HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole November 12 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
November 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:44:01 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer, Pete
Kremen, Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION AND FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVING THE 2015 -2016 WHATCOM COUNTY
BUDGET (AB2014 -205C)
Jack Louws, County Executive, submitted handouts (on file).
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, described the Technical
Corrections and Council Action handout.
Browne asked about air conditioning upgrades at the Northwest Annex.
Tyler Schroeder, Administrative Services, stated the Council decided to leave the
funding in the budget.
Brenner moved to remove funding for the full -time equivalent (FTE) position for the
pollution identification and control (PIC) program out of the flood fund. Fund the position
from the general fund.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Browne referenced his proposed resolution establishing a program to enhance
the monitoring and reporting to the public on the performance of Whatcom County
government (AB2014 -380) and stated it requires a funding amount to carry out the
program.
Louws stated he doesn't have a budget number attached to it. He would like to work
the first part of the year to see if they can develop any of this information internally without
attaching a budget number to it. He encourages the departments to develop information
they can track against other agencies. At this time, the resolution doesn't need to be
incorporated into this budget. Managers and administrators should track what they're doing
and how they're doing against prior history and compared to their peers internally, without
adding a line item or specific costs. He's not opposed to the resolution. He's up for the
challenge. He's not sure yet how he would implement it.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Browne stated it's crucial to find the right questions to ask and right way to present
objective data. He proposes assigning $50,000 total for both years as a placeholder.
Crawford stated this information and data will have to be managed annually out of
the Executive's Office or Information Technology Department. They can just do an
additional services request (ASR) when the Executive develops a cost.
Weimer stated he supports the resolution and developing measurable standards. He
asked what the $50,000 would pay for.
Browne stated it is a project -based line item that isn't assigned to one particular
department. Allocation of an employee's time has to be paid out of an account.
Kremen stated the administration should determine the cost for this project. It's a
good idea, but there are priorities. He doesn't want to just throw $50,000 at the project.
He would like the Executive to estimate a cost. Louws stated he anticipates the cost will be
absorbed within the administrative services budget and Executive's budget next year. They
can do the work internally. It won't cost that much. He has no problem with the resolution
or putting the data together. They are moving toward providing that information already.
If there is a small cost, he can bring forward a budget supplemental.
Crawford stated this level of transparency is needed at the State level.
Brenner stated she's pessimistic that this will work, but will vote for it.
Brenner moved to allocate from the general fund $70,000 for the senior centers, in
addition to what is currently being funded for them.
Browne stated fund on a per population basis, not the same amount to each center,
because some centers serve many more people than others.
Brenner stated they can divide the total amount for all centers and allocate according
to the number of people who use each center.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. The senior centers are great agencies, but
these agencies did not ask for the money. It's irresponsible to solicit people and give them
money.
Brenner stated seniors have been told certain things and thought there was nothing
they could do about it. Senior centers are getting busier. There is a real need. Money can
be allocated in a way that the money is spent wisely.
Weimer asked for information on how the food program is allocated via the senior
centers. These places have a need, but he agrees with Councilmember Crawford that there
could be no end to people asking for funding.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the Council on
Aging has the contract for the nutrition program. The Lynden Senior Center has its own
program. The Welcome Senior Center doesn't participate in the nutrition program. He
described the programs and the contract and funding history.
Louws stated he and the Council gave the Meals on Wheels program an additional
$30,000 beginning this year. That increase is included in the 2015 -2016 budget. There
isn't a lot of extra money to give to any organization. The County has purposefully tried to
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
reduce expenses. These issues are important to the community. The seniors are
reasonably taken care of. They work themselves to provide any extra help necessary to
make it work. The current funding level is appropriate for the current budget.
Brenner stated she was told by the Lynden Senior Center that they did not withdraw
from the food program by choice. They wanted to deliver hot meals to shut -ins, but that
didn't go along with the program. The County can easily figure out their needs. There are
many things in the budget that aren't a necessity. Allocate the money. They don't have to
use it if they don't need it.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Brenner moved to allocate $10,000 to the Sean Humphrey House. The Director
was asked if they could survive without County funding, but they do need the help.
Weimer stated he is concerned with the process at this late hour. They should have
had these groups in to talk about their needs.
Brenner assumed they would talk to the Council during the process. One group was
told that the money isn't available. They don't know to come and talk to the Council.
The Committee discussed the differences between past and present budget
processes.
Brenner stated the Sean Humphrey House is necessary. It's hospice care.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Crawford stated the Charter Review Commission will discuss language for the
Charter that prevents the County from making charitable contributions. That may be
problematic in some cases. It will be interesting to see what happens. The citizenry is
becoming cognizant that basic government services are being exceeded regularly through
the County budget.
Kremen stated the County is not even meeting its State mandated requirements.
They all want to support the Sean Humphrey House and other similar services.
Councilmember Brenner has often said that the County must distinguish between its wants
and needs. The federal government primarily funds senior centers and has removed its
funding for these programs, not Whatcom County. The County can't take over those
services from the federal government and still meet its mandated requirements. It's
disconcerting to have to vote against these laudable, worthy causes. He's concerned about
the process and the acrimony and criticism about how they've gone about building this
budget with the administration. They've done a tough but good job.
Brenner stated these services are necessary and needed. They're not wants.
Weimer referenced the water action plan and asked about revenue. He asked if the
costs of the grant have also been included.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated they put in some of the costs for the
PIC program, but not all. They were going to have to submit a supplemental budget
request for some of the costs. If the grant doesn't come in, they still have funding for the
PIC position, the septic rebate program, and monitoring. If they get the grant funding, they
will probably give $90,000 to the Conservation District for outreach and inspection.
Schroeder stated one FTE was contingent on grant funding. Everything else will
move forward. It's very likely the County will acquire that grant.
Stoyka stated he suspects they should hear by the end of this month.
Weimer referenced the shellfish protection district and stated they can only be
successful if groups other than government employees were out in the community talking to
people in the watersheds. Stoyka stated there is some money for general outreach and
education. They are still working out how they would do that.
Schroeder stated the Council added $55,000 for critical area and shoreline outreach
and education. They could use some of that for similar purposes. They have discussed with
different groups in the community about other outreach ideas.
Weimer stated he's fine with it. It sounds like they can revisit it if necessary.
(4 :43:42 PM)
Crawford asked if there is funding for the Planning Unit for 2015. Stoyka stated
there is. He described the Planning Unit budget.
Kremen moved to recommend approval of the technical corrections and the Council
action items.
The motion to recommend approval as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (5)
Nays: Brenner and Crawford (2)
OTHER BUSINESS
The Committee discussed the Council's committee schedule in two weeks.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. COUNTY STAFF AND EXECUTIVE SEEK INPUT FROM COUNCIL ON THE
PROPOSED 2015 WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT JOINT
BOARD BUDGET (AB2014 -345)
Gary Stoyka, Planning and Development Services Department, spoke and gave a
staff report.
Browne asked why the Bertrand water improvement district (WID) is investing
$100,000. Stoyka stated the Bertrand WID is asking to withdraw water at certain times of
the year. The Department of Ecology said there wasn't enough information. They need a
groundwater surface model. The WID has a $50,000 grant and a $50,000 budget proviso to
pay for the project.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Browne asked why the County would fund money for private property owners to get
more water rights. Stoyka stated this is the Joint Board, not the County. They need
groundwater modeling information for many people. It's for more than just the Bertrand
WID. The study will be broader than just the Bertrand area.
Browne asked if the product will be a file that can be imported into the geographic
information system (GIS). The purpose of the project is to get the model, not to run
scenarios through the model.
Browne stated make sure the data will be accessible to the citizens. Stoyka stated it
will be.
Browne stated they are paying $30,000 for a program coordinator for the Planning
Unit. He asked if this should be an in -house position. This is an expensive delivery of
services.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated it would be more expensive than $30,000. A
third party facilitator keeps Whatcom County, as a member of the Joint Board, at arm's
length from the Planning Unit. The County originally gave the Joint Board $1.2 million for
its authority. That money will be gone by the end of next year. The County will have to
decide how to continue funding.
Browne asked if the County similarly funds or does management for other boards or
groups. Stoyka stated it does for the Salmon Recovery Board and a local integrated
organization, which are all part of the same process.
Brenner asked if they have categories for administrative services and financial
services for all funds. Louws stated they do an administrative chargeback to all accounts
that specifically allow it. A few funds don't allow chargebacks, by statute. Those that do
allow it pay a percentage of administrative services, the Executive's budget, and the
Council's budget.
Brenner asked what the percentage is.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the different costs are
allocated based on metrics appropriate to those costs. The State auditors got involved in
this last year. In some areas, they dictate the specific metrics to be used. For example,
the Council is allocated based on agenda bills. However, the Human Resources Division is
allocated by the number of employees. The Information Technology is allocated by the
number of computers for the PC network and CPU minutes for the AS400.
Brenner asked if it's an overhead based on the amount in the fund. Bennett stated it
is not. It has to be a meaningful measure to costs incurred.
Brenner asked which funds would have extremely low administrative and financial
service charges. Bennett stated the lower funds are those that don't have employees with
computers. It is subject to audit.
Kremen stated the formula changes based on the data used for the metric, such as
number of employees or computers. The amount the administration is charged is based on
a formula that is already established.
Louws stated the $15,000 allocated in this fund is low. It's County money going into
the fund. The County is charging itself.
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer stated the sentence regarding the local integrating organization (LIO)
designation is unclear. He would like an explanation of the $75,000 expenditure at a future
meeting. He would like a better understanding of the agenda pressures, the near -term
actions, and the performance measures.
Brenner stated she has a concern with the Puget Sound Partnership. She asked
what it commits the County to.
Weimer moved to approve the budget estimates as presented.
Louws stated approve the budget estimates as presented, understanding that he, as
the Executive, is allowed to act on behalf of the County to adjust the amounts.
Crawford stated that's not necessary. Until they revoke the 1999 agreement, the
Executive has that authority. Louws stated he does, but he prefers to work cooperatively
with the Council.
Brenner stated former County attorney Bob Carmichael said it is in violation if it
doesn't come to the Council for discussion and approval first. Louws stated a County
Prosecuting Attorney has explained the situation to the Council a number of times, just as
he explained. There is a difference in opinion.
Weimer amended his motion and moved to support the direction that the Joint
Board shared in its budget estimates.
Brenner stated the Council never received a response from the County attorney
about Mr. Carmichael's comments.
The motion to recommend approval as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (5)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Absent: Mann (out of the room) (1)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on February 10, 2015.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 11/12/2014, Page 6