HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance April 22 20081 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Finance and Administrative Services Committee
3
4 April 22, 2008
5
6 Committee Chair L. Ward Nelson called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Sam Crawford None
11 Bob Kelly
12
13 Also Present:
14 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
15 Seth Fleetwood
16 Carl Weimer
17
18
19 COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
20
21 9. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE 2008 UNREPRESENTED RESOLUTION (AB2008-
22 121B)
23
24 Nelson announced that this item would be discussed in executive session during the
25 Committee of the Whole meeting.
26
27 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -17
28 TO LOW BIDDER MYERS GENERAL COMMERCIAL CORP. FOR ALTERATIONS
29 TO THE COURTHOUSE BASEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $248,778 (AB2008-
30 173)
31
32 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
37 LETTER OF AGREEMENT AND SUPPORT WITH WASHINGTON STATE
38 UNIVERSITY FOR FOOD STAMP NUTRITION EDUCATION TO ELIGIBLE
39 ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE 2009 PROGRAM
40 YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,002 (AB2008 -174)
41
42 Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -33
47 TO LOW BIDDER WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. FOR ANNUAL ASPHALT
48 PRELEVEL PROJECTS AT VARIOUS COUNTY LOCATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
49 $508,019.59 (AB2008 -175)
50
51 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
52
53 Motion carried unanimously.
54
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 1
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO RE -AWARD BID #08-
27 TO SOLE BIDDER RAIRDON'S OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
HIGH -ROOF UTILITY VAN FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $55,892.08 (BID WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER 2007 BUT THE VENDOR
DID NOT PLACE THE ORDER ON TIME) (AB2008 -176)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTION ENVELOPES FROM SOLE SOURCE (OF THIS
PARTICULAR ENVELOPE SET) K &H INTEGRATED PRINT SOLUTIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $107,155.62 (AB2008 -177)
Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS FOR PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT FECAL
COLIFORM BACTERIA MONITORING IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,925 (AB2008-
178)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR LOWER
CANYON CREEK PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $415,000
(AB2008 -179)
Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HDR ARCHITECTURE INC. TO
PROVIDE A DUE DILIGENCE REPORT EVALUATING THE ADDITION OF 50
DORMITORY BEDS TO THE SAIL WORK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,000
(AB2008 -180)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR REDUCED -FARE BUS PASSES FOR
COUNTY EMPLOYEES (AB2008 -185)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 2
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BRICKLIN
NEWMAN DOLD, LLP, FOR EVALUATION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW FILED
WITH THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS
BOARD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 (AB2008 -182)
Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Crawford stated they ought to consider someone else. He is concerned about the
costs being higher than what they need to pay.
Nelson stated Mr. Bricklin has a reputation with the Growth Management Hearings
Board. The Prosecuting Attorney recommends the County get help with this. Mr. Bricklin is
familiar with many of the issues.
Crawford stated Mr. Bricklin sat on the board of Futurewise.
Karen Frakes, Prosecuting Attorney, stated determining conflict from the standpoint
of an attorney is somewhat different from conflicts as a member of a county council. Mr.
Bricklin's membership on the board does not create a conflict as an attorney. He is also on
the board's legal committee. However, because Mr. Bricklin knew this was coming, he has
not been involved in any conversations involving this particular litigation.
Crawford stated this is an appearance issue. The Council is accountable to the
185,000 citizens of the county. Other attorneys could handle this and do a good job. Don't
go with the person who is one of the most expensive and who creates an appearance of
fairness issue, even if it's not a direct legal conflict. The Council hasn't yet even had any
discussion about hiring someone else. It's premature to assume they will go with Mr.
Bricklin. He has nothing against Mr. Bricklin personally, but this doesn't seem to be the
best choice. They haven't even discussed anyone else.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council considered other options during executive
session. The situation isn't how Councilmember Crawford framed it.
Crawford stated they talked about one other attorney. With the assistance of the
Prosecutor's Office, review available legal counsel, their rates, and their qualifications.
Make a decision based on what best represents the people of Whatcom County. That could
be done in the next two weeks. The Prosecutor's Office can come back to the Council with
three choices.
Nelson asked if this is the type of thing they can put out for a request for proposals
(RFP). Frakes stated time is of the essence. There are deadlines for motions in early May.
They need someone available and on board to meet this time schedule. She has no idea if
other attorney's are available. The administration doesn't expect the cost to be $10,000.
This is just for initial review to give the Prosecutor's Office a better idea of where the County
stands.
Nelson asked if any other attorney would be able to use that review. Frakes stated
the review will be shared with the County, and the County may share the review with
another attorney.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 3
Nelson asked if this contract is just to review the case materials. He asked if that
review would be available to another attorney. Frakes stated this contract is to review
materials. It would be possible to make the review available to another attorney.
Nelson asked if Ms. Frakes has worked with Mr. Bricklin before, and whether she's
comfortable working with him on this review. Frakes stated she is very comfortable with
Mr. Bricklin.
Nelson stated cost is a legitimate concern. The Council can go ahead with the review
and decide if it wants to continue with Mr. Bricklin or consider other available attorneys.
Crawford stated he is against the motion because of cost and appearance of fairness.
Nelson asked if Ms. Frakes would be able to get other attorneys to help if needed.
Frakes stated she could, but she doesn't know how much time she could devote to that.
She could, if that's the will of the Council.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council isn't basing its decision on just what Ms. Frakes
says. The County has used Mr. Bricklin in the past. He has experience before the Growth
Management Hearings Board, which was a criteria when the Council selected him for now.
The Council knew that Mr. Bricklin could do the work within the timeframe. Ms. Frakes
doesn't have time to deal with her existing workload, which is why the Council must do this.
She's not in favor of adding more work to Ms. Frakes' workload to appease one
councilmember's views.
Kelly stated Councilmember Crawford's question can be address when the review is
complete. The administration can bring forward a list of names for Council consideration.
Frakes stated she doesn't know how many people would be willing to take this on. It's
possible that there wouldn't be any other takers.
Nelson stated he may make some phone calls to verify whether anyone else is
interested.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION UPDATING THE 2006 AMENDED APPENDIX OF THE 2002
WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
(CEDS) (AB2008 -099)
Nelson stated the Council wanted to be sure the cities had all their requests in to the
County. He asked if they have.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they have.
Crawford asked if any projects came off the list. Desler stated no projects came off
the list. The administration did not receive any requested changes.
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 4
1 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2
3 1. DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FRANK ABART AND DEPUTY
4 ADMINISTRATOR DEWEY DESLER REGARDING ROAD FUND AND CAPITAL
5 PROJECT REVIEW (AB2008 -097)
6
7 Nelson stated the Council voted to remove the new ferry from the project list. He
8 asked if there are other changes or recommendations.
9
10 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, referenced four road fund projection options.
11 The first option is on Council packet page 8, the second on page nine, the third on page 10,
12 and the fourth on page 11. He stated the options all include keeping the Whatcom Chief
13 and variations for the Slater Road and Lincoln Road projects. All options assume the County
14 will use the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds in the amount of $1.5 million and Economic
15 Development Investment (EDI) funds in a single appropriation of $3 million. The EDI
16 appropriation is for the project at the intersection of Pole Road and Hannegan Road.
17
18 When the Slater Road is listed as an item on the list, the list includes $1.4 million in
19 road fund money to supplement $5 million in additional grants and additional resources
20 already assigned.
21
22 Jim Karcher, Public Works Department, submitted information (on file). In the
23 handout, map #M -4 is part of the Lincoln Road project.
24
25 Nelson asked if the administration would bond funds with option one.
26
27 Marianne Caldwell, Administrative Service Department, stated it would. The bond
28 would be for about $10 million with option one.
29
30 Nelson asked if option two includes a bond for $4 million. It looks like that's the
31 lowest bond necessary in any of the options.
32
33 Caskey- Schreiber stated Representative Kelli Linville advocated to Jeff Monsen that
34 Whatcom County still get the $8 million grant from the County Road Administration Board
35 (CRAB) and use it to retrofit the Whatcom Chief. Mr. Monsen didn't seem enthused about
36 the option, according to Rep. Linville. She asked if the County has heard anything about
37 that request. Desler stated they have not received a response.
38
39 One thing not in the financial calculations is an additional transfer out of the road
40 fund to support the operation of the ferry, in lieu of receiving State funds. That amount is
41 about $300,000 from the 2007 amount and $240,000 for each of the next few years. It
42 was a sentence added in the adopted rates. The State funding is to be deducted from the
43 level supported at the fare box. That money has not been reconciled in these options. That
44 amount would equal about $1.8 million through 2013.
45
46 Caldwell stated the wording in the ordinance designated all the funding from the
47 State related to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. Previously, they considered just the ferry
48 deficit funding. There is additional funding on the motor vehicle fuel tax allocated based on
49 the amount of fuel used by the ferry. For example, the budget amount for ferry operations
50 in 2008 is $2.2 million. The $82,000, based on what the County received in 2007, is the
51 percent of the motor vehicle fuel tax connected to the ferry. Another $160,000 is based on
52 the ferry deficit funding. They will probably have interest income because of the ending
53 balance in the ferry fund for cash flow purposes. They are basing the 55/45 split off that.
54 The road fund share is now $881,000 on the 45 percent split. The $82,000 has always gone
55 into the road fund, but will no longer go into the road fund. It will cost the County an
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 5
1 additional $82,000, for a total of $962,915 projected for 2008. There is a difference from
2 the old calculation of $234,350 for 2008 from the road fund.
3
4 Nelson asked if they basically need to subtract that $232,000 from the ending fund
5 balance for 2008. Caldwell stated that's correct. The amount to subtract for 2007 is even
6 more. There was a higher amount of ferry deficit funding. The difference from 2007 is
7 $300,000.
8
9 Crawford stated they thought they were voting in a road fund annual contribution of
10 $88,000. He asked if they're saying now that the amount is close to $250,000, and not
11 $88,000 per year out of the road fund. Desler stated that's the administration's
12 interpretation when applying that language to how they handle the financial affairs of the
13 County. Also, those numbers have not been reconciled in this spreadsheet.
14
15 Crawford stated it seems that the Council ought to reconsider the wording. He
16 doesn't think that's what the Council knew it was voting on. They were thinking of a
17 $90,000 per year hit to the road fund, not a $250,000 per year hit. Desler stated the
18 administration realized the amount was more than they thought when they analyzed the
19 language. At the time it was adopted, the administration hadn't really analyzed the
20 language.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber referenced options two and four and asked why the County would
23 have the same amount of debt whether or not it keeps the Slater Road project. Desler
24 stated option two keeps the Slater Road project but not the Lincoln Road, phase two
25 project. The bond would be $4 million.
26
27 Caldwell stated there is not a lot of difference between the options of keeping or not
28 keeping the Slater Road project. They would have an $800,000 payback requirement if
29 they don't do the Slater Road project. There is less than $500,000 between the two
30 options.
31
32 Crawford stated that keeping the Slater Road project involves getting a $5 million
33 grant. Not doing the project means they won't get the grant.
34
35 Nelson stated the County would also lose $800,000 if it doesn't do the project.
36 There is also not much difference between the options of keeping or not keeping the Lincoln
37 Road, phase two project.
38
39 Caskey- Schreiber stated Lincoln Road, phase two, would require $6 million more in
40 debt issue. She is in favor of option four, keeping the debt as low as possible, and
41 borrowing as little as required. Be conservative. Lincoln Road, phase two, will cost more
42 than estimated.
43
44 Kelly asked if they can assume that they should add an additional $1.75 million to
45 the transfer in debt proceeds. Desler stated add that amount over the six -year period.
46
47 Kelly stated he is in favor of option two. On that page, the transfer in debt proceeds
48 amount is shown as $4 million, but it should really be $5.75 million. Desler stated the debt
49 issue would still be $9 million. The ending fund balance would be $8.2 million instead of $9
50 million. The choice is to borrow $1.75 million more and leave the ending fund balance the
51 same, or lower the fund balance and deal with any additional debt issues in four to six
52 years.
53
54 Crawford stated he supports option one. They need to finish the Lincoln Road
55 project. Councilmember Kelly supports option two, which includes the Slater Road project.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 6
1 The Lummi Nation representatives have talked about getting more money potentially. He
2 asked Councilmember Kelly's opinion on Slater Road if they don't get more money. He has
3 tended to support the Slater Road project no matter what, even without additional money.
4
5 Kelly stated he agrees with supporting the project with or without the additional
6 funding. There are impacts to the Lummi Nation, the city of Ferndale, and the residents on
7 both sides of Slater Road. He doesn't understand whether or not the ability to receive the
8 $5 million is still there, if it no longer is a County option. There is a partnership between
9 the Lummi Nation and County Executive's staff to apply for this funding. It also involves
10 folks from the federal delegation. He asked if that entire effort would be off the table if the
11 County Council votes to remove Slater Road from the project list. Desler stated the issues
12 with the Tribe may be with Haxton Road, the ferry landing, the size of the ferry, and a little
13 bit about Slater Road. The County administration hasn't discussed additional funding with
14 the Tribe in the last two weeks.
15
16 Kelly stated that's not what he's heard.
17
18 Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated there was a meeting two weeks
19 ago that talked about the federal economic stimulus package and applying for the $5 million
20 grant. There is a draft letter from the Lummi Nation, Whatcom County, the City of
21 Ferndale, and Conoco - Phillips to support this stimulus package and get the funds. He
22 received the draft letter today.
23
24 Crawford asked if the County should go for a bigger bond to get the Slater Road
25 project done if it doesn't get the additional money. Christensen stated that would require
26 $2.6 million.
27
28 Crawford stated he is in favor of option one. He would like a contingency that the
29 County may need even more money if it doesn't get the $5 million grant.
30
31 Nelson asked if the reason for the project on Slater Road, which is already all -
32 weather, is to make it flood - proof. Christensen stated that is correct.
33
34 Nelson asked how many times per year is the road inaccessible due to flooding.
35 Christensen stated it averages two days per year.
36
37 Nelson asked why they would spend that amount for two days per year. It's an
38 unreasonable request to the rate - payers of the community. The cost was originally based
39 on an even cost split with the Tribe. The whole project is starting to fall apart. Now they're
40 trying to get a stimulus package. He doesn't support this project at this time.
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
43
44 Nelson continued to state that the project is reasonable if there was better
45 collaboration among the County, Tribe, and federal government. He hasn't heard from
46 Conoco that having the road closed for two days per year would break the company. He
47 hasn't heard from the City of Ferndale that the community would have a detrimental impact
48 if the road is closed for two days per year. He's not inclined to support the Slater Road
49 project any longer, given the cost. He would rather take the Slater Road project off the
50 table at this point.
51
52 He's not sure about Lincoln Road, phase two, either. It was contingent upon
53 commercial property being developed.
54
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 7
1 Crawford stated it is the extension from Harborview Road to Blaine Road. There is
2 no road there currently.
3
4 Nelson asked the original reason for this project.
5
6 Karcher stated the driver for the entire Lincoln Road project was getting the through -
7 traffic to Interstate 5 and off Birch Bay Drive. There is a private development responsible
8 for part of the project, shown on map M -3 of the handout. The private development is
9 having problems right now. He indicated the project location on the maps.
10
11 Nelson asked if the project is because of projected growth due to that private
12 development. Karcher stated multiple developments have been proposed over the last few
13 years in the area west of Shintaffer Road.
14
15 Caskey - Schreiber stated don't put this County in $6 million in debt for a Slater Road
16 fix for only two days per year. She supports the project if they get the $5 million grant, but
17 not otherwise. She was in favor of the project when it had a 50 -50 match. However, the
18 costs keep escalating, and the County has other traffic problems in the county.
19
20 Kelly asked the percentage of the top county employers and employees who work
21 out there, including Conoco, Intalco, and the casino.
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated they have an alternate route.
24
25 Weimer asked where they are with the Lincoln Road developer agreement. Karcher
26 stated he thinks there is a fire protection concurrency issue, so the project is stalled.
27
28 Weimer asked if phase one is because of a safety issue. Karcher stated it is, as well
29 as because it's a through- route.
30
31 Weimer asked the difference between the phase two route and the route along
32 Harborview Road and Birch Bay Lynden Road. Karcher stated the intersection of
33 Harborview Road and Birch Bay Lynden Road is strained. It also isn't suited for future
34 development.
35
36 Weimer asked if there is a long -term plan to push Lincoln Road all the way to Portal
37 Way. Karcher stated there isn't that he is aware of.
38
39 Nelson moved to put this forward to the Council with no recommendation because
40 everyone wants a different option. He -will support the option to remove the Slater Road
41 project and the Lincoln Road phase two project. They both have questionable funding.
42 That won't keep the Slater Road project from going forward if it does get economic stimulus
43 funding. They can put the Lincoln Road phase two project back on the list if the developer
44 issues work out and they find other funding. Karcher stated that's correct. Also, they
45 would look for additional funding. They are looking at Birch Bay Lynden Road to Portal Way
46 and Birch Bay Lynden Road to Blaine Road as key pieces of that through- route. They have
47 to be improved and facilitated.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: The Committee did not vote on this motion.)
50
51 Kelly moved to recommend approval of option two to the full Council.
52
53 Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. Council support will give some weight
54 to the letter to the federal government. If the majority of the Council doesn't support the
55 project, he's concerned.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 8
1
2 Nelson stated the weight is there regardless. Taking it off would indicate to the
3 federal government that the project needs help to work.
4
5 Motion to recommend approval of option two carried 2 -1 with Nelson
6 opposed.
7
8 Desler stated be aware that the Potter Road bridge and Birch Bay Drive pedestrian
9 berm are not included in any of these items. Some councilmembers have said they may
10 want to revisit the ferry rate language. The administration may seek ways other than a
11 bond to borrow the money, such as borrowing from another fund. They want to explore
12 those possibilities. The bond cost may be folded in with other things. The road fund
13 projection may end up being something more or less than $4 million. There will be some
14 flexibility about how they structure the figures. He will come back with more detail.
15
16 Crawford asked if the administration will come back with a proposal to fix the ferry
17 fare language. Desler stated the administration can do that, to meet the Council's original
18 intent.
19
20
21 OTHER BUSINESS
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated she spoke to Representatives Doug Ericksen and Kelli
24 Linville. She lobbied on behalf of the East County Regional Center this weekend. They both
25 said that there's a chance the County will lose the first million dollars if it doesn't spend it.
26 She asked if there is a way to prove the County put in some infrastructure improvements to
27 the site when it goes to the legislature this Fall.
28
29 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County will request an additional
30 $2.25 million through the next capital appropriation process for that facility. The County
31 will spend the funds and issue contracts. They are not interested in constructing a shell and
32 leaving it stand.
33
34
35 ADJOURN
36
37 The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
3
39
40
41 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
44 ATTk*
i�
45 J� •;NNAt� ••. C� ell'%
46 Q� C� '_ O • 101
47
48 — •
49
50 Dai Br-% ?.l? aN �►?ncT,-: lerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
! f
L. Ward Nelson, tommiffee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/22/2008, Page 9