Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 21 20151 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Regular County Council Meeting 3 4 July 21, 2015 5 6 CALL TO ORDER 7 8 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council 9 Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 10 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Satpal Sidhu, Carl Weimer, Pete Kremen, 15 Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan. 16 Absent: None. 17 18 19 FLAG SALUTE 20 21 22 ANNOUNCEMENTS 23 24 Weimer announced there was a request approval to amend the contract with 25 Van Ness Feldman, LLC, for outside legal representation in Growth Management 26 Hearings Board case number 12 -2 -0013, in the amount of $10,000, for a total 27 contract amount of $160,000 (AB2014 -136C) in executive session during the 28 Committee of the Whole meeting. 29 30 31 CITIZEN BOARD AND COMMITTEE VACANCIES 32 33 Weimer announced vacancies on the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task 34 Force. 35 36 37 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 38 39 1, PRESENTATION OF THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REVENUE ADVISORY 40 COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT TO COUNCIL (AB2015 -117A) 41 42 Ahney King, Superior Court, submitted handouts (on file) and gave a report on 43 Whatcom County drug court, what the program requires of its participants, collaborating 44 with other agencies and service providers, and recent success stories. 45 46 Brenner stated Judge Snyder is an amazing judge for this program. He does a 47 wonderful job. She asked if the County ever has to turn away people who voluntarily want 48 to go into the drug court program because there is no room. King stated the program has a 49 capacity of 80. They are at half capacity right now. Some people are turned away because 50 of criminal reasons. 51 52 Charles Snyder, Superior Court Judge, stated the gatekeeper for the drug court is 53 the prosecutor. The drug court program is a slow process, and people do better when they Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 1 1 get into the program earlier. They've talked to the prosecutor and would like more people 2 to get into the program. Their technical capacity is 80, but that's with three case managers. 3 Their functional capacity with two case managers is 50 or 60. To get cases resolved, 4 they've created a fast -track program which draws people away from the drug court 5 program, which is a yearlong program. A goal is to increase the number of participants. 6 They're trying to figure out ways to do that. 7 8 Brenner asked the difference in the average savings. King stated that information in 9 her handout is the national standard. The information she wrote for the packet is on the 10 local data, which is just below the national standard. 11 12 Brenner asked about drug court being most successful for high risk offenders. King 13 stated the individualized care for those people is more successful. 14 15 Snyder stated a real motivator for change is when drug addicts get older and realize 16 they can't continue to do it anymore. 17 18 Browne stated he thanks Judge Snyder for doing the program. He's attended two 19 graduations, which is a very moving experience. The program reduces jail capacity by 33 20 beds. The return on investment is tremendous. The County can have programs that impact 21 jail capacity. 22 23 Weimer asked if there is a charge to participate in drug court. Snyder stated the 24 charge is $15 per week, and the participants can't graduate until they've paid all their fees 25 and restitution. That is an incentive to get them to pay. 26 27 Weimer asked if that fee is ever a barrier to someone participating. Snyder stated it 28 sometimes is. They would like to raise funds through the mentorship program to find 29 assistance for people who need it temporarily. The program also helps the participants learn 30 about and engage in good budgeting and financial literacy. 31 32 Brenner asked if they've ever thought of subsidizing the fee and then allowing the 33 participants to pay it off later if they're a good risk. Snyder stated they can look at that 34 option. Another thing they can do is set up an account for enhancing the program, such as 35 providing incentives and rewards. They can't use public money for those types of 36 incentives, but they can get donations, which would be tax deductible. 37 38 Brenner stated the drug court graduates are always appreciative when officials 39 attend their graduation. 40 41 Kremen stated he thanks Judge Snyder for his commitment and dedication to drug 42 court. The participants are dealing with their core problems. The graduates also achieve a 43 sense of self -worth from succeeding in the program. The program works, and it's a wise 44 investment for the County. Snyder stated the program participants are the ones who do the 45 work and deserve the credit. 46 47 Sidhu stated he also commends Judge Snyder for his dedication to the program. 48 Programs become successful when someone takes ownership. 49 50 51 MINUTES CONSENT 52 53 Browne withdrew items one and six. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 2 1 2 Brenner moved to approve Minutes Consent items two through five, seven, and 3 eight. The motion was seconded. 4 5 The motion carried by the following vote: 6 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 7 Nays: None (0) 8 Absent: Mann (1) 9 10 Kremen moved to approve items one and six. The motion was seconded. 11 12 The motion carried by the following vote: 13 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5) 14 Nays: None (0) 15 Absent: Mann (1) 16 Abstain: Browne (1) 17 18 1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR MARCH 24, 2015 19 20 2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 31, 2015 (6:15 P.M.) 21 22 3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MARCH 31, 2015 23 24 4. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 14, 2015 25 26 S. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APRIL 14, 2015 27 28 6. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR APRIL 21, 2015 29 30 7. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR APRIL 28, 2015 31 32 S. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 26, 2015 33 34 35 PUBLIC HEARINGS 36 37 1. RESOLUTION REGARDING A PETITION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION 38 OF DELTA LINE ROAD NO. 146, FILED BY SCOTT AND IRIS LOOMER, ET AL. 39 (AB2015 -115A) 40 41 Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: 42 43 Scott Harksell stated he represents the petitioners, Scott and Iris Loomer. He 44 described the history of the road section. 45 46 Max Perry described the area and stated he supports the resolution. 47 48 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. 49 50 Buchanan moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded. 51 52 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 3 1 The motion carried by the following vote: 2 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 3 Nays: None (0) 4 Absent: Mann (1) 5 6 2. ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY 7 CHARTER TO REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY OF EITHER THE ENTIRE CHARTER 8 REVIEW COMMISSION OR THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO PROPOSE CHARTER 9 AMENDMENTS (AB2015 -216) 10 11 Weimer opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: 12 13 Matt Petryni, ReSources for Sustainable Communities, stated they support the 14 proposed ordinance. The Charter Review Commission process this year was sharply 15 partisan. Proposals not in the best interest of the community were put forward, and there 16 was considerable outcry. The Charter Review Commission considered this amendment for a 17 supermajority early on, but it did not pass. The County Council brought forward proposals 18 that had broad public support. The controversial amendments that did not do the business 19 of reforming, revising, or updating the Charter were instead intended to guarantee a 20 majority for a particular partisan political group. That's not how the Charter process should 21 be used. He asks that the voters have the opportunity to decide on Charter Review 22 Commission reform. They can look at the records of the Commission and the Council and 23 compare the options. 24 25 Sandy Robson stated she supports the ordinance. The Commission should not have 26 a lesser bar than the County Council. Voters only get to elect five out of the 15 27 commissioners, so a supermajority should be required. The Charter Review Commission 28 only debated on the proposed amendment for about 20 minutes. That limited the public 29 participation on this critical issue. There were many people who attended that meeting who 30 testified about a different issue. Only four people testified about that amendment. 31 Requiring a supermajority vote of the Commission would result in more effort to leave 32 partisan agendas aside to work harder to achieve a consensus. The current system is unfair 33 and undemocratic. 34 35 John Davis stated he supports the proposed ordinance. 36 37 Edward Ury stated there was very little discussion and comment about this proposal 38 at the Charter Review Commission meeting. Most of the focus was on another issue. 39 Commission Chair Ben Elenbaas excused himself near the end of the public comment 40 period, knowing full well that amendments would be voted on that evening. It sent a 41 message that he was sure the majority would vote a certain way. In publicly disclosed 42 emails, they learned that nine commissioners arranged to meet before they were sworn into 43 office to form a de facto caucus and to plan and execute strategy. Requiring a 44 supermajority wouldn't prevent the same thing from happening, but this amendment would 45 be a reasonable safeguard. The Council is empowered to put this proposed amendment on 46 the ballot. The Council is deciding if the voters should have the opportunity to make this 47 decision. Given what they've seen, the voters should be able to vote on commission 48 reform. 49 50 Louann Chapman stated she supports the ordinance. It's a good idea to seek an 51 attorney general's opinion on two of the illegal amendments. 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 4 1 Daydra Phillips stated she supports the ordinance. The Commission's partisan 2 activities have excluded opposing voices. The process wasn't fair. Voter's need to be 3 educated on this matter and be able to vote for a better process, which would lead to more 4 discussion and compromise to create amendments that represent all residents of Whatcom 5 County. 6 7 Eli Mackiewicz stated he supports the ordinance. He agrees with Ken Bell, who 8 spoke at the previous Council meeting two weeks ago about the Commission staff. He 9 recommends that the Commission have a registered parliamentarian available. There could 10 have been a more metered debate. He supports the amendment to require a supermajority 11 because the Commission was not inclined to compromise because of the simple majority 12 requirement. A supermajority would have brought forward better things from the 13 Commission. The Commission should have brought forward amendments that were clearly 14 supported by all or most commissioners and that could easily be supported by the 15 community. Instead, they have a number of proposed amendments that only need 50 16 percent plus one voter to support the amendment. That's not a good way to amend the 17 Charter. Those types of amendments eventually swing back the other way. 18 19 Nancy Orlowski stated she supports the ordinance. Seek an attorney general's 20 opinion on the two potentially illegal amendments. 21 22 Lisa McShane stated she supports the ordinance. The Charter is the County's 23 constitution. There must be a high threshold for amending a constitution. A supermajority 24 is required to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State 25 Constitution. 26 27 Dan McShane stated he supports the ordinance. The Charter works well. There 28 should be a compelling reason to change it. The Commission would concentrate on issues 29 important for governance, rather than trying to control government and how people vote. 30 31 Diane Foster stated she supports the ordinance and agrees with the previous 32 speakers. Also, ask an attorney general's opinion on the legality of charter review 33 commission recommendations. 34 35 Iris Maute- Gibson stated she supports the ordinance. She supports Robert's Rules of 36 Order, which requires a supermajority for any vote that alters the rights of the minority. 37 Given the Commission's role changing, a supermajority is the best option. This is the best 38 time to consider how they make decisions. 39 40 John Chadwick stated he supports the ordinance. Place the amendment on the ballot 41 for the voters to decide. 42 43 Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated he is concerned about the language of 44 Charter section 8.23 which states that a supermajority of the County Council will be 45 required to enact a proposed amendment. The additional language being proposed 46 indicates that no amendment shall require a higher number than the supermajority. That 47 additional language is also proposed in section 8.21. If the intent is to prohibit the voters 48 from changing the Charter at a future date, he doesn't think that's legal. Regarding section 49 8.23, there is already a supermajority requirement. It's not appropriate to put forward to 50 the voters what is already in the Charter. Regarding the prohibition of requiring a higher 51 number to put forward an amendment, they don't have the ability to prohibit future 52 amendment proposals and future voter decisions that might change the Charter. 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 5 1 Greg Brown stated he attended every Commission meeting, and stayed for the entire 2 meeting. Many of the people who are speaking tonight attended a few meetings and left as 3 soon as public comment was over. They really don't know how the Charter Review 4 Commission functioned. Early in the process, the Commission determined how they were 5 going to vote, what the vote count was, and how it was going to work. It was agreed upon 6 by everyone. The Chair offered public comment to everyone, did not restrict comment, and 7 did not limit anyone's speaking time. It was the most open public comment period that the 8 commission has ever had. It's hard to believe the process is being disparaged. A 9 supermajority requirement will limit future commissions to fixing scriveners errors, because 10 that's all they will be able to agree to. That's not the way the system is set up. They only 11 meet once every ten years. They must be productive. 12 13 Carole Perry stated she attended all the meetings. She met the commission 14 candidates before the election. Most of the people speaking tonight only attended a few 15 meetings. There were Commission meetings at many locations around the county. Many 16 people testified at those meetings. The commissioners were elected. 17 18 Karl Uppiano stated he attended every Commission meeting from beginning to end. 19 It bothers him to hear the disparaging remarks about the Commission, which was conducted 20 well. This Commission happened to have a majority of people who were more conservative. 21 That seems to bother people who aren't conservative. The Commission was well run. It 22 produced some controversial decisions. When the Commission realized the public reaction 23 to the proposed amendment regarding nonprofits, it dropped the amendment. That was 24 appropriate. He doesn't have a problem with how the Commission was run. He won't 25 suggest that the Council not adopt the ordinance, because it's a good idea for the voters to 26 decide on this issue. People will campaign for or against the amendments. That's how it 27 ought to work. The process needs to continue. 28 29 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. 30 31 Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion was seconded. 32 33 Gibson stated only take action on Charter section 8.21. There is no need to change 34 section 8.23. A supermajority is currently required of the Council. The amendment is to 35 achieve what they already have. The purpose of an amendment is to change what exists. 36 37 Brenner stated the proposed ballot measure says that the Council wants the 38 Commission and Council to have the same voting requirement. That isn't what they have 39 now. It's an explanation. 40 41 Gibson stated that if people want the Commission to have the same supermajority 42 requirement as the Council, they will vote in favor of that amendment. 43 44 Weimer asked if Mr. Gibson is suggesting that the Council drop the amendment to 45 section 8.23 and just vote on section 8.21. Gibson stated that's the cleanest and most 46 direct way to address the issue. He does not take a position on the merits of the position. 47 The last phrase in both sections 8.21 and 8.23 seems to suggest that no one at any point in 48 the future can change the approval level for either the Commission or the Council. That's 49 problematic. No single vote can rule out what the people may choose to do in the future. 50 51 Kremen asked if Mr. Gibson can offer proposed language that would be appropriate 52 to achieve the Council's goal. Gibson stated he can. He suggests amending section 8.21, 53 "...County Council an-d—n$- arnefldmen�t will shal q-u4fe a higher ef." Leave section Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 6 8.23 the way it currently reads. The issue of whether or not the Council should be required to achieve a higher threshold for approval is before the voters in propositions two and three being proposed by the Charter Review Commission. They are proposing an amendment that would raise the level required for approval by the County Council from a supermajority to a unanimous vote. That proposal will either be adopted or defeated. If it is defeated, then section 8.23 will be unchanged and the Charter will have precisely what's being proposed by this amendment. If they are adopted, and section 8.23 goes to the voters, there will be two measures on one side and one measure on another side being incompatible. It's not against the law to have incompatible proposals to the people. It happens. It happened in 2014 regarding gun control. The matter was resolved by the vote of the people. Incompatible ballots present a challenge in terms of how the issue is framed for the people and in how the incompatibility is resolved through court action if both measures are adopted. All of that can be avoided in this instance by leaving section 8.23 as it reads presently. What this electorate chooses to do cannot bind the future amendment process. Also, don't amend section 8.23 to achieve what it already achieves. Weimer asked why that section would tie the hands of future elections. Gibson stated this amendment doesn't serve any purpose if it says that no future amendments shall require a certain number, but they can require a higher number through an amendment. The question is why say that no amendment shall require a higher number, when all they have to do to change that is adopt an amendment. Weimer asked if they need another public hearing to make these changes. Gibson stated they do not. Weimer asked if the Council can reopen the public hearing if it makes the suggested changes. Gibson stated it can. Brenner stated add language in section 8.21 that indicates the Council already requires a supermajority. Browne stated the concern expressed by the proponents of this amendment was to make sure it's clear that both the Council and the Charter must have the same requirement. If the Commission proposals are accepted, which would impose a unanimous vote on certain decisions of the Council, it's not consistent with the original intent. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that language is best for the explanatory statement. The ballot title includes that explanation as well. Sidhu stated this ordinance has arisen because the Charter Review Commission worked on an amendment to tie up the future electorate, and that if people pass anything with a two - thirds majority, the Council would never be able to change it. They first discussed it three months ago. He asked why that amendment went so far at the Commission. That has caused some exasperation at the Commission. Gibson stated the question would have been if there is a constitutional prohibition on a prohibition of the Council in acting. Initially he said there isn't. Subsequently, he examined Article 11, Section 4 of the State Constitution more carefully. He learned that there is a constitutional prohibition on a blanket prohibition of the Council taking action on amendments. There must be, according to the State Constitution, an avenue by which a county council can propose charter amendments. The people who proposed the amendments didn't embrace his advice. They asked him to look into it further, which he did. He spoke with a number of Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 7 1 attorneys and legal experts on charter questions. They all affirmed his advice. That then 2 led to the changes in the final Commission propositions two and three. 3 4 Browne stated he attended the last Charter Review Commission meeting, when Mr. 5 Gibson gave advice to the Charter Review Commission that their proposal to put forward an 6 amendment that would prohibit the Council from making changes to certain parts of the 7 Charter was illegal under the Constitution. Gibson stated that's correct. 8 9 Browne stated Mr. Gibson said it was legal to put a restriction that required a 10 unanimous vote. Gibson stated he didn't phrase it that way. The current Charter includes a 11 threshold level for approval, which is 5 -2. He told the Commission that whether the 12 threshold is 5 -2, 6 -1, or 7 -0, there has to be a way for the Council to act. 13 14 Browne stated Mr. Gibson didn't instruct the Commission one way or another. He 15 answered their question. Gibson stated the Commission asked him if a vote of 7 -0 would 16 avoid the constitutional issue. He told the Commission he believed it does avoid the 17 constitutional issue. 18 19 Browne stated that the constitutional issue is that they have to allow for a decision to 20 be made. Gibson stated they have to allow an opportunity for the Council to propose 21 amendments. They cannot impose a blanket prohibition on the Council. 22 23 Browne stated he challenges the earlier comment that no amendment shall require a 24 higher number. It should be constitutional because it's not a prohibition. It is less than a 25 vote of 7 -0. Gibson stated that language, if adopted, says that the people of Whatcom 26 County cannot adopt a higher number than what is presently set. That ties the hands of the 27 electorate in an inappropriate fashion, or it is purporting to limit what they can't limit, which 28 therefore becomes a nullity. 29 30 Browne stated his understanding is that this language was to make it clear to the 31 voters what was being proposed. If there is a conflict created by this amendment, which 32 the voters must approve, not the Council, and they approve one or two of the other 33 amendments, they could have conflict. The voters understand that this amendment is 34 saying that conflict is resolved by not requiring a higher number. Gibson stated that does 35 not resolve the conflict. 36 37 Gibson stated he understood that is the intent behind the request for the language. 38 He respects Ms. Frakes' statements about putting comments in the explanatory remarks. 39 Those comments could also include an explanation as to what the intent was on the part of 40 this proposal, which is that the intent is not to prevent future amendments being made. It's 41 simply to clarify the conflict with the other Charter amendments that are on this ballot. 42 Gibson stated there is an example from Tacoma in which contradictory ballot measures 43 were put to the voters. If it's a two -part conflict, one proposal on one side and a contrary 44 proposal on the other side, one could construct a ballot that would resolve that conflict. The 45 difficulty here is that there are two independent measures on one side, either or both of 46 which would be in conflict with one on the other side. He's struggling with the question of 47 why they would put on the ballot what is potentially ambiguous in terms of a voter outcome, 48 when the questions are being squarely presented to the voters anyway in another fashion. 49 50 Sidhu asked which would prevail if the Council doesn't put section 8.23 on the ballot 51 and voters elected to approve the 7 -0 amendment. Gibson stated there would be a 52 requirement of a 7 -0 in either or both of those two instances. 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 8 1 Sidhu asked how do they resolve the intent that both bodies should have the same 2 voting requirements, whether it's a supermajority or a unanimous vote. He wants the 3 outcome to be that the Charter Review Commission should be required to have a two - thirds 4 majority as a minimum and the County Council should have a minimum two - thirds majority. 5 He asked how they create that outcome. He asked what harm would happen if they leave 6 the proposed change to section 8.23. Gibson stated they must define the purpose of the 7 amendment to section 8.23. The question is whether they are simply asking if the voter 8 likes this proposal or the Charter Review Commission proposal better. If that's the purpose 9 of the ballot measure, there is a better way to ask that question. Reconciling language is 10 difficult because two issues on one side are independent of each other: one may pass, both 11 may pass, or neither may pass. That complicates the framing of the language for a voter. 12 If both are put forward and they both pass without reconciling language, there is a clear 13 conflict. If they don't put the amendment to section 8.23 forward, the voters either vote it 14 up or down. 15 16 Sidhu asked if Mr. Gibson has reconciling language now. Gibson stated he can't 17 come with language that reconciles three separate measures, two of which are independent, 18 but both of which would be incompatible with the third. 19 20 Sidhu stated he wants to ask the voters to simply choose between a two - thirds 21 requirement or a unanimous requirement. Gibson stated the Commission - proposed 22 propositions two and three ask that simple yes or no question. 23 24 Brenner stated the Charter Review Commission's proposal doesn't include a 25 unanimous requirement for the Commission. It's not the same. Gibson stated that if they 26 want to keep the County Council approval level at a supermajority, that question is placed 27 squarely to the voters under propositions two and three. 28 29 Weimer asked if the way to address this is to have campaigns against propositions 30 two and three if they don't want to require unanimous votes. Gibson stated that's correct. 31 32 Brenner stated she did not realize until recently that the Charter Review Commission 33 wasn't held to the same standard as the Council. Gibson stated that would occur if people 34 left section 8.23 as it is, and voted in favor of the Council's amendment to 8.21 to require a 35 two - thirds majority. There is a clear pathway to get where they want to go that doesn't 36 involve conflicting ballot measures. 37 38 Browne stated he understands that the ballot can include a third question that allows 39 voters to choose either path A or path B if they pass. If there is a conflict at the end of the 40 election, the Council has the ability to submit a ballot amendment asking the voters how to 41 resolve the conflict. That's his recommendation. Move forward with this. If they do end up 42 with a conflict after the election, they just submit another ballot amendment next year to 43 ask the voters to tell the County what to do. Gibson stated there is that recourse, but there 44 is a simpler and less expensive way than Councilmember Browne's suggestion. 45 46 Sidhu asked if the Council still has the authority with a supermajority to put the 47 question on the ballot next year, if the unanimous requirement passes this year. He asked 48 if it's true that the Council would have to have a unanimous vote to put the measure on 49 next year. Gibson stated that if the unanimous requirement vote passed this year, a 50 change to whatever was involved in the unanimous vote would need to be unanimous. If 51 the unanimous vote passes, a change to that would need to be unanimous. 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 9 1 Browne asked what happens if the supermajority passes as well and if they have the 2 ability to put the question back on the ballot to the voters to resolve the conflict if they all 3 pass. Gibson stated he hesitates to answer the question quickly. He thinks there is a 4 problem. If it requires a unanimous vote to propose an amendment, the question is 5 whether it requires a unanimous vote to reconcile a conflict. It probably does not. He 6 doesn't think the reconciliation of a conflict would be the same as being unanimous. 7 8 Sidhu stated the issue is that they cannot move on with uncertainty. Gibson stated 9 that if they all pass, there is a problem. They can't just make that go away. It would 10 somehow have to be dealt with. He suggests that they don't have to create a situation in 11 which that's the case. 12 13 Frakes stated it seems like they could change the language of the ballot title of this 14 one in order to make it clear that they are trying to bring the Charter Review Commission to 15 the same standard to which the County Council is held. It seems like they could rephrase 16 the ballot title to say, "The Whatcom County Council has proposed an amendment to the 17 Whatcom County Charter concerning equal standards to submit Charter amendments. This 18 measure would amend 8.21 of the Whatcom County Charter to require any amendment 19 proposed by the Charter Review Commission to have a supermajority vote of the 20 Commission, identical to the supermajority vote requirement for proposed amendments by 21 the County Council under section 8.23 of the County Charter." 22 23 Gibson stated he would agree. In placing an amendment like that before the voters, 24 they have the right to assume the language as it currently exists. 25 26 Weimer stated it deals with the supermajority of the commission, but not with the 27 unanimous requirement of the Council. 28 29 Browne stated he's still concerned. That proposal steers them well away from the 30 original concern of the constituents who brought this to the Council in the first place. If the 31 unanimous vote passes as well, the Council will be governed by a supermajority vote for all 32 things except two things that require a unanimous vote. The Charter Review Commission is 33 subject to a supermajority vote on all things, so there isn't an equal standard. The intent as 34 explained to him was a desire to have both the Charter Review Commission and the County 35 Council subject to the same rules for all decisions. If they make the amendment as 36 proposed, they will not have that. Gibson stated the voters can disagree with what they're 37 trying to do. The voters can agree with that, or disagree. They shouldn't tie the voters' 38 hands in a way that creates a conflict where none is necessary. 39 40 Browne stated the conflict is inherently unavoidable because of the very nature of 41 the Charter Review amendments being proposed by the Charter Review Commission. Those 42 amendments are designed to limit what the County Council is allowed to put on the ballot. 43 Gibson stated that's correct, and the voters can say either yea or nay. If they say nay, then 44 they get to where the Council wants. If they say yea, they are disagreeing with where the 45 Council wants to go, and they've signaled that by saying they want a higher threshold set. 46 The Council shouldn't try to create a situation where the voters can't give the County a clear 47 answer. 48 49 Browne stated the answer will be clear from the voters. If they support the 50 supermajority, they're saying they want the same rules for both bodies. That would be his 51 interpretation of a yes vote. Gibson stated the voters can say they want a supermajority for 52 the Charter Review Commission and, with regard to two limited instances, a unanimous 53 vote from the County Council in addition to the general supermajority. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 10 1 2 Browne stated they could say that, but that's not what the proponents of the ballot 3 initiative are asking. They're asking if the same rules should apply to both bodies in both 4 cases. Gibson stated he understands that's what the proponents are asking. The 5 proponents can get there by asking the voters the questions in the way they've discussed 6 tonight. 7 8 Browne stated it will be interesting because of the complexity and if the voters 9 understand the implications of those two votes, that will push the Council to having a 10 unanimous requirement versus a supermajority. He's come to think this is a good idea 11 because it makes it clear on one ballot initiative that the same rules would apply to both 12 bodies on all decisions. 13 14 Brenner stated some of the councilmembers are saying that they want the standards 15 to be equal. The language could say that the Charter Review Commission shall be held to 16 the same standard as the County Council regarding putting Charter Review ballot measures 17 on the ballot, regardless of how the unanimous requirement vote turns out. Gibson stated 18 they could frame such a question, but he doesn't think that's what everyone wants. 19 20 Brenner stated her concern is that she likes the equal standard. 21 22 Sidhu stated that was the intent of the people who brought this amendment to the 23 County Council. Both bodies should be held to the same standards. That's the simple 24 question they want to put to the voters. 25 26 Weimer stated he's not sure it's that clear. A number of people speaking at the 27 hearing tonight said they wanted the supermajority requirement for the Commission, not 28 that it would be equal in all instances. The Council should decide what it wants, and reopen 29 the public hearing to see whether they're close. Gibson stated he is not addressing the 30 question of a supermajority requirement for the Commission. He's simply concerned that 31 the Council not place something on the ballot that unnecessarily creates a conflict. 32 33 Weimer stated the question from Councilmember Browne is if there is a way to 34 change this language so it says the Commission will have the same requirements as the 35 Council, no matter what those requirements are. If the Council becomes required to have a 36 unanimous vote, the Commission would also be required to have a unanimous vote. 37 38 Browne stated he would hate to see that. It would be complete gridlock. 39 40 Weimer stated that's what Councilmember Browne was saying, that if they are going 41 to have agreement between the two rules and the voters elect to require a unanimous vote 42 of the Council, then it would have to be a unanimous vote of the Commission, also. 43 44 Browne stated he would hate to see a blanket statement that the same rules apply 45 to the Charter Review as the Council in all regards. If the unanimous requirement vote 46 passes, they'll have the unanimous vote required of the Commission, also, for those two 47 instances. If they end up with a conflict at the end of the election in November, the next 48 Council meeting after that is November 10. They could put a ballot initiative on there 49 asking the voters to resolve the conflict before the election results are certified on 50 November 24, and they don't go into effect either ten days or two weeks later. They would 51 be within the current rules to ask the voters to resolve this problem, if there is one, no 52 matter what the outcome of the election. Gibson stated it's not necessary to create a Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 11 1 conflict. The questions the Council is asking can be put squarely before the voters without 2 creating a conflict. 3 4 Browne stated he doesn't feel that the proposals Mr. Gibson has suggested so far 5 don't address that. They're silent on what happens with the Council, and speak only to 6 what happens with the Charter Review Commission. The request has been to have an 7 amendment on the ballot that says everyone plays by the same rules on all decisions. 8 Gibson stated that's not what he is saying. If they want everyone to play by the same 9 rules, they could end up with a unanimous requirement of the Charter Review Commission. 10 11 Browne stated the same rules would be the supermajority, just like the United States 12 Congress and the State Constitution. Gibson stated that in that case, he should campaign 13 for a vote against propositions two and three. 14 15 Browne stated that the proponents are asking why the County Council and the 16 Charter Review Commission aren't both subject to a supermajority in all decisions if it's 17 good enough for the Congress, good enough for the State, and good enough for the County 18 Council. Gibson stated the answer to that is to keep section 8.23 as it is, vote no on 19 propositions two and three, and vote yes on the Council proposal to require a 20 supermajority. That gets to the same place without the necessity of an additional election. 21 22 Frakes stated an additional election would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. If 23 they can avoid the conflict by phrasing the ballot question to the voters in a way that takes 24 care of the concerns, it makes sense. 25 26 Browne stated it wouldn't be an additional election. The rules require that it be done 27 in November at the same time they do the other election. It's not a special election. 28 29 Brenner stated people wanted two things to happen. One was to make the two 30 bodies equal. The other was to prevent he unanimous requirement from happening. Mr. 31 Gibson is saying that if they want to prevent the unanimous requirement from happening, 32 they must lobby for a no vote on those propositions. Her concern is that she would like the 33 two to be equal. She prefers two - thirds, but there are two issues reaardina_ this 34 amendment. One of the issues conflict with another amendment. The language about 35 being equal is important to her. 36 37 Kremen stated one of the main objectives, whatever they do, is to have clarity. It's 38 not good policy to put questions before the voters that the County Council doesn't even 39 understand. Anytime they deal with legal matters like this, it gets very complicated. He 40 would like to steer clear of the mindset that the Council and Commission have to be equal 41 and it's one versus the other. It should be a matter of consistency. They need to be 42 consistent. In this particular cycle, the conservatives have prevailed at the Charter Review 43 Commission, but it's been the other way as well. Try to steer clear of that approach and 44 develop consistency. He doesn't know how to move forward. If they are going to put ballot 45 measures forward to voters, he hopes it's done in a way that the results are informed and 46 based on knowledge, not just hearsay. The ballot measure should state the result clearly. 47 48 Weimer stated he likes the idea from Ms. Frakes to redraft the ballot title to address 49 the supermajority of the Commission, delete the last phrase in section 8.21 as Mr. Gibson 50 suggested, and leave section 8.23 as it is. 51 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 12 1 Brenner stated it's not about one versus the other for her, it's about having equal 2 standards. She's more interested in the supermajority requirement than the unanimous 3 requirement, but don't intentionally do anything that may be more confusing. 4 5 Sidhu stated he likes being consistent. This decision is not for this Council or this 6 Charter Review Commission. This is for all future councils and commissions. The intent is 7 consistency. The intent of the people who brought this forward is that they would like 8 consistency. They need to achieve that. 9 10 Browne submitted a Whatcom County Council motion form to amend the ballot title, 11 "The Whatcom County Council has proposed an amendment to the Whatcom County Charter 12 concerning equal standards to submit Charter amendments. This measure would amend 13 8.21 and 8.23 of the Whatcom County Charter to require any amendment proposed by the 14 County Council or the Charter Review Commission to have a supermajority vote of the 15 Commission or Council, refflent fef °- higher - numbeF and Charter Review 16 Commission Propositions 2 and 3 would not apply." If a person votes for this amendment, 17 he or she is voting for a supermajority requirement for both bodies and indicating they feel 18 stronger about this than the two unanimous requirement votes. Gibson stated it is a 19 potential way of resolving the conflict. It clearly signals to people that propositions 2 and 3 20 are incompatible with this ballot measure. He asked what happens if a majority of people 21 voted for this and also for propositions 2 and 3. 22 23 Browne stated conflicting amendments have come before voters before, and there's 24 a process for resolving them. Gibson stated that in that instance, additional lawyers outside 25 the Prosecutor's Office would get involved. 26 27 Kremen stated calling in more lawyers is not what they need. There could be some 28 language written into the Charter that indicates this measure, if it were to pass, would 29 nullify propositions 2 and 3 if they were to pass. Gibson stated propositions 2 and 3 could 30 say the same thing, on the other side. If they were to pass, it would nullify this proposal. 31 He will consider whether that's feasible. 32 33 Weimer stated they need to come up with this language this evening. 34 35 Brenner asked if there could be language in all the measures that says a person can 36 only vote for one option. It wouldn't be fair if the Council added a clause to the 37 Commission's proposal once the Commission's work is done. Gibson stated he and Ms. 38 Frakes agree they could present that in an explanatory statement. A vote for proposition 39 two, for example, would be a vote against the Council proposition. On the other side, a 40 vote for the Council proposition would effectively be against proposition two. Then the 41 question is whether they want that information in the ballot language itself. He is uneasy 42 about it because it dictates to people how they must vote somewhere else. It's 43 explanatory. It's not binding. 44 45 Debbie Adelstein, County Auditor, stated that's the purpose of the voter's pamphlet. 46 It will include the explanatory statement, a pro statement, and a con statement, and 47 rebuttals. The ballot title only has a small amount of space. They probably can't get all 48 they're hoping to get into the ballot title. Let the voter's pamphlet be there for that 49 information. Everyone will receive a voter's pamphlet. The question is whether they will 50 read it. On complicated issues like this, they have to trust the voters to go to the voter's 51 pamphlet if they don't understand it. 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 13 1 Kremen asked if the voter's pamphlet remedy would be adequate and would be used 2 successfully in the event of a challenge. Gibson stated it would not. If a conflict emerges 3 from a voting result, they've done their best to inform the voters, and the voters have gone 4 ahead and done what they're going to do anyway. 5 6 Kremen stated the ballot measure itself must state that passage of this measure is a 7 no vote on the others, or similar language. Gibson stated they're left with the same 8 problem. The problem is that the statement is in both places, and the voters may say they 9 don't care and vote in favor for both even though they're incompatible. He doesn't expect 10 that to actually happen. 11 12 Kremen stated don't put the statement on both propositions. Put it on one 13 proposition. The Council isn't in a position tonight to put something forward, unless it just 14 puts something forward on the ballot and lets the challenge happen. Gibson stated that 15 would be contrary to his advice. 16 17 Browne stated he's not enthusiastic about paying for lawyers. He restated his 18 suggestion to amend the ballot title, "The Whatcom County Council has proposed an 19 amendment to the Whatcom County Charter concerning equal standards to submit Charter 20 amendments. This measure would amend 8.21 and 8.23 of the Whatcom County Charter to 21 require any amendment proposed by the County Council or the Charter Review Commission 22 to have a supermajority vote of the Commission or Council; wit: m-eFi 23 higheF numbeF and Charter Review Commission Propositions 2 and 3 would not apply." 24 This makes it clear to the voters what they're being asked to vote on. If there's a challenge 25 afterwards or there is a conflict on the ballot, put a request to the voters to resolve this 26 during the next election, which won't cost thousands of dollars. The State allows competing 27 initiatives when they know there will be a conflict if both pass. Gibson stated it does. In 28 the case of gun control, it turned out not to be. One can purposely place conflicting matters 29 on the ballot in the hope it will not yield a lawyer's feast. 30 31 Browne stated they can purposely place it on the ballot because they think it's 32 necessary to reflect the desires of the people to have those questions put to the people. 33 Gibson stated that ultimately, he counsels what he thinks makes the most sense from the 34 standpoint of simplicity and avoidance of conflict. That's advice. They can follow it or not. 35 36 Browne stated his proposal to change the language would resolve Mr. Gibson's 37 concern about the prohibitions put on future amendments. Gibson stated that's correct. 38 39 Weimer stated they have options. One option is to vote on it the way it is. Another 40 option is to incorporate suggestions from Mr. Gibson and Ms. Frakes. A third option is 41 Councilmember Browne's suggestion to put language in the ballot title making it clear that 42 propositions two and three won't apply if it passes. 43 44 Brenner stated it would be less clear and more confusing to say that propositions 45 don't apply if a voter chooses this option. The desire is to make sure that the requirement 46 stays at a supermajority, but that option isn't clear. She supports Councilmember Weimer's 47 suggestion to remove the language about no requirement for a higher number. 48 49 Browne stated his amendment removes that language. He proposes adding 50 language just to the ballot title about resolving the conflict. 51 52 Kremen stated he prefers to move forward with the suggestions from Mr. Gibson and 53 incorporating language suggested by Councilmember Browne. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 14 1 2 Sidhu stated he agrees with the same. It's time to hear from the people. 3 4 Weimer reopened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: 5 6 Ray Baribeau stated the committee that designed this work is over, so another 7 committee is trying to patch the work of the first committee. The Commission and the 8 Council can both propose amendments to the voters. Overriding a voter - approved 9 amendment would require a 7 -0 vote of the Council. That does not apply to the 10 Commission, because they are defunct by the time the Charter amendment is approved. It 11 seems they're trying to defeat the unanimous over -ride requirement. 12 13 John Chadwick stated the Council has the constitutional right to propose 14 amendments to the voters. The proposed amendment is that the Charter Review 15 Commission should have the same supermajority requirement as the Council. The voters 16 should decide if the Charter Review Commission should also be required to have a 17 supermajority to propose amendments. Proposed amendments are illegal, because they 18 take away the voters right to decide on an amendment. 19 20 Sandy Robson stated the conservative majority of the Charter Review Commission 21 proposed two amendments that are probably unconstitutional. The intent of that majority 22 was to eliminate or severely prohibit the County Council's right to propose Charter 23 amendments to the voters. Now the Commission is blocking the Council's ability to do 24 something. She understands there may be legal consequences, but put the question to the 25 voters and deal with the consequences after the election. Don't make decisions based on 26 what might or might not happen. It seems the Council is handcuffed before the vote is 27 taken. 28 29 Dan McShane stated he senses that the goal is for a uniform supermajority 30 requirement of both the Council and the Charter Review Commission. When the 31 Commission initially tried to restrict the Council's ability to bring forward amendments in a 32 couple of circumstances, it proved to be illegal according to the State Constitution. The 33 Commission's solution was to keep it constitutional, but require a unanimous Council vote. 34 There was never any discussion about what could result from that situation. It's not a good 35 idea to not allow the Council to suggest a Charter amendment. Try to follow a model they 36 attempted in Tacoma. It's okay to present the conflict to the voters in a way that they see 37 there is a conflict, and hopefully they can make the right choice. 38 39 Lisa McShane stated what is before the Council is legal, and their goals are to set up 40 a level playing field. No constitutional amendments in the United States require a 41 unanimous vote. Seek an attorney general opinion on propositions two and three to find 42 out if they're legal. It's okay to have a conflict on the ballot. Don't constrain the Council's 43 actions based on what might happen. Consider whether it's legal and appropriate. If so, 44 put it to the voters. Keep the language in section 8.23, which aligns the two sections. 45 Move forward. 46 47 Matt Petryni stated there isn't a conflict now, and there won't be a conflict if the 48 Council decides to put this measure forward, because the Council has not yet decided to 49 forward the Charter Review Commission's proposed amendments to the ballot. As of this 50 moment, there are no proposed amendments on the ballot besides the five fair and equal 51 districts proposal. If there is a conflict, it can be resolved in other ways. The Council has 52 the exclusive authority to decide whether or not to put the question to the voters and Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 15 1 whether or not to create a conflict on the ballot. The legality of two Commission 2 amendments is in question. Suggest a full review of those amendments. 3 4 Deidre Phillips stated it's important that this amendment be on the ballot. If there is 5 a conflict, there will be more conversation about it. Put this on the ballot. 6 7 Karl Uppiano stated there is not a serious conflict among the three amendments. 8 Propositions two and three are offensive to many people. Rather than try to link them to 9 the Council's amendment proposal, it would be better to just put forward the Council 10 proposal to require a supermajority. Let the voters decide on all proposals. Even if the 11 voters approved all three, it wouldn't create a conflict if there is no artificial link among 12 them. Propositions two and three were about whether the Council has the ability to propose 13 an override of a decision made by two - thirds of the voters or to propose an amendment that 14 would change the way the councilmembers are elected. Making both bodies have a similar 15 requirement could be justified and still allow propositions two and three to be approved. 16 17 Greg Brown stated the County's legal counsel said that what the Commission is doing 18 is correct. He does not support the Council's proposal. The only conflict comes from the 19 Council's proposal. Leave the Charter amendments the way they are and let the voters 20 decide. Don't micromanage the Charter Review Commission. 21 22 Chet Dow stated this measure will confuse the voters. There are already two 23 propositions on the ballot that the voters will decide on. The Charter Review Commission 24 doesn't make law. Have a vote to find out what the voters think. Regarding propositions 25 two and three, they are limited in their application, compared to tonight's discussion. 26 Proposition two is about anything the voters passed with a two - thirds majority of the votes. 27 That doesn't happen often. Proposition three is even more narrowly applied. It's about how 28 the councilmembers get elected. 29 30 Jon Mutchler stated the Council is compelled to submit the Commission - proposed 31 amendments to the voters, according to the Charter. Don't send this amendment to the 32 voters. The Council is reacting against the Commission's work. There will never be balance 33 between the Commission and Council, because the Commission can't raise taxes, enact 34 ordinances, or vote on resolutions. The Commission meets every ten years, and the Council 35 meets monthly. They will never be equal. Taking away the simple majority requirement is 36 insulting. Some of the better bipartisan amendments would not have passed by a 37 supermajority. Requiring a supermajority of the Commission would make it impossible to 38 bring forward interesting proposals. The next Commission meets in 10 years. The Council 39 could pass this ordinance the week after the election in November. Passing it now will 40 confuse the voters. 41 42 Max Perry stated he agrees with Mr. Mutchler. The Council doesn't have to do this 43 tonight. They have ten years to do it. 44 45 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. 46 47 Weimer asked if the Council is authorized to not forward Commission - proposed 48 amendments to the voters. 49 50 Gibson stated section 8.21 of the Charter requires the Council to submit 51 Commission - proposed amendments to the voters. 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 16 , Brenner asked why the proposals come to the Council. Gibson stated it's probably a function of the State Constitution, Article 11, Section 4. In Whatcom County, the original freeholders proposed a Charter that provided three avenues for amendments: the public, the Charter Review Commission, and the legislative authority. The Constitution funnels those proposals through the legislative authority, and the Charter makes it essentially an administrative task. Brenner asked if it would be unconstitutional if the Commission - proposed amendments went straight to the Auditor, bypassing the Council. Gibson stated the Constitution requires that it be through the legislative authority. Weimer stated there is confusion because the Constitution says only the Council can send proposal to the voters, but the Charter seems to supersede the Constitution, because it requires the Council to send the amendments to the voters. Gibson stated the Charter tells them how to apply the Constitution. Kremen stated it's just a formality. Gibson stated it's simply something the Council is charged with doing, and they can protest because they don't like it, but they have to do it anyway. Browne moved to amend sections 8.21 and 8.23 to remove the language, "...County Council an4-n-o a-n-�rent will s"°" . Also amend the ballot title, "...the Commission or Council, bef and Charter Review Commission propositions 2 and 3 would not apply." The motion was seconded. Kremen stated he is not comfortable with the term "would not apply." Gibson stated they could use the word "supersede." Weimer stated they need to make the amendments one at a time. Browne amended his motion to amend sections 8.21 and 8.23 to delete the language, "...County Council and aFnendme-k -wil 1 shall requiFe a higl9eF number." The motion was seconded. The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) Nays: None (0) Absent: Mann (1) Browne moved to amend the ballot title language, '...the Commission or Council, with no Peequ;-eirnent for a higher n be-r and Charter Review Commission propositions 2 and 3 would fail." The motion was seconded. Brenner stated she can't support the motion. It crosses the line. The Council would be doing to the Commission what some of them felt the Commission did to the Council. It's not right to add a clause that negates the Commission proposals after the fact. She would support Mr. Gibson's language or putting it on the ballot exactly as it is. She doesn't support adding the clause to nullify the Charter Review Commission's proposals. Kremen stated the amendment would make the requirements equal of both the Council and the Commission. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 17 1 2 Brenner stated how it's being done bothers her. Consistent is equal. Whatever they 3 did, it would be equal for both. Mr. Gibson's language would do that, but it wouldn't negate 4 propositions two and three. 5 6 Kremen stated the word "supersede" gives voters the ability to vote for propositions 7 two and three, but it lets the voters know that this particular measure would supersede 8 them. 9 10 Brenner stated they can use that language on propositions two or three. The Council 11 has an advantage, because it is the last one to discussion the language. She doesn't like 12 that. That language makes it not equal. 13 14 Gibson asked if the intent is that the two - thirds requirement for the Charter Review 15 Commission stands or falls with the victory or defeat of propositions two and three, or are 16 they separable. 17 18 Browne stated the intent and request was that in all matters of both the Charter 19 Review Commission and the Council, there be the same voting requirements. The question 20 is muddied because the Commission wants the Council to have a higher standard on certain 21 issues. If the Charter Review Commission hadn't put them through, there wouldn't be a 22 conflict. This amendment is about saying what happens is equal for both bodies. He 23 proposes keeping it all together, as presented to the Council by the proponents, and is 24 trying to resolve the conflict by making it clear to the voters that this is intended to 25 supersede the unanimous requirement vote if it passes. The only way to have equal 26 treatment for both bodies is to supersede propositions two and there. Otherwise, there 27 would still be different rules for the Charter Review Commission. 28 29 Sidhu stated the voters will have a clear picture of what they're trying to do if this 30 amendment is approved. If they leave everything as it is, it will be more confusing. 31 32 Kremen stated keep the amendments connected, because consistency is their intent, 33 regardless of the results. Don't make it more complicated. This is more about principle 34 than about political views. The standard should be no higher or no lower for either body. 35 The Council must put forward the Commission's proposal. The Council may also give the 36 voters an alternative. The unanimous requirement is un- American. One part -time Council 37 member would have more power than the other six councilmembers and the County 38 Executive, who can only veto ordinances, which can be over - ridden. It's wrong to give one 39 councilmember veto power. That's why they have seven councilmembers. 40 41 Brenner stated she agrees it's bad policy, but according to the attorney, it's legal. 42 She hopes it is challenged. All the Commission's amendments are supposed to be put on 43 the ballot without the Council adding language that negates someone else's proposal. She 44 agrees that she doesn't like the unanimous requirement. 45 46 Kremen stated the Council is offering all the amendments to the voters. 47 48 Brenner stated the Council is getting the last word on the Commission's proposals, 49 which doesn't seem right. 50 51 Browne restated his motion to amend the ballot title language, "...the Commission 52 or Council, with M Fe emer4—fe.F—a---h1qher Rufftbef. This would supersede ballot 53 propositions 2 and 3." The motion was seconded. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 18 Weimer suggested a friendly amendment to amend the ballot title language, "...the Commission or Council, —with . If passed, this amendment would supersede ballot propositions 2 and 3." Browne accepted the friendly amendment. The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5) Nays: Brenner (1) Absent: Mann (1) The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5) Nays: Brenner (1) Absent: Mann (1) OTHER ITEMS 9. RECEIPT AND FORWARDING OF WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY VOTERS (AB2015 -219) Browne moved to receive the proposed amendments and forward to the County Auditor. The motion was seconded. Brenner asked if propositions two and three are about the same thing. Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated they address two separate situations. One of them involves a situation in which there is two - thirds majority approval of any Charter amendment, regardless of the subject matter. The other is strictly limited to changes to sections 2.12 and 2.13, regardless of the level of majority approval. They are not in conflict with each other. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) Nays: None (0) Absent: Mann (1) OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: • Matt Petryni spoke about asking for a State attorney general opinion on questions surrounding the Charter Review Commission process and certain ballot measures being put forward to the voters. • Carol Perry spoke on the Charter Review Commission process. • Karl Uppiano spoke on the Charter Review Commission process. • Jon Mutchler spoke on the Ferndale Old Settler's Association Festival this weekend. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 19 1 2 CONSENT AGENDA 3 4 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 5 moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through five. 6 7 The motion carried by the following vote: 8 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 9 Nays: None (0) 10 Absent: Mann (1) 11 12 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN TO A 13 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NATIONAL 14 ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS (NAMI) FOR INCREASED FUNDING TO 15 CONSTRUCT A NEW WEB -BASED DIRECTORY OF MENTAL HEALTH 16 PROVIDERS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3000 (AB2015- 17 227) 18 19 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #15 -54 20 FOR THE SUPPLY OF RUBBER MOLDED STEEL APRON FLAPS FOR THE LUMMI 21 ISLAND FERRY TERMINAL TO THE RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SCOUGAL RUBBER 22 CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,603.60 (AB2015 -228) 23 24 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 25 INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 26 SKAGIT COUNTY FOR A NURSE - FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM NURSE 27 SUPERVISOR, IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB2015 -229) 28 29 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ALLOW PUBLIC 30 WORKS TO PURCHASE FLEET VEHICLE PARTS USING WASHINGTON STATE 31 CONTRACT #01809 FROM VENDORS AUTOZONE, GENERAL PARTS, GENUINE 32 AUTO PARTS (DBA NAPA), PARTS WHOLESALERS, AND SEATTLE 33 AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTING, FOR A TOTAL EXPENDITURE NOT TO EXCEED 34 $80,000 (AB2015 -230) 35 36 5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 37 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 38 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 231 CORRECTIONS DEPUTIES AND SERGEANTS 39 BARGAINING UNIT (AB2015 -231) 40 41 42 OTHER ITEMS 43 44 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 45 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 46 ZONE DISTRICT AND TETRA TECH INC. TO COMPLETE BIRCH POINT, 47 TERRELL CREEK URBAN AREA, AND POINT WHITEHORN SUBWATERSHED 48 MASTER PLANNING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $174,227 (AB2015 -221) 49 50 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 51 Supervisors.) 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 20 1 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 2 moved to approve the request. 3 4 The motion carried by the following vote: 5 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 6 Nays: None (0) 7 Absent: Mann (1) 8 9 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 10 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 11 ZONE DISTRICT AND BERTRAND WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 12 DE BOER LEVEE REPAIR AND CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE 13 AMOUNT OF $10,000 (AB2015 -222) 14 15 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 16 Supervisors.) 17 18 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 19 moved to approve the request. 20 21 The motion carried by the following vote: 22 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 23 Nays: None (0) 24 Absent: Mann (1) 25 26 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 27 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 28 ZONE DISTRICT AND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #1 FOR DE BOER LEVEE 29 REPAIR AND CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 30 (AB2015 -223) 31 32 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 33 Supervisors.) 34 35 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 36 moved to approve the request. 37 38 The motion carried by the following vote: 39 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 40 Nays: None (0) 41 Absent: Mann (1) 42 43 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN 44 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 45 ZONE DISTRICT AND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT #4 FOR DE BOER LEVEE 46 REPAIR AND CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 47 (AB2015 -224) 48 49 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 50 Supervisors.) 51 52 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 53 moved to approve the request. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 21 1 2 The motion carried by the following vote: 3 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 4 Nays: None (0) 5 Absent: Mann (1) 6 7 5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #15 -53 8 TO LOW BIDDER, CARMAN'S CONSTRUCTION LLC, FOR THE DE BOER 9 CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,858.57 (AB2015- 10 225) 11 12 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 13 Supervisors.) 14 15 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 16 moved to approve the request. 17 18 The motion carried by the following vote: 19 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 20 Nays: None (0) 21 Absent: Mann (1) 22 23 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 24 JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD 25 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) AND THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL 26 SURVEY FOR FUNDING TOWARDS A STUDY TO EVALUATE THE NOOKSACK 27 RIVER'S GEOMORPHIC RESPONSE TO SEDIMENT LOADS TO HELP MANAGE 28 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE ISSUES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $442,500 TOTAL, 29 WITH THE WCFCZD SHARE OF $265,500 (AB2015 -226) 30 31 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 32 Supervisors.) 33 34 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 35 moved to approve the request. 36 37 The motion carried by the following vote: 38 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 39 Nays: None (0) 40 Absent: Mann (1) 41 42 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH 43 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,713 (AB2015 -215) 44 45 Browne reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and 46 moved to approve the request. 47 48 The motion carried by the following vote: 49 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 50 Nays: None (0) 51 Absent: Mann (1) 52 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 22 1 8. REQUEST APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH VAN NESS FELDMAN, 2 LLC, FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT 3 HEARINGS BOARD CASE NUMBER 12 -2 -0013, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000, 4 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $160,000 (AB2014 -136C) 5 6 Weimer reported for the Committee of the Whole and moved to approve the 7 request. 8 9 The motion carried by the following vote: 10 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, and Kremen (5) 11 Nays: Weimer (1) 12 Absent: Mann (1) 13 14 10. APPOINTMENT OF PRO AND CON STATEMENT COMMITTEES TO WRITE 15 STATEMENTS FOR THE LOCAL VOTER'S PAMPHLET ON CHARTER 16 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW 17 COMMISSIONS (AB2015 -219A) 18 19 Browne moved to nominate all who applied for all the pro and con statement 20 committees. The motion was seconded. 21 22 The motion carried by the following vote: 23 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 24 Nays: None (0) 25 Absent: Mann (1) 26 27 Brenner moved to accept the applications that were submitted after the deadline. 28 The motion was seconded. 29 30 The motion carried by the following vote: 31 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 32 Nays: None (0) 33 Absent: Mann (1) 34 35 (Clerk's Note: See the attached voting sheet for a record of the votes.) 36 37 Charter Review Commission Proposition 1 38 39 The Council appointed Joe Elenbaas, Eileen Sobjack, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 40 statement committee. 41 42 The Council appointed Pat Alesse, Rebeca Boonstra, and Max Bronsema to the con 43 statement committee. 44 45 Charter Review Commission Proposition 2 46 47 The Council appointed Ben Elenbaas, Delaine Clizbe, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 48 statement committee. 49 50 The Council appointed Richard May, Alie Walker, and Roxanne Murphy to the con 51 statement committee. 52 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 23 1 Charter Review Commission Proposition 3 2 3 The Council appointed Chet Dow, Delaine Clizbe, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 4 statement committee. 5 6 The Council appointed Tom Stuen, Iris Maute- Gibson, and April Barker to the con 7 statement committee. 8 9 Charter Review Commission Proposition 4 10 11 The Council appointed Joe Elenbaas, Todd Donovan, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 12 statement committee. 13 14 There were no applicants for the con statement committee. 15 16 Charter Review Commission Proposition 5 17 18 The Council appointed Todd Donovan, Jon Mutchler, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 19 statement committee. 20 21 The Council appointed Barbara Ryan to the con statement committee. 22 23 Charter Review Commission Proposition 6 24 25 The Council appointed Todd Donovan, Jon Mutchler, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 26 statement committee. 27 28 There were no applicants for the con statement committee. 29 30 Charter Review Commission Proposition 7 31 32 The Council appointed Ken Bell, Eli Mackiewicz, and Karl Uppiano to the pro 33 statement committee. 34 35 The Council appointed Tom Stuen and Dan Raas to the con statement committee. 36 37 Charter Review Commission Proposition 8 38 39 The Council appointed Todd Donovan, Eli Mackiewicz and Karl Uppiano to the pro 40 statement committee. 41 42 There were no applicants for the con statement committee. 43 44 11. APPOINTMENT OF PRO AND CON STATEMENT COMMITTEES TO WRITE 45 STATEMENTS FOR THE LOCAL VOTER'S PAMPHLET ON CHARTER 46 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2015- 47 236) 48 49 (Clerk's Note: See Other Item #10 for nominations and the attached voting sheet for 50 a record of the votes.) 51 52 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 24 1 County Council Proposition 9 2 3 The Council appointed Tim Douglas, Dave Finet, and Dorie Belisle to the pro 4 statement committee. 5 6 The Council appointed Delaine Clizbe, David McCluskey, and Kris Halterman to the 7 con statement committee. 8 9 County Council Proposition 10 10 11 The Council appointed Barbara Ryan, Rebecca Boonstra, and Darrell Hillaire to the 12 pro statement committee. 13 14 The Council appointed Delaine Clizbe and David McCluskey to the con statement 15 committee. 16 17 12. APPOINTMENT OF PRO AND CON STATEMENT COMMITTEES TO WRITE 18 STATEMENTS FOR THE LOCAL VOTER'S PAMPHLET ON THE BALLOT 19 PROPOSITION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO FIX AND IMPOSE A 20 LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX OF TWO- TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (20 CENTS 21 FOR EVERY $100) TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 22 FINANCING, DESIGN, ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPING, 23 OPERATING, MAINTAINING, REMODELING, REPAIRING, RE- EQUIPPING, 24 AND IMPROVEMENTS OF JAIL FACILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY 25 PURPOSES (AB2015 -047Q) 26 27 (Clerk's Note: See Other Item #10 for nominations and the attached voting sheet for 28 a record of the votes.) 29 30 The Council appointed Ray Baribeau, Susan McClendon, and Pat Brown to the pro 31 statement committee. 32 33 The Council appointed Doug Starcher, Pat Alesse, and Dan McShane to the con 34 statement committee. 35 36 37 INTRODUCTION ITEMS 38 39 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2015 -025, WHICH CREATED A 40 WHATCOM COUNTY INCARCERATION PREVENTION AND REDUCTION 41 TASK FORCE INTENDED TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS, 42 OVERSIGHT, AND SPECIFIC TIMEFRAMES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 43 NEW, OR ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING, PROGRAMS DESIGNED ALONG 44 A CONTINUUM THAT EFFECTIVELY REDUCES INCARCERATION OF 45 INDIVIDUALS STRUGGLING WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND CHEMICAL 46 DEPENDENCY, AND MINIMIZES JAIL UTILIZATION BY PRETRIAL 47 DEFENDANTS WHO CAN SAFELY BE RELEASED (AB2015 -047P) 48 49 Browne submitted the ordinance with proposed amendments (on file). 50 51 Weimer referenced Councilmember Browne's amendment to the last Be It Further 52 Ordained statement, eighth bullet item, and asked about added language that the Cities will 53 reimburse the County for additional costs in the interlocal agreements. That seems to Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 25 1 conflict with the beginning of the Be It Further Ordained Statement, which indicates there 2 will be no additional cost to the Cities. 3 4 Browne stated one challenge he had with this agreement was about giving the Task 5 Force the ability to direct what the Council does. It needed to be returned back to the 6 Council. He didn't like the statement at the top of the section, and addressed it in the bullet 7 item by saying any new interlocal agreements would require a discussion about the Cities 8 paying the costs for the benefits the County provides. 9 10 Brenner stated the difference is between what the County has already committed to 11 and any new interlocal agreements. They don't conflict. 12 13 Kremen stated the Executive's proposal looks pretty good. He appreciates the work 14 Councilmember Browne did, but is concerned about the interlocal agreement with the rest 15 of the Cities. It runs the risk of upsetting the process this late. It may require a re- 16 visitation by all the Cities, which isn't wise at this juncture. He asked why Councilmember 17 Browne wasn't comfortable with the Executive's proposal. 18 19 Browne stated the original changes they looked at were about the statement that the 20 County is going to guarantee that it will provide these services ahead of knowing whether 21 the County has the money to do so. 22 23 Brenner stated she likes the intent, but agrees with Councilmember Kremen that it 24 may cause the small Cities to react. Adding the language may stop the process. This is the 25 County's decision. The County is not imposing what it has already committed to on the 26 small Cities. 27 28 Browne stated the language added by the Executive and Mayor has an open -ended 29 commitment on the County's part to pay costs without knowing the revenue stream and 30 without the Cities, who would benefit, from picking up any share of it. He doesn't like that, 31 in principle. 32 33 Weimer stated they think they resolved that problem of committing to services in the 34 seventh bullet item, which says they will only use existing funds and potential new funds as 35 determined available. It's not wide open so that the County would have to pay for anything 36 they put on the list. It only has to be within existing funds. The County isn't obligated to 37 spend more than what it already has. He senses that trying to open the interlocal 38 agreements to charge the Cities will be a deal - killer for the City of Bellingham. 39 40 Weimer stated they will work through the ordinance as presented to the Council by 41 the Executive and vote on the suggested amendments from Councilmember Browne. 42 43 Buchanan moved to amend the first Be It Further Ordained statement, item six, 44 "Provide doreetweig recommendations to the County for enhancements...." The motion was 45 seconded. 46 47 The motion to amend carried by the following vote: 48 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 49 Nays: None (0) 50 Absent: Mann (1) 51 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 26 1 Kremen moved to amend the seventh bullet item in the last Be It Further Ordained 2 statement, "- Imme+d4ately As soon as reasonably possible; expand available alternatives...." 3 The motion was seconded. 4 5 The motion to amend carried by the following vote: 6 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 7 Nays: None (0) 8 Absent: Mann (1) 9 10 Brenner moved to amend the seventh bullet item in the last Be It Further Ordained 11 statement, "...and other available programs as damned- alapfopfiate recommended by the 12 Task Force and approved by the County Council by November 2016...." The motion was 13 seconded. 14 15 The motion to amend carried by the following vote: 16 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 17 Nays: None (0) 18 Absent: Mann (1) 19 20 Browne moved to amend the seventh bullet item in the last Be It Further Ordained 21 statement, "...potential new funds as determined available by the County Council Upen after 22 passage of a sales tax ballot measure." The motion was seconded. 23 24 The motion to amend carried by the following vote: 25 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 26 Nays: None (0) 27 Absent: Mann (1) 28 29 Browne moved to amend strike language from the beginning of the last Be It 30 Further Ordained statement, "...Task Forcer —w 31 &�g 32 en july 7, 2015." He will not include his suggested language to the eighth bullet item. The 33 motion was seconded. 34 35 Brenner stated she's concerned about removing that language. The small Cities may 36 have a problem. The Executive couldn't get any commitments from the small Cities on the 37 diversion effort. 38 39 Weimer stated he is also against the motion. There was enough discussion between 40 the Executive and Mayor Linville. The Mayor really wants that language in the ordinance. 41 The Executive added language to limit expenses to be within existing funds. 42 43 The motion to amend failed by the following vote: 44 Ayes: Browne (1) 45 Nays: Brenner, Sidhu, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (5) 46 Absent: Mann (1) 47 48 Browne stated the County is obligated to provide certain services, such as Health 49 Department Services. The formulas for that are already set and may be provided to the 50 Cities for free. That's fine. They are going to introduce services, which the County isn't 51 legally required to provide. The County is going to agree to take on the cost. The benefits 52 are going to the small Cities. He's simply asking to give some of the benefit back in the 53 form of a cost share. If successful, the Cities' demand for jail space will drop, so their per Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 27 1 diem rate will drop, which will increase the cost to the County, because the utilization has 2 gone down. He's still concerned the County could end up picking up costs unnecessarily. 3 4 Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Browne. However, at this late hour 5 and after they've reached an agreement with all the cities except Bellingham, they can't 6 have it all. The timing is not right. They can always change. The Cities are part of 7 Whatcom County. Every person who resides in all the cities are also Whatcom County 8 constituents. That's a majority of the people who live in Whatcom county. There is 9 potential of derailing something for which they already have an agreement. 10 11 Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Kremen. The Council is not agreeing 12 to this ordinance this evening. This is just for Introduction. The City Council will also 13 discuss it, and the County Council will find out if the City Council agrees to it. This is a way 14 to get them in on the jail agreement, which is a huge accomplishment. Since it's tied to 15 existing money, they will have to have a discussion about how to pay for anything new. 16 17 Browne stated the County already has an agreement with the small Cities. The City 18 of Bellingham is asking the County to make changes at the eleventh hour. The timing is not 19 driven by the Council. This is being driven by the City of Bellingham. He got elected, in 20 part, because of his business experience. His business experience tells him that he must 21 always match the sources of revenues with whatever costs he's incurring. He's very 22 reluctant, as a business person, to take on costs for someone else if he doesn't know if they 23 are going to share or reimburse those costs. He's worried about creating a blank check to 24 take on all these costs and give the benefits to the Cities for free. If the County doesn't 25 have adequate funds, they may have to take the money from general revenue. That starts 26 to impact the other services the County provides to everyone else in the county. 27 28 Kremen asked if Councilmember Browne's suggested language will only be applicable 29 to the City of Bellingham. 30 31 Browne stated it will not. 32 33 Kremen asked if it is fair to assume there is potential problem with the small Cities. 34 He asked if it does or does not affect the small Cities. 35 36 Browne stated it only affects the small Cities if they sign on to the diversion 37 programs that the County is doing. If the small Cities sign on to those diversion 38 agreements, then the understanding is that they are going to share in some of the cost, 39 because they're getting the benefits. 40 41 Brenner moved to amend the eighth bullet item in the last Be It Further Ordained 42 statement, "...with this ordinance. Any interlocal agreements shall include formulas 43 whereby the Signator Cities shall reimburse the County for the Signator Cities' share of the 44 cost of any additional services that have provided additional benefits to the Signator Cities." 45 The motion was seconded. 46 47 Brenner asked if the small Cities could interpret this to mean that this goes with the 48 jail facility use agreement. 49 50 Kremen stated it only applies to the diversion programs. 51 52 Sidhu stated people may confuse the word "interlocal" in the motion to refer to the 53 jail facility use interlocal agreements. He suggested a friendly amendment to remove Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 28 1 the word "interlocal." It is referring to new programs or an expansion of the current 2 programs. 3 4 Browne accepted the friendly amendment. The friendly amendment was 5 seconded. 6 7 Weimer stated he will vote against the motion. He still doesn't understand how it 8 goes with the section heading language that says everything will be free, while this says the 9 County will be reimbursed. 10 11 Sidhu stated it gives the Executive what he wants in his negotiations with the City. 12 This language suggests that a future Council has the right to ask for a cost share for any 13 new future programs. They can negotiate the formula. The language allows the 14 conversation about cost - sharing to happen. Without the language, there will be no chance 15 of any conversation about cost- sharing. The Cities could easily say they won't pay 16 anything. 17 18 Weimer stated he senses that Bellingham will say no to this with that language in 19 there. 20 21 Kremen stated the Executive and Council have taken the City's requests seriously, 22 tried to address them, and tried to incorporate them as much as reasonably possible. The 23 County has made a big effort to accommodate the City of Bellingham, as it should. If this 24 measure will get countywide voter approval, it has a better chance if Bellingham agrees. 25 26 Weimer restated the motion, to amend the eighth bullet item in the last Be It 27 Further Ordained statement, "Negotiate interleeal new agreements to provide services to 28 the cities consistent with this ordinance. Any agreements shall include formulas whereby 29 the Signator Cities shall reimburse the County for the Signator Cities' share of the cost of 30 any additional services that have provided additional benefits to the Signator Cities." 31 32 Buchanan stated the Council did not have the benefit of being in the negotiating 33 process. Also, there is no representative of the Executive here now. It is advisable to talk 34 about this when they can get the Executive's perspective on it. 35 36 Browne stated put this language in as they've talked about it, and then have the 37 discussion with the City of Bellingham. Then they can soften it up. He'd rather leave it in, 38 have the discussion, and then take it out. 39 40 The motion to amend carried by the following vote: 41 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, and Kremen (4) 42 Nays: Weimer and Buchanan (2) 43 Absent: Mann (1) 44 45 Browne moved to accept Introduction Item seven as amended. The motion was 46 seconded. 47 48 The motion to accept Introduction Item seven as amended carried by the following 49 vote: 50 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 51 Nays: None (0) 52 Absent: Mann (1) 53 Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 29 1 Kremen moved to accept Introduction Items one through six. The motion was 2 seconded. 3 4 The motion to accept Introduction Items one through six carried by the following 5 vote: 6 Ayes: Brenner, Sidhu, Browne, Buchanan, Weimer and Kremen (6) 7 Nays: None (0) 8 Absent: Mann (1) 9 10 1. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE INCARCERATION PREVENTION AND 11 REDUCTION TASK FORCE, APPLICANTS: VARIOUS (AB2015 -47 O) 12 (DEADLINE FOR ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS IS 10 A.M. ON JULY 28, 2015) 13 14 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, NINTH 15 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,710 (AB2015 -232) 16 17 3. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR 18 OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT (AB2015 -233) 19 20 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10.34, FERRY 21 RATES, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2014- 22 426B) 23 24 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INITIAL EAST WHATCOM REGIONAL RESOURCE 25 CENTER PROJECT BUDGET (AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO ORDINANCE 2008 -025) 26 TO ADD $62,098.52 OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED 27 PROJECT BUDGET AMOUNT OF $5,047,571 (AB2015 -234) 28 29 6. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED WHATCOM COUNTY MULTI - 30 JURISDICTIONAL NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN (AB2015 -235) 31 32 (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of 33 Supervisors.) 34 35 36 COMMITTEE REPORTS OTHER ITEMS AND COUNCILMEMBER UPDATES 37 38 Buchanan reported for the Natural Resources Committee on the discussion with 39 Planning and Development Services long range planning staff on the progress and 40 anticipated outcomes of the Whatcom County Agriculture - Watershed Pilot Project 41 (AB2015 -220). 42 43 Brenner stated meeting materials and paperwork should be submitted to the 44 councilmembers and Council staff sooner than the day of the meeting. The Executive stated 45 he will try to make that happen. She reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety 46 Committee on the discussion of a proposed ordinance establishing Whatcom County 47 Code Section 5.20.105, Fireworks — Special Circumstances, to allow the County to 48 prohibit the discharge of private fireworks during emergency conditions (AB2015- 49 218). 50 51 Browne reported on the Developmental Disability Board regarding bills in the State 52 budget. He also reported on the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee regarding 53 the Floodways By Design work. Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 30 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 Weimer reported on the Bureau of Land Management regarding the San Juan National Monument Implementation. They need a councilmember or the Executive to serve as a liaison. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m. The County Council approved these minutes on December 8, 2015. ATTE ' L'� 0 CJ w' ` -ti r''ifr 0rf D6n' a Brawn -DaV is, Council erk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Regular County Council Meeting, 7/21/2015, Page 31 c O a� s CL E wa Q (q r i N w � O T N m m U a _o d � s c y E w E E v := ai N a) w 3 � O (a N U w w E 3 E o O V v E O m �s in s C A U a � c m m N O O Ca` 0 CL o (n c r. a) (D E -Ea c � °o. E CL (o � L T � s y L) N t i Lr C O U m O y f6 3 d c O o E E E O r O aEi co E � (a U N U C f6 v T N l a c 0 N N O C CL c o ca L X a 0 c ix o N c N L E Y E m O V mQ •y T � a U .r O c E CL aCo C 0 a •(D L O U 0 O G 0 a) E Y� a) C O U a) W 0 °r 3 o E O E V a) c IL- N C y O M ca N E O v CL o c O c m CL Q. D CL 0- C Cu c � O C •'N f0 U U m c CD 'M 4) 3 r- m L V U � O o E n. c CL o M c o � �-0 aD O co � c 0 c o °f E m 'D m C O U N N (6 3 a� c y O 0 o E E E a) O L V ~ c c O co E m r CO N CL` -0 1 O C c (0 O O- N O L Q. M O Y L a c c Co O c N O E O 00 U � 3 � 0 L � y C 0 mw s O T U o w � c c E O C CL o ca c o a .� O U c 0 i o � E a) E E O U c a) d co C O V � o �a 'Y O c 0 ` a` 3 O L VJ s E E O V 3 a� d s U a) C O U a) U N cu dc o_ EE E L O U C C O O (D a7 fr6 f0 � U O C .� O a y � O Y IL` c O o LO N L E 7 O V c 3 0 a cc c O a) M s � T 0 H 5 O o E CL n o co c O a� •L i ca O U 0 � o E L. -r_ d E E O U c N c O V LO c O a) C. O O N 0. N c N O U) C O O O E V L 3 � m > c � o 0 U o CO � .r O c E O .� CL o a c co � o O U c 0 � o E Y-C a) C O U a) (n co 3 r o E E E O L F- V C C y O d N m (0 r U y U O cN '' CL s 1; c c .o O a N O Y a` O o 'y N L E O V c 3 0 a� oc y O t M V H =3 O o E CL o CU c O c T) O U c O c0 � o E YF- E E O V c N w N C U R � U .Q O Q• o N O c C. L o ` 3 a c i O Ns .0 F- E O U ai m s V C t x x x U 3 IM U L Y LD C O L N U � 7 > c d E x x x Y N U Y Y C �U a) U N 7 L U) co m Q C L x x x m J G VJ m C cu m x x x L Y D Y c o o = L 0 U) Im d c Cx x x Im U 3 0 L Y (1) Y C L U m Y m co L E x x x FD 0 3 Y Y C a) @ U m N 7 o ` c 'D m C O U N N (6 3 a� c y O 0 o E E E a) O L V ~ c c O co E m r CO N CL` -0 1 O C c (0 O O- N O L Q. M O Y L a c c Co O c N O E O 00 U � 3 � 0 L � y C 0 mw s O T U o w � c c E O C CL o ca c o a .� O U c 0 i o � E a) E E O U c a) d co C O V � o �a 'Y O c 0 ` a` 3 O L VJ s E E O V 3 a� d s U a) C O U a) U N cu dc o_ EE E L O U C C O O (D a7 fr6 f0 � U O C .� O a y � O Y IL` c O o LO N L E 7 O V c 3 0 a cc c O a) M s � T 0 H 5 O o E CL n o co c O a� •L i ca O U 0 � o E L. -r_ d E E O U c N c O V LO c O a) C. O O N 0. N c N O U) C O O O E V L 3 � m > c � o 0 U o CO � .r O c E O .� CL o a c co � o O U c 0 � o E Y-C a) C O U a) (n co 3 r o E E E O L F- V C C y O d N m (0 r U y U O cN '' CL s 1; c c .o O a N O Y a` O o 'y N L E O V c 3 0 a� oc y O t M V H =3 O o E CL o CU c O c T) O U c O c0 � o E YF- E E O V c N w N C U R � U .Q O Q• o N O c C. L o ` 3 a c i O Ns .0 F- E O U ai m s V c a� U) E ai H r " = .c 0 D- E 0 O V o c -0 CD c E co N N N cl) E C O 0 U U - c c a� E a, a� r � E o O n m r -0 0) Q v aEi 0 0 w a '� Cl) CL O 3 L a c`o c Y o E O ~' N L o '3 ~ 0- 0 ai CL U a) CL n3 . O E _ O Uyi w U E m c E m a� O T d c E c C)- C) M o y .°� t v o ` V C CCo v c O O �o E i -0 (D Y m � a� c O U a) V1 U) m 3 C O O O O E E t O ~ V c *• O E E N m IL` s 0 c o .c9 c Q CL r � U) L O CL Y O •o IL M C N O U I'N 3 W N E Y E cu L) 3 w A) C O L C y O � m s � T 0 F- 0 o E CL co c 0 o � a� a •� O U c O C 0 a) 0 E Y-F- (D E E O V c a� E (D m N C O U � o c Q- o Q' m U) O C O. a) o a` 3 C L O 'a s E ~ E O V 3 N 4) s V c O a s CL E ca D. U L ) m t1 M O N 0 un s T- +' O L N w m 0 Q m 'v E V r+ (D C 'C O 3 �j 0 O E s E U s (D N fY6 U) *, O O o $ u c t4 E O IL a 0 o m r- 0) c s 'p U C. O. m v, E d L m s ru •0 a� a c 0 cnU a) U) co 3 c 0 O E N t a) ~ Y C 0 E E 0 M U C fo Q T E o Q c � m co c °? V = � Y 0 -0 c m 0 Y O � a` 0 U 0 o U > T C) C a 7 O N U U a) C >, (o N m 0 E c 'E a c a� co o a � U O c O O C E C Co a) w E E 0 U C a) E ca 0 a 0 C 0 D a .0 O v 0 U \ U) E § § t Q E ) \ § � M 3 ® E � / k � U) k / -2 o \ a= \ � cu _ v mk 0 2 k y 0E \ / \\ k 0 §0 E �/ § e .2 o § E a/ aJz oo 0 c ° 2 �f\m 0 k \ J o § 2 x k R E e � � k k c $ ' T 0 m I2 c c © § § e u CL � \ 2 E � 'O © $ § CD 0 CL pn c) o k 2 2: E § § m \ k 0 0) k o o § \ ° E c 4. a § o 52L2 §�2 e a c , 6 m o = 4 § Q 0 4) Q 2 2 § 2 0 ° o 9 aN 0 0 0 ski Eo�7 7 c > E o G) 0k: CL e k w ° r ■ U) 2 0 E �2 v: 01 E E \ � k � \ E 8 E / o E Uf r E 2 = § 2 IL � \ U) / m\ $ k _ m 7 5 U- k m � & £\ cL \CD 0 co 0 E E ( 0 2 E k/ \c�r=o e x x x � 2 m \_%=$ E (n me n U) e C) ) o Ex x x � E m Cl E f E t E�me n n o� �U) § x x x E m \�S2E E m m U U.9< n c o� 0 \ x x x � E G = u) E \ Emm7 m U) n C) 2 0� 2 0 x x x � E m \&§7E E ° m7 nnA 30 < ».9 x x x «. \ Cl. m Emme m0 co <�@