in the assessment.
Brown stated that he agreed that people within the zones who further impact the run -off
should be assessed. It is not fair to assess someone who does not contribute more than anyone
else. There are people in the area of the Mt. Baker Highway and "Y" Road that are assessed, yet
the people across the road are not included in the assessment. Both should be included.
Brenner defined measurable as that which the people in the sub -zone can demonstrate a
measurable quantity.
Bob Knutzen, AcmeNan Zandt Sub -Zone Committee Member, agreed with Brown
regarding the people along Mt. Baker Highway. Any water that starts at the top ends in the river.
During a rainstorm, ditches are full. Areas that feed into the Samish River were removed from
the Sub -Zone.
Brown stated that people in the area have stated they never knew about the meetings that
were held when the sub -zone committees were being proposed. Brenner stated that in the rural
Public Works Committee, 9/29/98, Page 2
I areas, it is difficult to get people involved.
2
3 Brown stated that in one case, a landowner has a piece of property directly on the river
4 that was not assessed. Knutzen stated that he knew which piece of property to which Brown was
5 referring. He has been looking into that. Their boundaries were based on Federal Emergency
6 Management Act (FEMA) flood maps, which stated that property is outside of the flood plain.
7
8 Brown stated that a mobile home owner was assessed for the home and the property on
9 which the mobile home sits is also assessed. Someone with 300 acres pays half the assessment
10 than the small lot mobile home owner. Gibson responded that the County can modify the
11 ordinance for future reference.
12
13 Mitchell stated that continuing funding is based on the countywide funding, which takes
14 that issue into consideration.
15
16 Brenner moved to amend language on Council packet page 187, line 14, `Be it finally
17 I provided that ... will be issued ^ f4 n of $25 no longer a sub -flood zone district fee."
18
19 Brown proposed a friendly amendment to include the provision that a landowner would
20 be charged if they significantly contribute to the flooding.
21
22 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
23
24 Bob Harder, Everson, stated that they have paid $100 and they have less than five acres.
25
26 Brenner stated that she wanted to see a presentation of how the boundaries were arrived
27 at.
28
29 Mitchell stated that the parcel map was spread out and the people within the area, at a
30 public meeting, drew out the boundary lines using local knowledge. That was how it was done
31 in each sub -zone. A big mistake was that the utility person for the City of Lynden came to that
32 Sub -Zone meeting and said where the line was in Lynden. That Sub -Zone committee received
33 many complaints from that.
34
35 Brown stated that properties adjacent to the river, which are at risk, receive benefit from
36 protection against erosion.
37
38 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division, stated that it had already been included
39 in the new version before the Council, which specifies 200 yards.
40
41 Mitchell stated that it would cost a lot to try and account for every situation.
42
43 Motion carried 2 -1 with Dawson opposed.
44
45 Brenner stated that she wanted to come up with a mechanism to give a credit. Gibson
46 stated that a credit and refund are both gifts of public money.
47
Public Works Committee, 9/29/98, Page 3
I Nelson stated that the only way to issue a credit or refund is if it is defined and in place
2 incorrectly. Gibson stated that if they were improperly defined as being within the sub -zone,
3 then a credit could be given.
4
5 Brown asked Michaelyn Dixon, Deputy Treasurer, if a credit could be given. Dixon
6 deferred to Gibson. Gibson stated that if he overpays taxes, than he expects that he could receive
7 a credit. Dixon clarified that the Treasurer's office doesn't issue credit.
8
9 Brown questioned whether parcels could still be consolidated to get only one assessment.
10 Henken stated that they should be consolidated by November.
11
12 Phyllis Harder, Everson, questioned the purpose of the sub - zones, when their taxes
13 already pay for flood work. Brenner stated that the general tax is for projects for the general
14 public good.
15 Brown stated that the sub -zone tax is to make up the extra 30% of the 70/30 program.
16
17 Brenner stated that the County could use General Fund money as before, on top of the
18 general flood tax. Brown stated that he would support that.
19
20 Brown stated that substantial damage from natural run -off happens, and the County
21 should not tax someone because they live in that area. In some situations, a home may mitigate
22 run -off.
23
24 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
25
26 1. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SOLID WASTE FEE STRUCTURE, PROPOSED
27 REVISIONS (AB98 -332)
28
29 Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated that inequities have been a
30 long- standing issue. There was direction from the Public Works Committee to the Health and
31 Human Services Department to try to negotiate a more equitable fee structure.
32
33 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
34 that she met with representatives of the solid waste facilities in the County. They came up with a
35 fee for the service permit system. It simplifies the structure. There will be two major facility
36 types. One type of facility would not require environmental monitoring, such as a drop box.
37 Another type would require monitoring, such as incinerators or landfills. Each facility type
38 would be charged a minimal base fee for X number of hours of County cost for monitoring. If
39 everything runs fine, they may only have to pay the base fee. If there are complaints or
40 inspection is needed more frequently, they would charge $55 per hour, which is the County's
41 cost. The County will keep track of how many hours they spend above the base rate hours. That
42 cost includes travel time, paperwork, and review. They will restructure cost centers to record
43 staff time to different cost centers. The facility owners are satisfied. There is more paperwork,
44 but it is not too onerous. The public doesn't pay for it. The facilities pay.
45
46 Benjamin stated that the administrative cost is also included in the hourly rate.
47
Public Works Committee, 9/29/98, Page 4
I Brenner questioned the hourly rates listed on Council packet page 201. Delahunt
2 explained that the $2,200 permit fee is for the base rate for the major facility permits that require
3 monitoring.
4
5 Brenner moved to include a $2,200 base rate fee for infectious waste processing
6 facilities, plus an 18% charge on all fees collected for infectious waste that is processed. The
7 18% would not be on final disposition, but only on processing. Generators do treat their own
8 infectious waste at some places. They are getting paid from $750 to $3,500 per ton of infectious
9 waste.
10
11 Benjamin questioned whether they could charge more than the County's cost. Brenner
12 stated that the County could charge whatever they want.
13
14 Dawson stated that there is a lawsuit against the City of Bellingham for fees that they
15 have charged. Brenner stated that there are other places that charge these types of fees. She
16 questioned whether this amendment could be added at any time.
17
18 Delahunt stated that this is just for discussion. If the Committee approves, it would be
19 included in the 1999 Unified Fee Schedule, which the Council will vote on.
20
21 Brenner moved to request the Health and Human Services Department research where
22 permit fees and percentages are being charged, and bring forward that information to the
23 Council.
24
25 Brown stated that he sees Whatcom County becoming a processing center, and it puts the
26 County at increased risk.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING SPEED LIMIT ON EMERY ROAD (AB98 -358)
31
32 Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that normally Council
33 requests an engineering study. It is a dead end road. There are houses along it. He suspects
34 silage trucks may be going too fast. It is a paved road.
35
36 Brown stated that he heard someone almost hit a child by going too fast. Henken stated
37 that normally they ask the Sheriff to get involved. They can do a cursory review first. The
38 County can go as low as 25 miles per hour. Any lower, they have to have a significant reason.
39
40 Brenner asked Henken to contact Council Member Bob Imhof, who scheduled the item
41 on the Committee's agenda, for more information.
42
43 ADJOURN
44
45 The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
46
47
Public Works Committee, 9/29/98, Page 5
2 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
3
4
5 ATTEST:
6
7
9
10
11
12
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Council Member
Public Works Committee, 9/29/98, Page 6