HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance February 26 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
February 26, 2008
Committee Chair L. Ward Nelson called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Sam Crawford
Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Seth Fleetwood
Carl Weimer
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. RESOLUTION UPDATING THE 2006
WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
(CEDS) (AB2008 -099)
Absent:
None
AMENDED APPENDIX OF THE 2002
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration has made updates to
the proposed list of projects, which requires Council approval. Federal and State
organizations are more likely to fund projects on the list.
Nelson asked how the administration makes its review. Desler stated the Executive's
Office and Economic Development Committee makes review.
Nelson stated the community submitted its projects. He asked if this is a mechanism
to gain additional funding, if necessary. Desler stated it is. The administration doesn't
manage how other jurisdictions do their review.
Crawford asked if the projects are in any priority order. Desler stated they are not.
Some State and federal funding requirements are that these items be listed either in the
County Comprehensive Plan or on the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS) list.
Crawford stated some of the City projects don't seem to be updated.
Nelson asked if the Kendall subarea plan, recently completed, is included. Desler
stated it may not be included, if that plan wasn't done this past summer.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's not fond of some of the projects on the list, such as
the Grandview Road and West Pole Road connector. Desler stated the administration hasn't
said no to any of the projects that want to be on the list.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some of the projects on this list are fantasy projects, and
conflict with the six -year road program. Certain road program projects should be on the
CEDS list to make them more likely for funding. Desler stated that if they're not on this list,
they should be.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/2612008, Page 1
1
2 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Public Works Committee can look at the list and
3 compare it to the six -year road program.
4
5 Nelson stated this list can be changed at any time. Desler stated that's correct.
6 They generally do a review every two years.
7
8 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
9
10 Caskey- Schreiber stated compare this list to the six -year road plan at a future Public
11 Works Committee. Certain projects not in the road plan are called out in this plan.
12
13 Nelson stated that if a project is not on the CEDS list, the County can't go after
14 funding.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber stated there may be some projects on the list that shouldn't get
17 funding.
18
19 Nelson stated this is not a prioritized list. It is merely a list.
20
21 Brenner stated projects on this list, but not on the road fund list, may not be able to
22 start in that six years without State or federal funding.
23
24 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated the Grandview -Pole Road project is on
25 the six -year plan as number 25. Some projects on the six -year list, including this project,
26 are so large that they should be included on the list to get outside funding.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
31 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE BELLINGHAM FESTIVAL
32 OF MUSIC IN SUPPORT OF TOURISM IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 (AB2008-
33 100)
34
35 Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 3. APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -124 TO LOW
40 BIDDER VALLEY FREIGHTLINER FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SINGLE AXLE
41 DIESEL HYBRID CREW CAB TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,875.02
42 (AB2008 -101)
43
44 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. There is confusion about
45 carryover funding and the request for additional funds.
46
47 Brenner asked why the amounts in the column and the paperwork .don't match.
48
49 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated certain special equipment is
50 installed on the vehicle after it's purchased.
51
52 Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Director, stated they prepare this vehicle in -house
53 before it goes on the road. The extra money is to cover those costs.
54
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 2
1 Brenner stated she's never seen a $6,000 discrepancy. Schlehuber stated those
2 additional costs are capitalized with the vehicle. They are actual dollars spent on that
3 vehicle, shown on the balance sheet for the equipment rental and revolve (ER &R) fund.
4
5 Brenner stated she would like information that shows those costs. Abart stated they
6 won't know those exact costs, depending on the type of vehicle and the hours spent to
7 install the equipment. They can identify those costs somehow.
8
9 Schlehuber stated the road fund is billed for the cost of the vehicle in addition to the
10 make -ready costs, in this particular case. That's the reason for the $4,000 to $6,000
11 difference. The road fund has to pay for the vehicle. However, most replacements are
12 within the ER &R fund, and the user is not billed for the cost of the vehicle. It's taken care of
13 internally.
14
15 Brenner stated that when these things are done, she would like to see something
16 that shows that information in the budget requests. Schlehuber stated they don't typically
17 do a supplemental budget request for purchasing these vehicles.
18
19 Crawford asked how much more this hybrid costs than a conventional truck, and how
20 long it would take to recover the costs over the conventional cost. Abart stated the
21 additional cost over a conventional is $50,440. He calculated a payback of 10.3 years.
22 They keep the vehicle 15 to 20 years. In addition, there are reduced emissions. This is a
23 mass - produced vehicle. It's not a pilot project.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 4. APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
28 WITH PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE PROVISION
29 OF UPDATED ORTHOGONAL AND OBLIQUE DIGITAL AERIAL IMAGES OF
30 WESTERN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,190.60 (AB2008-
31 102)
32
33 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. He asked if the
34 County is sure it can make this information available to the public through Local.Live.com.
35 Make sure everyone can get those pictures. He asked if they have to wait two years for
36 that information to be on Local.Live.com.
37
38 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.)
39
40 5. APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -24 TO
41 ADVANCED INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FIREARMS
42 TRAINING SIMULATOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,452.00 (AS2008 -103)
43
44 Nelson asked if this is because they no longer have capacity with the Border Patrol.
45
46 Carey James, Sheriff's Office, stated the Border Patrol moved into a new facility and
47 took its equipment back from the Sheriff's Office. This unit is compatible, with a lesser cost.
48 It will still provide the standard of training they need.
49
50 Nelson asked if this training is in addition to field training. James stated they have a
51 hard time getting ammunition for training, due to the Iraq war. This equipment allows them
52 to train indoor using firearms to simulate at a much less cost, in a more controlled
53 environment.
54
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 3
Fleetwood asked if the Border Patrol will share its equipment with the County.
James stated the Border Patrol has many more agents than in the past, so the County can't
get access.
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN TO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CONSERVATION NORTHWEST
FOR THE LEGACY PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000.00 (AB2008 -104)
Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Nelson stated he is opposed. They've already gone through planning processes. He
is not in favor of separate entities, including private groups, in the County doing planning
processes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) project is to
identify future mitigation options. It can work nicely with the Legacy Project, which will
map biodiversity and habitat areas. The projects are complementary and will add to the
County's knowledge base of Whatcom County.
Fleetwood asked about the biodiversity map. He asked what that map will do that is
beneficial, above and beyond a standard State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist.
Lisa McShane, Legacy Project Manager, submitted information (on file). The map
will put all the data into one useable database in a decision support system that will enable
Planning Department staff to do good long -range planning. -
Fleetwood asked if this map will be updated regularly. McShane stated the map
would need to be updated regularly to be useful.
Fleetwood stated critics of this effort said they already know the vision for Whatcom
County. He asked the level of specificity they will achieve above what they already know for
land use decisions: McShane stated this survey relates only to land use values. Make sure
this map is useable for their next update. The community value survey will be helpful
information during the Council's next update.
Fleetwood asked what the preferred alternative is an alternative to.
Tris Shirley, Legacy Project Secretary, stated the process, summarized in the
information, says they start by determining current conditions. The biodiversity survey was
part of that. They will then work to create a forecast of possible development scenarios for
Whatcom County, based on policies in place at this time, recent trends, and activity in other
areas. People will respond to that information. From that dialog and the survey, they hope
to establish a series of alternative visions or scenarios for developing Whatcom County that
spans the possible range of opinions. There will be some alternative that appeals to
everyone. " rhere will be an open public process for the people to decide the preferred
alternative.
Fleetwood asked if there will be an advisory vote or if they will determine the best
alternative by some other means. Shirley stated they haven't decided on the mechanism
for determining the best alternative. It will be an expression of the entire community.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, 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
Brenner stated she is not comfortable with planning processes being contracted to an
organization that is very politically active. She went through the original visioning process,
which worked because it was done through Whatcom County. This issue is controversial to
begin with. The County is obligated to do this kind of thing in- house. She would support
this organization being a mediator if qualified, but is uncomfortable with this process.
Fleetwood stated a politically broad steering committee will direct the project
manager. There is some assurance that it won't get political.
Brenner stated one person on the steering committee is already uncomfortable about
the direction.
Weimer asked if Planning Director Stalheim sees $55,000 of value coming out of this.
Stalheim stated only one portion of all the tasks is related to mapping, in the amount of
about $35,000. Work is being proposed that has value. This scope of work doesn't have to
do with visioning, only the mapping and survey of community values as a part of this
contract. The County will have to get some software to run this system.
Crawford stated it's worthless. He knows the results of the survey right now. People
like open space, efficient transportation, and economic benefit. The County should not fund
either Conservation Northwest or the Building Industry Association (BIA), which are
politically opposite from each other. The County funds the BIA for programs, and that's
wrong. Conservation Northwest is not going to come up with a model that everyone likes.
It's a philosophical difference. A large segment of the population say it's pretentious for this
County to decide what the County should look like in 50 or 100 years. Do not force the
current vision onto a future culture and technology they can't even imagine. The Council
should address any planning efforts that aren't currently being undertaken. Don't act based
on a separate group of community activists. The first paragraph of the contract says that
the contractor will develop a range of alternative visions for the public. It will not get the
public's vision, but is to develop the range for the public. That won't work. They will cause
a lot of angst in the community. Also, Mr. Kelly is on the steering committee. There may
be a conflict of interest.
Kelly stated he is no longer involved in the steering committee now that he's an
elected official.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Councilmember Brenner often advocated that the County
contract out planning efforts. This organization is a group of citizens trying to assess the
community. The only thing that can come from this is more information for the Council's
decision - making process. She doesn't see why that is so threatening to people. The
Council deals with future plans all the time. She would like to know the environmental
value of some of the areas in the county. They get that information through the Whatcom
Land Trust, but the County doesn't have the staff to provide that information. This
organization's intent is good and isn't political. The County funneled money for years to the
Chamber of Commerce, which bought advertising opposed some of those who ran for office
and certain campaigns. This organization has never done that.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that additional information, about community
values will not jeopardize any property owner in the county. The County won't be
condemning property for conservation.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 5
1 Nelson stated he is okay with getting information on biodiversity mapping if the
2 Planning Department needs it. He asked if this meets the Growth Management Act (GMA)
3 requirements, if they want to start the process all over. He asked if the intent of the map is
4 to have a reason to start a new process. The intent of the GMA was to get community
5 preferences and outline their plan for 20 years. Now, they are changing that plan to 50 or
6 100 years. He asked if they intend to have a process in place different from what the
7 County did for GMA. Stalheim stated the intent of the GMA is to continually review and
8 update the Comprehensive Plan. Periodically, they will look at the vision embodied within
9 the Comprehensive Plan. Growth Management was done 18 years ago. Values and
10 resources change. There is always value in looking at basic principles in the land use
11 guidance. He has not proposed planning for 50 or 100 years. That came from the Legacy
12 Project, which was going on well before he started working for the County. Through GMA,
13 the staff would typically look at a 20 -year planning horizon.
14
15 Nelson asked if the biodiversity mapping can be done through any other mechanism
16 at a lesser cost. Stalheim stated he hasn't looked at this issue in great detail. The
17 geographic information system (GIS) staff finds value in the mapping, which includes the
18 amount of staff time to compile, format, and present this information. The end product
19 won't be wasteful at all. It will be useful to staff.
20
21 Nelson asked if a request for proposals (RFP) was done for the biodiversity map.
22 Stalheim stated there was an RFP for the Legacy Project. There were two or three
23 respondents. They also did an RFP for the Farm Friends contract, both before he was hired.
24
25 Nelson stated he is fine with the database mapping. The community survey needs
26 more discussion. He wants to clearly understand the process, the financial implications, and
27 what the community can expect. Stalheim stated he had accountability questions also, and
28 they've added requirements to the scope of work. When spending public funds, the County
29 should be able to comment on and review the product.
30
31 Nelson stated they should be able to do more than review and comment. The results
32 should belong to the County, since the County is paying for it. Stalheim stated they can
33 amend the scope of work to add an approval process.
34
35 Crawford asked about the redline version of the contract. Stalheim stated an
36 updated version of the contract is available. The changes answer questions about the
37 biodiversity map and integrate the community values into the 2011 GMA update.
38
39 Crawford stated language was deleted about providing written documentation of all
40 expenses, including reimbursable expenses and consultant time at approved rates. He
41 asked if Mr. Stalheim thinks that's okay. Stalheim stated the updated version includes a
42 specific budget. They should have written documentation of all expenses. The new
43 attachment identifies how that written documentation will be done.
44
45 Brenner stated all her recommendations for contracting out have been for expert
46 services, specifically for engineering. No engineering firm has been a lightening rod for an
47 issue. Regarding the Chamber of Commerce, the funding was for their program, not a
48 County program. Those issues aren't comparable to this issue.
49
50 Councilmembers will support this issue. This isn't a balanced approach.
51 Conservation Northwest has a certain idea of what things will be like and should be like in
52 Whatcom County. It is not an objective approach.
53
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 6
1 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning staff can't do this work right now, because it
2 has 90 other projects to do. Lisa McShane is hired to facilitate this process. It's not her
3 vision or her values. The goal of the survey is to find out what the community wants. The
4 County Council and small cities will still have the final say about land use. The role of
5 Conservation Northwest is minimal. It is an umbrella organization that will facilitate this
6 process. They need a measure of what the citizens want for the future. The
7 Comprehensive Plan process isn't inclusive. The County does no outreach. This project will
8 do outreach to create a vision. Nothing will be legally binding. It is just more information
9 for the Council to consider.
10
11 Brenner stated facilitators can maneuver, monopolize, and promote certain things.
12 It is the most pivotal position, because everything goes through the facilitator.
13
14 Fleetwood asked about deliverable three, to report on implementation options. He
15 asked what is implemented. McShane stated that is no longer part of the contract. She
16 envisioned that implementation was how the findings would be included in planning
17 documents.
18
19 Kelly stated he will vote in favor of this, but not because he's a former member of
20 the. board. The current process allows public involvement, but only to a small extent. It's
21 not fair to characterize the group as representing one particular interest. There is a diverse
22 representation of interest involved. Today, they're being asked to vote on a contract that
23 has value for the Planning Department in terms of making informed decisions in the future.
24 It will help provide public certainty to make informed decisions. Don't pigeonhole these
25 folks into one category.
26
27 Nelson stated he's gone through this process before. Even though this is the
28 beginning of a process, it says that the County doesn't like the result it already has, and
29 wants to do the whole process over again. The public spent four to five years on a process
30 already. He's concerned that this is the first step to starting the process all over again. It
31 could add even more items to the 90 already on the docket.
32
33 Brenner stated she's not pigeonholing anyone. There is a feeling in the community
34 that she didn't create. If something is this controversial, it should be facilitated by people
35 who are seen as abstract, objective third parties.
36
37 Nelson stated there is a substitute version of the contract.
38
39 Motion failed 1 -2 with Kelly in favor.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy' Administrator, stated the County only budgeted $35,000 for
42 this contract. They will have to do a supplemental budget request.
43
44 4. APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
45 WITH PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE PROVISION
46 OF UPDATED ORTHOGONAL AND OBLIQUE DIGITAL AERIAL IMAGES OF
47 WESTERN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,190.60 (AB2008-
48 102)
49
50 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
51
52 Crawford asked if the aerial images will go to local.live.com right away or after the
53 two -year period. The public should have access to the product that the County pays for.
54
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/2612008, Page 7
Perry Rice, Administrative Services Department, stated Microsoft has to purchase a
license from Pictometry International Corp. According to the vendor, Microsoft has not yet
shown an interest in data set. However, the data set doesn't exist yet. They don't know if
the images will be available on the Microsoft site.
Crawford asked how they can make this information available for public use. Rice
stated there is a piece of software that may be included and that would allow the County to
enable the software for the web. The County can provide internal tools to County
employees, but they can't provide the same tools to the citizens. The initial intent is to
focus on the County employees who need this data set.
Crawford stated he is interested in there being some sort of accessibility mechanism.
Also, it appears Lake Whatcom is not a part of this. Rice stated there are two levels of
imagery. All of western Whatcom County will be flown. It will be flown at either eight -inch
or six -inch resolution. The City's UGA heading toward the lake will be at the six -inch
resolution. Everything around the lake will be at the eight -inch resolution, which is still
phenomenal.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2008 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #4 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,323,460 (AB2008 -090)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR DEWEY DESLER REGARDING
LOBBYING PRIORITIES IN PREPARATION FOR THE UPCOMING NACO
LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, DC (AB2008 -096)
Nelson stated they will discuss this item at the evening Council meeting. He will
propose health care initiatives tonight.
2. DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FRANK ABART AND DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR DEWEY DESLER REGARDING ROAD FUND AND CAPITAL
PROJECT REVIEW (AB2008 -097)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, handed out information (on file) and stated
they've been analyzing Council -set priorities recently. They've realized there are issues with
funding during certain years. Given the size of certain projects, they may have to borrow a
fair amount of money to address the items. He showed revenue and expense projections
for the next six years of the road fund. He changed the projections, given projects such as
the ferry project, the Hannegan Road intersection, the Slater Road, the Drayton Harbor
project, two sections of the Lincoln Road, two sections of the Birch Bay- Lynden Road, Yew
Street Road, Lake Louise Road, and certain bridges. The projections are net of any
predicted grant revenue. The grant revenue is not included. They've projected only the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 8
1 local money needed to pay for the projects. He explained the columns and rows in the
2 projections.
3
4 To accomplish all the projects, the County may have to borrow $38 million. That
5 amount is reduced by using real estate excise tax (REET) 2 revenue, in the amount of $1
6 million per year. The required payback will be over $2.5 million per year in bond payments
7 that cover both principal and interest over 20 years. There isn't any money left in the road
8 fund to support projects beyond those listed, beginning in the years 2012 and 2013. He has
9 projections for alternative scenarios in his presentation (on file).
10
11 Crawford asked if one alternative is to repay the $38 million with rural sales tax
12 money. Add an option to transfer in rural sales tax money in addition to REET 2. Desler
13 stated the easiest way is to identify a project, and pay for a project with the County
14 government facility portion of the rural sales tax. There may be a way to bond against the
15 rural sales tax for a big project.
16
17 Crawford stated they are doling that money out in small bits and pieces. This
18 potential indebtedness hasn't occurred this significantly before. Avoid that. That obligation
19 takes priority over having the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) fund. It makes more
20 sense to sacrifice the EDI fund, if they are legally able to do that, than to put the County in
21 debt.
22
23 Desier continued the presentation on the alternative road fund scenarios. One option
24 is to not buy a new ferry. Another option is to not do one of the major road projects. They
25 would borrow $19 million, with a debt payment of $1,461,000. They would also give up the
26 County Road Administration Board (CRAB) contribution.
27
28 Kelly asked what is contained in the "other" category. With the no- new -ferry
29 scenario, that item rises from 34 percent to 41 percent. Desler stated the amount of money
30 doesn't change, just the percentage. That item includes projected bridge repairs and major
31 overlays.
32
33 Brenner asked what is the Hannegan Road intersection project. Desler described the
34 project.
35
36 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated they still have to acquire two
37 more properties for that project.
38
39 Brenner stated the costs for the Slater Road project are going through the roof.
40 She's talked to engineers who say the goal can be achieved with big culverts rather than
41 raising the road. She asked if they can revisit the design. Abart stated the culverts were
42 evaluated as an option. There may have been environmental reasons for this design over
43 culverts.
44
45 Brenner asked about bifurcating the second phase of Lincoln Road. Abart stated
46 they divided the second phase into two pieces because they needed the money to do the
47 Pole Road and Hannegan Road intersection. However, the project is still on the plan.
48
49 Brenner stated there is an idea of using an existing State ferries rather than building
50 a new ferry. She asked why they haven't explored that option.
51
52 Nelson stated the administration did answer the question about other, used ferries.
53 The design features aren't the same on all the ferries. That was the answer they gave when
54 that question was asked.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 9
Brenner stated she would like an evaluation of these ferries. There are ferries in
other areas and other parts of the county that aren't too old.
Nelson stated he has problems with going into debt in the amount of $38 million.
They can also use REET 1 for capital projects. He asked if they are using all the REET
funds. Desler stated they are not. REET is variable. REET 2 can only be used for road and
park development projects. They've conservatively assigned a majority of the money to the
road fund. Now, they generate a little over $2 million per year, but that amount is
dropping.
Nelson asked if an estimate of $1 million is as conservative as they should be.
Desler stated the Council can raise the estimate to more.
Nelson stated the County still needs $18 million if it doesn't buy a new ferry. Desler
stated that estimate leaves $6.5 million for any capital project that would occur between
2011 and 2013.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Desler stated they could exchange the REET money, and call it rural sales tax.
Crawford stated that the example with the new ferry is really the debt proceeds.
Abart asked if Councilmember Crawford is looking for a mechanism to pay the debt service.
Crawford stated he is. Tie up the rural sales tax to pay on the $38 million. Change
the EDI program. He asked if they will get more than $38 million over 20 years. Desler
stated the 40 percent of the money is used for County facility issues. Forty percent would
be assigned to a loan program that they'd repay over time. Twenty is paid with a grant
program. When they deal with projects that involve a city, Port, or some other jurisdiction,
the loan is two - thirds and the grant is one - third.
Crawford asked if they can legally go back to the drawing board on that. A certain
amount of . dollars comes into the County. One of the allowed uses for economic
development is capital facilities. Put 100 percent, if needed, to fund $38 million over 20
years. Change the County policy to fund the $38 million over 20 years.. Desler stated they
will have a lot of push back from others in the community who really want to use the EDI
funds as a basis for their economic development projects. If the Council really wants, it
could say that the roads in the county are so important that the County will devote all the
money to that. He doesn't recommend that today.
Crawford stated he would like to see more explanation of how much they anticipate
will come in over 20 years and the County's bonding capacity at the 40 percent level up to
the 100 percent level. He appreciates that the County was able to help with others'
economic development projects. However, they may have a choice to do those things or
stay out of the road fund to pay off a debt. Projects will come up over the years. The
County has nine - tenths of a cent coming in and keep this road fund at the status quo.
Desler stated another option is to take a bond issue to the voters today for these
projects. The Council would not have to pay off this particular debt out of this revenue. A
portion of it could be levied through a vote of the people.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 10
1 Crawford stated that vote wouldn't be successful. The big projects are so location -
2 specific that it would be tough to get the entire county to vote for it. In reality, they can
3 change it in the future, anyway.
4
5 Nelson stated the administration can present another scenario of and projections on
6 using a portion of or all the rural sales tax funds. He would like to keep the REET funding in
7 it. They could raise that. He has some problems with certain projects, such as the
8 Hannegan Road intersection. The cost of right -of -way acquisition has made the project
9 prohibitive. They can remove the option for a new ferry, but it doesn't change the situation
10 with the current ferry. It's thinner than the State ferries. Create a scenario without the
11 Hannegan Road and Slater Road projects.
12
13 Abart stated the Council will introduce tonight the contract to move forward with the
14 ferry, for Council discussion and decision in two weeks. The State wants to know whether
15 or not the County will spend that money within two to four weeks.
16
17 Fleetwood asked if the questions before the Council are about whether or not the
18 Council will approve the purchase of a new ferry; whether the Council would raise taxes in
19 the future to pay for the new ferry, and; whether they will get rid of other projects they
20 cannot conceivably do. Abart stated those are some of the questions. Today, the
21 administration is presenting a broad picture if the situation. They have a variety of projects
22 and costs that are going up.
23
24 Desler, stated the County has to borrow money to do these projects, even if it only
25 does a portion of the projects. The only option where the County doesn't have to borrow
26 money is one where the County does no projects and does not purchase a new ferry.
27
28 He presented a scenario with a limited project at Hannegan Road intersection and no
29 Slater Road project. The County will have to borrow about $24 million.
30
31 Marianne Caldwell, Administrative Services Department, stated the County will have
32 to pay back $900,000 that it's already spent.
33
34 Steve Oliver, County Treasurer, stated the roads is just one need for which the
35 County may have to borrow funds. Several other projects will come forward and may
36 require additional debt to be issued. Having multiple projects over multiple years becomes
37 very complicated very quickly. They are developing a request for qualifications (RFQ) to
38 contract with credit market experts, who will vet all possible funding scenarios and
39 recommend.a course of action to fund all potential County projects in the best possible way.
40
41 Crawford asked what other projects will come forward. The sales tax will pay for the
42 jail. Oliver stated there has been discussion of bonding for a new Treasurer /Assessor
43 system and some other capital building projects.
44
45 Brenner stated that in the future, she would like to see these scenarios before the
46 meeting. She would have better questions to ask if she had more time to look at the
47 scenarios.
48
49 Weimer asked if the road fund has banked capacity available. Desler stated the
50 County has $998,000 in banked capacity for the road fund. They are trying to make big
51 decisions about borrowing money. They wanted to address all the road fund projects.
52
53 Nelson asked how much is invested in the Hannegan Road and Slater Road projects.
54 Abart stated the County has invested $1 million through 2007 in the Hannegan Road
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 11
1 project. The County invested $800,000 in the Slater Road project, which it will have to pay
2 back.
3
4 Kelly stated they have to look at the bigger picture. At some point, they will have to
5 talk about a tax. They're talking about incurring some level of debt unless this list goes
6 away. Other issues such as the jail may have tax implications. He would like to see
7 something that includes all those issues. There is also an issue of the ferry timeline. Desler
8 stated the jail issue is very large. The schedule for that project runs through 2015. Given
9 the size of the project, the demand for jail space, and the rising costs, they will have to find
10 a creative mechanism to find revenue for that project. They must also have other capital
11 projects to sustain existing buildings and build a building for the Public Works and Planning
12 Departments. The administration would like to do that without raising taxes. The
13 administration also has very large technology projects for the Treasurer and Assessor. That
14 projects may also need to be bonded and paid back with existing revenue in about ten
15 years. The County's bonding capacity is very good. They have very limited debt, also. In
16 three or four years, the County will be debt -free.
17
18 Nelson stated that the County has been very frugal. As a result, they have many
19 things coming up that will take some effort. He asked if the administration considered
20 extending the timeline for some of the road projects. Abart stated they have. They have
21 already moved some project timelines out. However, the expenses will likely go up.
22
23 Nelson stated the biggest expense with the Hannegan Road project is land purchase.
24 Abart stated they have spent about $1.5 million on the Hannegan Road project to date.
25
26 Desler stated the committee members want a projection of the lifespan of the rural
27 sales tax. The committee also wants information on raising the REET contribution as a
28 portion of this formula. He will summarize other key capital projects the administration is
29 developing.
30
31 Nelson stated he would like to see the funding sources of the various capital projects
32 and how the bonds would be paid off. They will increase the County's debt. Desler stated
33 the legislature on longer allows counties to use the rural sales tax on criminal justice
34 facilities.
35
36 Crawford stated he wants to find solutions for doing what they've said they will do.
37 They are spending money in other areas, such as the EDI funds, that the County could use.
38 Desler stated that would leave them without the capacity to do anything else in a few years.
39
40 Abart stated provide staff with two or three years to do things the right way and not
41 be in a rush to develop plans, acquire right -of -way, move utilities, and prepare properly for
42 projects.
43
44 Nelson stated schedule this item before the Committee of the Whole in two weeks.
45
46 Crawford stated the Council just approved an urban growth area for Bellingham.
47 People are going to continue to move into Lynden. The Hannegan Road intersection is
48 already a mess during rush hours, but the Council is taking other actions that will
49 exacerbate that situation even more. One thing leads to another. They have to pay the
50 piper on all these projects. They must be consistent, and recognize that one thing affects
51 another.
52
53
54 OTHER BUSINESS
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 12
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
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are considering the possibility of
making the third floor of the Civic Center building available for people to work, and moving
out of the Copper Building, which is leased space. The leased space costs about $100,000
per year. The cost to renovate the Civic Center third floor will be about $850,000, so they
will consider the viability of that idea. The administration will explore that option in the next
few weeks.
Crawford stated there are parking benefits to the Copper Building.
Desler stated the Sheriff cancelled the work release facility agreement. The Sheriff
proposes using storage space in the interim jail as work release space. The administration
will bring forward a proposal to modify that building. If feasible, it will be an expensive but
doable project. This is not a budgeted expense.
Crawford stated the status of the issue of ferry fares is unclear. He has a proposed
ordinance to introduce at the Council meeting. With the current ordinance, they are losing
$500 to $1,000 per day, every day. The issue is whether or not they are going to address
that problem and continue to hemorrhage cash. He thought the County would go with
option one, presented last November. The Council hasn't done anything since then.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated there were three options to
pay down the debt and pay for the operating costs.
Crawford stated none of the options raised the single -ride rate. They were about
discounts for multi -ride tickets. Option one makes a discount ten percent across the board.
"rhat would result in the County to catch up at current ridership rates in about five years, to
a break -even point. It would not make any additional money. Abart stated all three options
included some sort of increase in the years 2009 and 2011.
Crawford stated he will bring forward his proposed ordinance for Council introduction
at the evening meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:13 p.m.
Jill Nixon lAktV9!f!qj)'s;ription
�.
C0 ,
AW. 4*
0.00 COUNTY
• TE
•
Dan rown'f4ris; tou Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward N son, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 13