HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole April 15 20081 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Special Committee Of The Whole
3
4 April 15, 2008
5
6
7 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council
8 Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Present: Absent:
11 Barbara Brenner None
12 Bob Kelly
13 Sam Crawford
14 Seth Fleetwood
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16 L. Ward Nelson
17
18 1. ORDINANCE FOR PROJECT -BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 2008 -02 FOR
19 COUNTY ROAD PROJECT 905014, REPLACEMENT OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF
20 (AB2008 -109)
21
22 Frank Abart, Public Works Director, stated he is available for questions.
23
24 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
25
26 Fleetwood stated he talked to the County Road Administration Board (CRAB)
27 representatives. There is an assumption that the County will use the money. At some
28 point, the CRAB may decide that the County isn't going to use the money. There is no
29 deadline to make a decision .today. The CRAB wants to hear officially if the County will
30 accept the $8 million grant: The timeline is a gray area.
31
32 The $8 million is for a ferry as currently designed, plus dock improvements. There is
33 an open question about whether or not the County will lose the $8 million if they learn in
34 the future they have to have a new dock location in the future. That is a question for the
35 CRAB. Abart stated his impression from the CRAB is that they want a County decision
36 before its board meeting tomorrow. He has not heard about a flexible deadline. If they
37 acquire another ferry, there will be an additional expenditure to accommodate the ferry on
38 the dock. They must do about $4 million worth of dock work, regardless of which ferry they
39 have.
40
41 Weimer asked how the CRAB grant is relevant to the docks. The CRAB money
42 doesn't even cover the cost of the ferry.
43
44 Nelson stated it comes down to dock location. He asked how well the current ferry
45 can use another location, if the location changes. Abart stated that's difficult to say. They
46 don't have any idea of potential locations right now. A dock relocation study is underway.
47
48 Nelson asked if the Whatcom Chief is able to operate from any location in the area.
49 Abart stated any new dock relocation will have to take into consideration all the technical
50 aspects. They haven't even identified possible locations. That work is years away.
51 Optimistically, it will take ten or 20 years to relocate anywhere.
52
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 1
I Weimer stated there are six or eight other locations identified. He asked if all those
2 sites are on the Lummi peninsula, or if some are in Fairhaven. Abart stated they go all the
3 way to the Port of Bellingham. Locations are not limited to the Lummi peninsula.
4
5 Brenner asked if they are not going to do any changes to the docks until they
6 determine whether or not they are going to be there for awhile or whether they will move.
7 Abart stated that's not accurate. They still have to do repair work on both existing docks,
8 regardless.
9
10 Weimer stated they have $4 million of work to do if they don't make any changes.
11
12 Brenner stated he said there is an additional $1.2 million of work that needs to be
13 done. Abart stated that additional cost was if they acquire a new ferry to accommodate a
14 new ferry.
15
16 Fleetwood stated he suggests asking the question to the CRAB about keeping the $8
17 million with a different dock location. He would like an answer from the CRAB. During the
18 time they are waiting for the answer, the County will not lose the $8 million.
19
20 Weimer stated they may not get an answer on potential dock location sites for five
21 yea rs.
22
23 Fleetwood stated ask the question to CRAB about whether they lose the money if
24 there is another dock location. If the answer is no, it may be relevant in the Council's
25 decision - making.
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber asked why that is relevant to accepting the money. The new ferry
28 may be able to adapt to different dock situations. However, if the County does not buy a
29 new ferry, and the County is forced to move to a location where the Chief can't operate,
30 that will be relevant if the County had decided to turn down the $8 million. The Lummi
31 Tribe doesn't want to kick the County out of the site. She asked why that would be a
32 catalyst for the CRAB to give the County extra time.
33
34 Fleetwood stated the CRAB questions whether the dock location is relevant to the
35 County's entitlement to $8 million. If the Lummi Tribe is inclined to move the dock location,
36 if today the Council votes to accept the $8 million, and if they learn in the future that the
37 new boat is not compatible with the new dock, it's money wasted.
38
39 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's more likely the new boat will be more accommodating to
40 a new dock location than a the old boat.
41
42 Abart stated dock relocation would require dock construction. Construct a dock to
43 make sure it works with whatever boat they have.
44
45 IVelson stated the CRAB has more projects in line than Whatcom County's project. It
46 wants a decision next week. It will not hold the money. The County has a limited amount
47 of time in which it can use the money.
48
49 Abart stated the CRAB assumes the County already decided it wants the new boat.
50 Their indication for final decision is that the County will put the boat out to bid.
51
52 Weimer asked the condition of the hull since 2005, when it was deemed. in good
53 condition.
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 2
1
2 L. Paul Zankich, Columbia Sentinel Engineers Principal Naval Architect, stated they
3 have done surveys about every three years. The Whatcom Chief hull has continued to show
4 that it is in very fine condition. It still shows two to six percent degradation in spots. They
5 don't think about replacing hulls until about 25 percent. He doesn't suspect that the hull
6 shows a propensity for accelerated corrosion. What they see in the report is a mis -wire in
7 the boat, such as the generator system or bilge, or the Lummi Island dock has straight
8 currents. When the smallest flake of paint is missing from the hull, all that straight current
9 accelerated corrosion will concentrate in that pinhole and surrounding area for eight to 12
10 inches. The Flake he saw is indicative of straight current corrosion. They've replaced a lot
11 of plate on the boat, in the sizes of approximately three feet by four or five feet, for a little
12 hole that was approximately three - quarters of an inch in diameter. That is not indicative of
13 the hull condition. The hull is in excellent shape. The maintenance department needs to do
14 a silver chloride probe survey of the dock where the boat sits, look for the straight currents,
15 and find the mis - wiring. That will go away. If they continue to coat the vessel as they have
16 in the past, it has a long life. This boat will last. He doesn't know if it's the right size.
17
18 Weimer asked if the rest of the boat is in good shape. They hear that repairing the
19 Whatcom Chief will cost more than the purchase of a new boat. Zankich stated the County
20 has replaced much of the equipment and systems over the years. The boat's electrical
21 systems are up to date.
22
23 Weimer stated it's not the age of the boat, it's straight current corrosion.
24
25 Caskey- Schreiber asked a cost estimate to make it Americans with Disabilities Act
26 (ADA) compliant. Zankich stated that to make one of or both cabins ADA compliant, they'd
27 have to do retrofits to the cabin. They'll never make the restroom ADA compliant. Making
28 handicap lanes would be difficult. They were able to extend the deck on the Guemes Island
29 ferry.
30
31 Brenner asked if there are any federal regulations to require the County to retrofit
32 the Chief to ADA standards any time soon. Zankich stated he is not aware of that.
33
34 Weimer asked Mr. Zankich to address the propulsion system. Zankich stated he
35 hasn't looked at the propulsion system, even though he is familiar with it. There is a variety
36 of propulsion systems that are appropriate. Generally little boats have direct drive diesel.
37
38 Kelly asked if there are no over - arching safety concerns related to the hull that
39 they've overlooked. Zankich stated there are not, as long as they keep up maintenance.
40
41 Nelson stated the Coast Guard report raised conditions about ADA compliance and
42 the hull. He asked what drove this issue in the first place. Abart stated the original reason
43 for getting a new ferry was car capacity. They may keep the Chief forever if they keep up
44 on maintenance. There are also issues related to safety in terms of ADA compliance.
45
46 Weimer asked if maintenance will be more and more costly. Zankich stated labor
47 rates and steel costs are going up. Electronic costs are going down. He can't predict that
48 those maintenance rates will go up. There is a natural attrition of costs. The steel hull
49 won't degrade any more rapidly than it has over the last 50 years. They should pay a little
50 more attention to landings, but that's all.
51
52 Crawford asked if a new boat requires fewer maintenance costs than a 50 -year old
53 boat. Zankich stated it does. The equipment they put on the Whatcom Chief 10 years ago
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 3
1 needs extra maintenance or replacement now. A new boat will not need capital
2 maintenance for several years.
3
4 Fleetwood asked if there are any examples of an ADA compliance issue pointed at a
5 ferry, so the ferry had to stop service until compliance. Zankich stated he's never heard of
6 that. Jurisdictions do the best they can to comply, including make special accommodations
7 for those who need it.
8
9 Abart stated the County, as a public entity, has a responsibility to meet reasonable
10 ADA requirements.
11
12 Weimer stated if the $1 million cost to refurbish the Whatcom Chief is to comply with
13 ADA requirements. Abart stated it is. They have the issue during dry dock every year.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber asked about degradation in the quality of steel during initial
16 construction, and whether a new boat will have the same quality of steel. Zankich stated
17 they use the same standard for steel. They will get the same steel quality in a new vessel.
18
19 Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. Zankich's questions helped her make a decision. There
20 are many benefits of a new ferry. The benefits include knowing they are investing in
21 infrastructure with the help of grants, being ADA compliant, fewer uncertainties during dry
22 dock, and increased capacity.
23
24 The drawbacks, which swayed her decision, include that the grant money isn't up-
25 front and has associated costs to that debt. The biggest drawback is that the new ferry
26 would significantly increase operating costs. Given today's uncertainty of their dependence
27 upon fuel, she's leery of going down that road for a small population. It will change the
28 community forever. People will have to move off the island because the ferry rates will be
29 too high. It's likely that the rates will triple. Fuel costs will continue to rise. There will also
30 be hidden, unknown costs, such as making the staging areas larger on either side. In spite
31 of the CRAB grant, she is not comfortable purchasing a new vessel.
32
33 Nelson asked if Mr. Abart's recommendation is to adopt the ordinance. Abart stated
34 it is.
35
36 Nelson stated his concern is ADA compliance and the safety of passengers. The boat
37 hull will last a long time. However, the Whatcom Chief will continue to have problems. The
38 County has a liability for those passengers. The administration recommends going forward
39 with this contract, but the Coast Guard indicates problems. He's not sure how to comply
40 with ADA requirements and still have a cost - savings to the community. Certain safety
41 issues don't have to do with ADA requirements. Insurance is another question. Act
42 responsibly to understand that the County is responsible for each and every individual. He
43 asked how other communities handle insurance. Other communities are going before the
44 CRAB for grants. Abart stated the County is in compliance with Coast Guard requirements.
45 When the Coast Guard says the County isn't in compliance, the County will have to address
46 those issues.
47
48 Nelson asked if they are okay with insurance requirements if they are okay with the
49 Coast Guard. Abart stated they are. That's part of compliance. They don't get insurance
50 without Coast Guard appliance. He acknowledges that there are some safety concerns.
51
52 Brenner stated this is the toughest decision for her since she's been on the Council.
53 Mr. Zankich has been familiar with the boat for a long time. The kind of money they are
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 4
talking about over time is significant. She can't come up with a reason to not believe Mr.
Zankich. It seems they will get quite a few years from the boat by doing routine
maintenance. People will be upset no matter what the Council decides.
Kelly asked if Whatcom County is looking at new dock sites on the mainland side.
Abart stated he doesn't know. Other sites were considered during the feasibility study.
Kelly stated he has concerns about the budget impacts over the next 20 years and
how it would affect the entire county. He is not comfortable strapping the county to future
debt when they don't have a serious safety issue. With good maintenance, the Whatcom
Chief will last a good, long time. Also, it appears that the County administration is looking
at additional sites, but the Council has never received a briefing about it. They have never
discussed whether a new site would necessitate a new ferry design. Since they don't know
where the ferry will end up on the mainland in the future, and the fact that a new location
will lead a new design, there is too much uncertainty to move forward with this proposal.
He will not vote for a new ferry. It's too uncertain to move forward.
Fleetwood stated he's struggled with the need for a new ferry at some point in the
next generation, and whether it would be this cheap.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Fleetwood continued to state that a new ferry would not stimulate new growth on the
island. Growth is controlled by zoning, not ferry boats. He is also sensitive to the concern
about passenger rates. He asked if Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber considered the
relatively inexpensive cost, which they may never get again.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she did, but there are 800 people on the island. There is
potential for another 300 new homes. That is a huge investment for not many people.
There are many other projects for which they're trying to find funds. The County road fund
is over - budgeted now. They must make hard decisions about the infrastructure this County
can invest in right now. If the situation can continue to work, she won't take on the
financial burden when there is another option.
Weimer stated he is also against the motion. Remodeling the existing ferry and
docks will cost about $5 million. A new ferry will cost $12.6 million, even after the State
grant. A new ferry will cost $7.5 million more than a remodel. The bigger concern is the
higher operating cost of $800,000 more per year for the new ferry. Both ferries will be ADA
compliant at some point. They already addressed the question of hull corrosion. The dry
dock costs for the Whatcom Chief will cost more, but not as much as the additional fuel or
staffing level for a new ferry. They are uncertain about the Lummi Nation dock lease. The
capacity needs have changed. They can build in peak hour fares to deal with capacity
issues. Different types of loading can deal with the issue of getting in and out of the cars.
A new ferry isn't a good option at this point, especially with the fuel costs going up. He will
vote no.
Motion failed 2 -5 with Nelson and Crawford in favor.
Desler stated he recommends that the Council allow the County to ask the County
Road Administration Board (CRAB) to amend the County request to use the $8 million grant
to renovate the Whatcom Chief ferry and make dock improvements.
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 5
1 Fleetwood moved to allow the County to ask the County Road Administration
2 Board (CRAB) to amend the County request to use the $8 million grant to renovate the
3 Whatcom Chief ferry and make dock improvements.
4
5 Motion carried 4 -0 with Nelson, Brenner, and Kelly out of the room,
6
7
8 OTHER BUSINESS
9
10 There was no other business.
11
12
13 ADJOURN
14
15 The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
16 �-
17
18 ' --�-
19 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
20
21 l cil approved these minutes on June 3 , 2008.
22 ��C��tA�y����i
23 `�• CO•v/�� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
25 J��•�N�TL`0•C WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
26
27
28 r
29 Vana wn-NN.Coursil Clerk Carl eimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole -New Ferry, 4/15/2008, Page 6