HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole October 19 20101
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
October 19, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (1 :32 :04 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, L. Ward
Nelson and Carl Weimer
Absent: Kathy Kershner
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED EAST COUNTY REGIONAL
RESOURCE CENTER (AB2010 -364) (1 :32 :10 PM)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, submitted handouts (on file) and stated they
have been working on this project for a number of years. The County has $2.75 million in
grants. They originally assigned $1 million of economic development investment (EDI)
funds to the project. They also completed all architectural and engineering work, and have
gotten some construction bids. The cost to build will be a bit more than initially forecast.
The administration will ask for about $1 million more from the EDI fund. He read through
the handout presentation and described the site and building designs.
Knutzen asked the difference between the cost of building to Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certification.
David King, King Architecture, stated there isn't a detailed break -out of LEED costs,
but he estimates it to be around five to ten percent of the construction cost. The base bid
was $3.5 million to $4 million. It is probably less than $400,000.
Desler stated LEED certification is also a condition of certain grant funds.
Brenner stated they can meet the conditions of LEED certification without the cost of
actually getting the stamp of certification, which costs $15,000. King stated he thinks that
the certification fee may actually be more than $15,000.
Brenner stated she would rather use that money to do more low- impact things. King
stated other agencies are doing that.
Brenner asked if this project couldn't get State funding without LEED certification.
Desler stated that's correct.
Desler continued to read through the handout presentation and described the site
and building designs. This construction contract will come before the Council at the next
meeting. They've received notice that grant money will have to be reimbursed if the County
does not move forward.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, 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
Crawford asked about ongoing maintenance costs. Desler all site development work,
studies, permitting, and other initial work were paid from the initial $1 million County
investment from Economic Development Investment (EDI) funds. The EDI County Capital
Facility fund will have about $5.3 million at the end of 2010. About $1.1 million will be
spent on the energy work and exterior skin work around the Civic Center building. Those
are the two major projects forecast for County capital facilities. The fund collects about
$1.1 million per year.
Regarding ongoing operations, the County would not manage the building. The
County is building the center for the community. The Opportunity Council would like
funding to manage the center in the amount of $70,000 to $80,000 per year. The
administration included $52,000 for that cost in 2012. The Opportunity Council will bring in
other partners to rent and use the facility over time, so the County's ongoing annual
contribution would lessen over time. The administration wants to contract community
center staffing throughout all centers in the county. Part of that savings will help pay for
this service at the Kendall Community Center.
Brenner asked if they can use real estate excise tax (REET) funds on the building and
park funds for ongoing maintenance and costs. Desler stated they plan to reorganize
funding for senior and community centers in the county. Part of that savings will be spent
under a contract with organizations to manage the senior and community centers. The
County would still own the building. They can use REET 1, but it is a more limited source of
revenue than the EDI fund. REET 1 is already being used for other functions.
Brenner stated they need to look at those other functions. She would rather fund
something like this than fund other functions.
Knutzen asked why the administration borrowed money for the jail rather than using
available EDI funds. Desler stated EDI funds can't be used for criminal justice facilities.
Weimer asked how the rent at the Kendall Resource Center is calculated and
subsidized. Desler stated the rent will be discounted. The history of social and health
services are to get what they can for free so they can maximize services to people. To
make these activities happen, the reduced rent will be the County's contribution. The
County provides the building and helps pay for heat, maintenance, and security of the
building to protect the building over time.
Crawford asked the life of the EDI fund. Desler stated it goes for 15 more years.
The administration built a loan fund, so organizations that have borrowed from the fund
repay the fund. The amount repaid so far is almost $1 million, and will be $1.5 million by
the end of 2011.
Crawford stated the liability of ongoing annual expenses are of greater long -term
significance than these construction issues. Once the center is open, keep a close eye on
how those ongoing management costs are handled and whether the Opportunity Council is
successful in attracting tenants who want to share the cost. Be willing to take appropriate
action to see how they can make it work. This isn't the kind of project they can do and not
think about anymore.
Brenner stated other jurisdictions can put bids on the EDI money.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, 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
Knutzen asked how these costs are included in the proposed budget for 2011 and
2012. Desler stated these things will come forward in a supplement budget request. It is a
capital item and project item. Part of the amount is in the budget, such as the engineering
work and other soft costs.
Desler stated they would continue this discussion next Tuesday.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY EMAILS
(AB2010 -030A) (1:57:39 PM)
Mann stated there has been a lot of talk about recent public disclosure requests
(PDRs). The County must be more transparent and efficient in responding. The question is
how they can do that, without spending a lot of time and money doing that. Keep the focus
today on how they can do better going forward, and not focus on the reasons for the
requests. He has ideas for doing a better job.
He asked the exact rules around Open Public Meetings Act and email discussions.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she was told this meeting was about public
records, not open public meetings. There has been discussion about the parameters of
email communication. She can provide that information. Council staff also provided
information to the Council on open public meetings. When they start getting into a
discussion about Council business that involves a quorum of the Council, it becomes a public
meeting and shouldn't be taking place. It's okay to send out informational material, making
it clear that the material is for informational purposes and is not to try to prompt a
discussion. When the quorum starts discussing something, it becomes a public meeting,
which requires procedural notice and other sorts of things. It's better to avoid discussions
like that via email. What starts out as a discussion between two can quickly become a
larger discussion.
Crawford asked if discussions about process rather than issues are not okay. Frakes
stated it's a difficult call to make. It's okay to get a response to a procedural question, but
not a discussion. It's good to consult with her or with the Clerk of the Council before
something like that happens.
Crawford asked the difference between that and calling on the telephone. Frakes
stated there isn't a difference in terms of open public meetings concerns. It becomes a
discussion without everyone actively participating at the same time. There isn't a problem
with one person expressing views, without a give and take of a discussion. The issue is
when they start having a give- and -take discussion, which is passed on to other people in
the process of talking. It's difficult to foresee every situation that will come up.
(2:06:14 PM)
Brenner stated the best way to handle those things is to ask the Clerk to check.
Frakes stated that doesn't solve the problem. An open public meeting needs to be noticed.
This is not a big problem. All the councilmembers have been sensitive to the issue. They
do avoid a lot of problems by going through the Clerk of the Council.
Mann stated it's effective and efficient to communicate electronically. It's a good
way to get information out. He understands that it can circumvent public viewing. He
asked if it would be an open public meeting if the electronic conversation were instantly
available. Frakes stated the Open Public Meetings Act anticipates regular meetings, not
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, 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
meetings by email or phone. They have to have a regular schedule of meetings that are
published. If they have a special meeting, it requires 24 hours notice to the press.
Weimer stated Open Public Meetings Act also applies to a quorum of committees.
Frakes stated that is correct, if it pertains to committee subject matter.
Weimer stated a problem with email is that one councilmember copies all
councilmembers on all council business when responding to citizens. Therefore, the citizens
want to know what other councilmembers think. He asked if it's okay to respond, and not
copy the rest of the councilmembers.
(2 :11:08 PM)
Brenner stated she copies staff and councilmembers on Council business. She will
often preface her information. She doesn't expect something back. Frakes stated that may
not be the intent, but it may stimulate discussion inadvertently.
Weimer asked if it is better to not copy other councilmembers. Frakes stated it may
be. Doing so may create a situation that Councilmember Weimer described.
Brenner stated Councilmember Weimer can discuss it with the individual, but not
with another councilmember. Frakes stated it's best to get guidance when something
comes up.
Mann stated he would like guidelines. Frakes stated just don't start discussions
amongst each other, which copying everyone can do. The way they are doing things hasn't
created a problem. The councilmembers are sensitive to the issue. She isn't suggesting
they change, just be sensitive to the issue.
(2 :14 :27 PM)
Mann stated talk about email retention. Email is convenient. If they saved every
email, it would be great. Now there is a problem with things like text messages. He asked
what those rules are and how they're doing.
Mark Burnfield, Administrative Services Department, stated the rules are the same.
Frakes stated if something pertains to operation of government, it is subject to the
same rules and retention schedule that anything else involving that subject matter.
Burnfield stated the retention schedules have changed to reflect communications. It
recognizes that technology is developing. The communications classifications includes any
media. There are two levels of communications, which are executive and anything else.
Executive level records have a much longer retention schedule and can be archived.
Brenner asked if someone doing a blog is okay. Frakes stated a blog with the public
isn't a discussion with councilmembers. They aren't prompting a discussion behind closed
doors. If councilmembers are actively participating in the blog, there might be an issue.
That hasn't happened.
Brenner asked if she can or can't copy councilmembers. Frakes stated she can. The
problem is when a discussion ensues.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, 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
Crawford asked the types of communications subject to retention. Burnfield stated
anything, including text, tweet, and facebook.
Crawford asked about voicemails. Burnfield stated the County voicemail system isn't
set up to archive voicemails. That is an issue.
Weimer asked if that includes home voicemails. Frakes stated it does, if it pertains
to County business.
Mann stated a reason the PDR requests slow them down is because there isn't an
effective way to retrieve and filter the documents. Burnfield stated the vast majority are
requests for records that the County staff identify and produce. The estimated times are
getting longer because staffs are shrinking.
Mann stated they are getting feedback that it's taking too long and records aren't
being turned over. Frakes stated they are all just getting used to these computer searches.
Most of them haven't done a lot, and figuring out search terms is difficult. Part of this is the
learning process for retrieving emails.
Mann asked if they can require the requester to identify the search terms.
Crawford asked if they can have staff do the searches if all Council emails are on the
County servers. Frakes stated staff are not in a position to put together searching criteria.
Councilmembers would have to tell staff what kind of search to do.
Crawford asked how staff can take over responsibility for the searches.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they are trying to figure out to make
sure every email sent or received is copied to an archive account. That would make it easy
for staff to do the searches.
Perry Rice, Administrative Services Department, stated all correspondence should be
from the County email system. (2 :28 :37 PM) The problem is with forwards from other,
private email accounts.
Mann asked if the search tool in Novell is inadequate. Rice stated the Department of
Information Technology (DoIT) does not have the ability to search the entire County email
system. They are in the process of looking at a new email system with more sophisticated
services.
Frakes stated there is a concern with forwarding something. There is a recent
Washington Supreme Court decision about retaining the metadata.
Burnfield stated the metadata changes when forwarding an email, unless it's
forwarded as an attachment.
Weimer stated councilmembers are unique because they aren't often here, so they
don't work on County computers. When email is forwarded to a non - County email address,
any response is not saved in the system. (2 :35 :33 PM) The only way to make sure there is
a copy is to copy everything they send back from private email accounts to the County, or
just use the County system. Rice stated it's hard because they all have other jobs and
organizations for which they work. He doesn't know if they can set up a ping to a non -
county email address notifying them that there is a County email.
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, 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
Crawford stated they are trying to funnel everything into the County email system.
Have a policy that all business coming and going goes through the County website.
Mann stated make a new email system a high priority.
Weimer stated they all have lists of people interested in a topic. In the past, they've
blind copied everyone on the list. He asked if they should not blind copy everyone on an
email list for things that are public records.
Mann stated that information may be retained in the metadata.
Frakes stated that unless someone specifically requests the metadata, they don't
need to do that routinely.
Rice stated it's part of the councilmember's metadata, but won't be part of the
electronic record upon receipt. To get the information about blind copy recipients, someone
would have to do a public records request.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on January 11 , 2011.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 10/19/2010, Page 6