HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance March 11 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
March 11, 2008
Committee Chair L. Ward Nelson called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford None
Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Carl Weimer
Barbara Brenner
Seth Fleetwood
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FRANK ABART AND DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR DEWEY DESLER REGARDING ROAD FUND AND CAPITAL
PROJECT REVIEW (AB2008 -097)
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the administration sent the
Councilmembers spreadsheets as a result of this discussion two weeks ago. One thing not
on the plan is the Birch Bay Drive pedestrian project. It will cost about $6.6 million in
today's dollars. Construction is three to five years out, so the cost will be $9 to 10 million
for that project. There is $400,000 budgeted this year for additional concept plans and
specifications. The question is whether the administration should spend that $400,000
without additional funding for the project in place.
Crawford asked if the sales tax rebate fund that can be used for capital
improvements pay for project- specific improvements out of this, rather than tapping into
the road fund.
Nelson stated he had asked about the real estate excise tax (REET) II fund. They
are only using about $1 million per year right, and project $2 million. They could go to a
conservative $1.5 million, which will help offset some of the costs. Councilmember
Crawford was talking about the County excise tax.
Crawford stated remove some of the projects off the list, such as the Whatcom Chief.
Bond the future sales tax rebate monies. Relieve the stress on that road fund item and
reduce this debt issue of $38 million at the bottom of this spreadsheet. Those were the
ideas from the discussion two weeks ago.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the rural sales tax is partially assigned
now to the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program.
Crawford stated one thought is to eliminate the EDI program, and tie up all that
money in a bond issue. That money will then service that bond. Desler stated those rural
sales tax monies can be used for capital facilities that are for economic development. The
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 1
1 County decides what is economic development. Ultimately, it's got to pass that test. It's
2 appropriate to use those funds for other capital facilities needs. He doesn't recommend
3 using all that money for that use.
4
5 Those funds are only available until 2024. If they bond the money, the bond can't
6 go beyond 2024, which is not a 20 -year timeframe from now. The legislature recently
7 raised the rate from .08 to .09. There is a board that looks this over. State representatives
8 and other economic development interests sit on that board. They want this money used
9 for their projects.
10
11 Crawford asked if they can bond against (inaudible) and spend the money on
12 projects whose partners agree. Whatcom County can't do it all. They are assuming that
13 the County won't start any other projects during this timeframe, and will stick to just this
14 list. He doesn't know if that's realistic. The bottom line is that the County doesn't have the
15 money to do all this. Tap into a portion of the EDI funds. Prior to 1999, the EDI didn't
16 exist.
17
18 Nelson asked if a certain level of debt is acceptable to the administration. Desler
19 stated the County is close to having no debt. The administration is not concerned about
20 taking on debt because it's appropriate to have future taxpayers pay for capital
21 improvements that they will benefit from having in the future. They must be responsible
22 and be aware of what it takes to cover those bond payments each year.
23
24 Nelson asked if the administration supports a bond for $38 million. Desler stated it
25 does. The Executive would do that. It's appropriate for the Council and public to really
26 understand what that means. It has the impact of not allowing future councils and
27 administrations the ability to take on major new projects that are sure to come forward.
28
29 Crawford asked if the County could work on these projects immediately if it bonds for
30 $38 million. There are other reasons for projects to not get done, such as staff levels.
31 Abart stated these projects are all on the plan, and would be done over the next four years.
32
33 Crawford stated the bond would be for 20 years. He asked if the County get this list
34 of projects done in 20 years, or in six years. Desler stated the financial numbers don't allow
35 the projects to get done at all. The debt service continues to stay their. Their costs for
36 maintenance and operations in an increasingly urbanized county are rising. The road fund
37 has only so much capacity.
38
39 Abart stated that at the end of 2008, they project to have $4.5 million available for
40 capital projects. If the County borrows. $38 million, they could have a debt service of $3
41 million for the next 20 years.
42
43 Desler stated operating expenses only take up an increasingly larger portion of the
44 available revenue. Revenue isn't available for large capital projects.
45
46 Caskey- Schreiber asked the interest amount if they borrow $38 million. Desler
47 stated the interest rate would be between 4.5 to 5 percent.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County has enough for maintenance issues if it gets
50 the bond at 5 percent with a payment of $3 million per year. Desler stated it will, but there
51 won't be money available for new road projects or a major bridge problem. They would
52 have to borrow more money. They won't have the ability to do projects like Lincoln Road or
53 Slater Road. There won't be any money available.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 2
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the administration wants to go for the bond or wants the
Council to review the current project list and possibly remove projects. Desler stated he
recommends a bond less than $38 million, such as $24 million. If they buy the ferry, the
County has to borrow some money. Whether or not a bond for $38 million is a good idea
depends on the future economy
Caskey- Schreiber asked if bonding for this would jeopardize a bond for a new jail, for
example. Desler stated it won't, but the County would have a higher interest rate. The
County will have to have a bond for a new jail. They hope to build a facility that will house
major operations of the County government, which are the Public Works and Planning and
Development Services Departments. They need to use the capacity from revenue like the
rural sales tax, REET II, general fund, and fee revenue to cover the bonding costs necessary
to construct a large facility. It's not just the road projects themselves. It's other things
necessary to make sure they have a viable operation in the future.
Nelson asked about ferry costs. Desier stated the ferry cost will be about $10
million, but the Public Works Department advocates for a contingency in the budget.
Abart stated the standard contingency is 15 percent.
Weimer asked if removing projects from the list would reduce operating expenses.
Abart stated he's not sure it would.
Weimer stated that either way, the County doesn't have money to do anything new
in the future. He asked what the County will do if the Lummi Nation makes the County
move the ferry dock in 2010. The Lummi Nation's economic plan has a different use for
that spot. That is something the County must consider. Desler stated all the information
they have at this point indicates the dock will stay in its current location.
Nelson asked the impact to the ending fund balance if they increase REET to $1.5
million and bond for $24 million. Desier stated the County has assigned 60 percent of the
REET II revenue to road projects, and the rest to park projects. However, that is ultimately
a decision of the County Council.
Brenner stated that new buildings for the Planning Department and Public Works
Department shouldn't be part of the equation right now. When Growth Management
passed, the County was guaranteed a revenue - sharing scheme to allow the County to
continue to pay for its basic functions. That hasn't happened. Don't let the State walk
away from that promise. Until that is resolved, be conservative. The County should stick to
the promises it's made. Desler stated he agrees, but the County must maximize the
flexibility allowed by law. That means going to the limit for BEET, conservation futures, and
rural sales tax when it meets the needs of the people of Whatcom County. It may be
controversial because people expect those funds to be used for something else.
Brenner stated continue with projects on the list that were promised. If the County
can't do new things, it must lobby the State. Her first priority is to keep the promises the
County has already made.
Crawford asked if every dollar of current funds put in to alleviate the debt service
would represent ten times that amount in debt replacement, given a 20 -year bond at 4.5
percent.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 3
1 Marianne Caldwell, Administrative Services Department, stated $1 million at 4.5
2 percent is $77,000 of debt service.
3
4 Crawford stated that every dollar committed for 20 years out of current funding for
5 that year alleviates the need to get 20 -year bonding by about 12 or 13 times. Desler stated
6 costs are increasing at a rate higher than the interest rate. Projects done in five or six
7 years would be far more expensive than if the County borrowed the money today. There
8 are reasons to bond, even with interest rising. However, understand those implications.
9
10 Nelson asked what happens to the budget if they remove the Slater Road project.
11 The road closes three or four times a year. He asked if those closures are worth the cost of
12 that project, given the critical funding issue.
13
14 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's comfortable with delaying the second phase of the
15 Lincoln Road project.
16
17 Caldwell stated that without Slater Road, the County would need $29 million, with
18 REET at $1.5 million.
19
20 Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber about the Lincoln
21 Road phase two project.
22
23 Nelson stated he supported the Slater Road project, but it's only a benefit for three
24 or four days per year. It may not be worth the investment at this time.
25
26 Kelley stated the Lummi Nation Natural Resources Department told him that Slater
27 Road costs have gone up so much that they aren't confident of securing enough funds to
28 see this through.
29
30 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated there is no construction funding
31 assigned to Lincoln Road phase two in the annual construction program and six -year road
32 program. There is only development funding in the amount of $600,000.
33
34 Nelson stated that at this point, he recommends removing the Slater Road project
35 and increasing REET to $1.5 million.
36
37 Caskey- Schreiber stated she recommends taking a second look at the new ferry.
38 She's not sure if the ferry needs to be replaced due to safety concerns.
39
40 Weimer stated he agrees about the ferry.
41
42 Kelly asked if the ferry has had a marine survey, he would like a copy of the marine
43 survey and a summary. Abart stated those are required every three years. Councilmember
44 Weimer has a copy of the most recent marine survey.
45
46 Fleetwood asked when it would be appropriate to approve the ferry, given the
47 discussion today. Abart stated that is up to the Council.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
50
51 Abart continued to state there is some degree of urgency for making a decision on
52 the ferry in terms of accepting the State funding. The State funding offer is not $8.15
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 4
million. The State would like to know in April whether or not Whatcom County will use that
money.
Brenner stated the Council was told that the ferry is not safe, and there will come a
time when it's more cost - effective to buy a new ferry rather than continue to increase
repairs. Regarding Slater Road project's increasing costs, any interest party should
contribute, including the refineries. Otherwise, the County won't be able to do that project.
Crawford stated he would like the administration to present a proposal for the EDI
Board to fund the Hannegan Road intersection project or the Slater Road project, either
separately or together. Those two projects have clear impacts to economic development.
The small cities will participate. The community at large will see the value of these projects.
It would require bonding against future EDI funds.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her recommendation is to continue work on the Hannegan
Road project, as the Council has been promising the citizens for years.
Crawford stated he is in favor of proceeding with the Hannegan Road project. He
would like to know if the County can continue without interruption if there is a mid - course
adjustment in the source of funding. Desler stated they can do that. Desler stated the
Council can have a decision in a month that would assign $3 million from EDI funds to this
project. They are obligated to review it with the EDI Board, but it can go before the Council
for a decision. There is no impediment to using that funding source for this purpose.
Fleetwood stated he would like to see different scenarios, including the status quo,
the status quo with no new ferry, the implications of buying a new ferry, and the number of
projects they may have to remove. He asked if the administration run scenarios on options
for raising new revenue for the road fund. Desler stated that if the voters support and
Council adopts an increase in the road fund levy amount, banked capacity has about $1
million. Also, the voters in unincorporated areas could allow an increase in the road levy.
Desler explained different requested funding scenarios on a spreadsheet
presentation.
Nelson stated the administration can bring forward other funding options in two
weeks.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE FOR PROJECT -BASED BUDGET REQUEST NO. 2008 -02 FOR
COUNTY ROAD PROJECT 905014, REPLACEMENT OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF
(AB2008 -109)
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated this is the project -based
budget to pursue new ferry construction. The contract is $10 million plus a standard 15
percent contingency, for a total request of $11.5 million.
Brenner stated they need to look at the equation of spending $5.5 million to upgrade
the old ferry.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 5
Abart stated the funding mechanism now includes $407,500 per year for 20 years
from the State. The County would still have to bond or borrow the entire $10 million. The
$407,500 would help pay some of that debt service, but not all.
Fleetwood asked the approximately yearly difference the County would pay. Abart
stated just on the $10 million, it would be $333,000 above and beyond the $407,500, just
for the ferry. If they have a new ferry, they have to also spend $4 million on docks to
accommodate the new ferry. The County doesn't have that money, either. The County
would have to borrow that money. Without a new ferry, the County doesn't need to do the
extra dock work to accommodate the new ferry.
Crawford asked about the $5.5 million to keep the old ferry. Abart stated he doesn't
yet have those details. The County would have to do significant work to make the Whatcom
Chief compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and take care of other
structural issues with the wheelhouse.
Crawford stated the $407,500 from the State only funds about $5 million or $6
million of the new ferry cost. In addition, the County would need to spend $5.5 million. If
the estimates are correct, the County's cost for the new ferry is the same as the County's
cost to retrofit the Whatcom Chief. He asked why they would spend the money on the old
Whatcom Chief when the County could spend the same amount of money and have a brand
new ferry, if it can be designed to use the existing docks. It may be a smaller design, but
at least they would have a brand new boat. Abart stated that there is a slim chance the
County could use the State money to do that redesign.
Weimer stated that according to the latest ultrasonic hull report, most of the hull has
only lost two to six percent of its thickness over the last 45 years. At that rate of corrosion,
the hull is good for another 45 years. A few spots have been replaced, which is normal with
a steel boat.
Fleetwood stated someone once told the Council that the Whatcom Chief has about
ten years of life left. That conflicts with Councilmember Weimer's report.
Fleetwood asked if corrosion rate and hull thickness are the primary drivers for
getting a new ferry, or if there are other mechanical factors driving the purchase. Abart
stated the ferry is over 45 years old, so that may be another mechanical factor. He doesn't
advocate for one decision over another.
Brenner stated this is a safety issue. She appreciates Councilmember Weimer's
summary, but it is very different from the information the Council received a few years ago.
Someone needs to give her a report. Abart stated someone from Elliot Bay Design Group or
another expert can come to the Council and talk about that.
Crawford stated that a Lummi Island resident recommended that the County rely on
the opinions of the Elliot Bay Design Group, the State County Road Administration Board
(CRAB) Technical Review Board, and the Coast Guard. He agrees with that
recommendation.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Crawford stated there has been an analysis of the Whatcom Chief. The Public Works
Department can come back with an existing and /or new report from Elliot Bay Design Group
about hull thickness and other technical information on the Whatcom Chief.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 6
1
2 Nelson stated the committee will hold this item for two weeks.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she wants to hear from the Coast Guard and also wants to
5 get a firmer accounting of what it would cost to upgrade the Whatcom Chief to keep it
6 operational.
7
8 Weimer stated he would also like to know what it means to make the boat ADA
9 compliant. Also, find out from the CRAB if the County can design a different ferry and still
10 use the money from the State.
11
12 Fleetwood stated he would like a professional opinion on the remaining life of the
13 existing Whatcom Chief, assuming they continue to put in the annual, regular maintenance
14 money to keep it afloat.
15
16 Kelly stated he would also like that information. Have an maritime expert analyze
17 the boat for that information, so the Council can consider it, given the implications to the
18 road fund. He's looking for information from experts to allow him to make an informed
19 decision. Abart stated he's not sure if he can get a report like that in two weeks.
20
21 Nelson asked if there is a cost incurred to get that information. Abart stated it may
22 cost a few thousand dollars to get a separate, new evaluation if that's what the Council
23 wants.
24
25 Brenner stated another way to get that information is to look at the report that was
26 already done. Look for an existing report in the files.
27
28 Abart stated he will bring this item back to committee for two weeks.
29
30 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTRACT LANGUAGE AND VOTE ON.THE REQUEST FOR
31 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
32 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CONSERVATION NORTHWEST FOR THE
33 LEGACY PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 (AB2008 -104)
34
35 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
36
37 Nelson stated asked the source of the cost discrepancy between another group called
38 Nature Serve and this group who will charge $30,000 more.
39
40 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he has not seen the information about
41 the less expensive group.
42
43 Brenner stated Nature Serve seems to be able to provide the County want it needs
44 ongoing, including software. If this is an ongoing need, the County should have this
45 software and related training, anyway. Have County staff trained to do this work ongoing.
46
47 Crawford withdrew his motion and moved to hold in committee for two weeks
48 so the administration has time to look at this alternate provider.
49
50 Nelson asked about the bid process. Desler described the history of this item.
51
52 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there were two
53 or three responses to the bid proposal. This project came out as the top project.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 7
Brenner stated separate the two tasks in the project, the biodiversity map and the
survey. Nature Serve can do the biodiversity map. There are survey consultants, such as
the consultant who did Whatcom County's park survey. She believes in the concept of
visioning beyond 20 years. However, it's important to have a disinterested third party be
the contractor. They must be objective. Stalheim stated they haven't gotten to the
discussion about visioning.
Brenner stated this is a preliminary to the visioning process. The County must have
the software that goes along with the maps. It's a good idea for the County to have the
software, and County staff should be trained to use it. Stalheim stated he intends to
purchase and implement the software.
Nelson stated the County intends to use this as a tool, but he doesn't know the end
result of using this tool. In past meetings, they discussed using this tool for a visioning
process. He asked if the administration intends to use this tool for a visioning process. The
Council can decide if that is an appropriate expenditure toward that intent. He asked if the
administration intends to move forward with a new visioning process. Stalheim stated the
department work plan, which he explained to the Council two weeks ago, includes a
visioning process for the 2011 update. However, the County hasn't discussed how to do
that visioning process. The original proposal included some visioning work. At the time he
and the Executive recommended that the visioning tasks be removed from the proposal.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Kelly opposed.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NEW WORLD SYSTEMS
CORPORATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE AEGIS PUBLIC SAFETY
INTERFACE SOFTWARE AS /400 STATE /NCIC INTERFACE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$27,000(AB2008 -115)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -15
TO THE BIDDER WITH THE BEST VALUE BASED ON PRICE AND COST TO
TRANSPORT ASPHALTIC MIXES TO THE JOB SITE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$85,000 (AB2008 -116)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Brenner asked why the language is different in this item from the next agenda item.
They are contracts for the same thing.
Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Department, stated the agenda title for this item is
incorrect. The contractors do not transport the asphalt mixes. The award is given based on
the type of material, delivery and supply.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 8
1 Nelson stated the title should be "Request approval for the County Executive to
2 award a bid to the lowest bidder for asphaltic mixes." Schlehuber stated the contract
3 includes both pickup at the plant and delivery.
4
5 Crawford amended his motion to recommend approval with the correct title,
6 based on the summary statement on page 29, not the current incorrect agenda title.
7
8 Brenner asked if it's the lowest bid. Schlehuber stated it depends on the job site
9 location and location of the plant. The bid is awarded based on the lowest responsive
10 bidder at time of purchase.
11
12 Crawford stated that is a decision at the time of purchase.
13
14 Nelson stated that now, the Council is asked to just approve $85,000.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -16
19 TO LOW BIDDER MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES FOR THE DELIVERY AND SUPPLY
20 OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS (ROAD OIL) IN THE AMOUNT OF $950,000
21 (AB2008 -117)
22
23 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
24
25 Brenner asked if this is the lowest responsive bidder.
26
27 Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Department, stated it is, for both products.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
32 PURCHASE OF THREE SMALL PICKUP TRUCKS FROM 3ERRY CHAMBERS
33 CHEVROLET, USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT
34 OF $57,929.41 (AB2008 -118)
35
36 Kelly moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
37
38 Brenner asked if these are diesel trucks.
39
40 Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Department, stated they are not. Half -ton and smaller
41 pickups, which these are, don't have diesel engines.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY. EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
46 PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR INSTALLATION
47 ON NEW SHERIFF'S VEHICLES FROM MCLOUGHLIN EARDLEY COMPANY,
48 USING THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
49 $108,332.69 (AB2008 -119)
50
51 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
52
53 Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 9
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
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
3. APPROVAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF CONTINUED LOCAL SPONSORSHIP OF
WORK ON THE SANDE- WILLIAMS LEVEE (AB2008 -132)
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated this is a request by the
administration to clarify the County's involvement and cooperative agreement with the
Corps of Engineers regarding the Sande - Williams levee. The second page of the paperwork
is an email from staff to the Executive asking for the clarification. He read the memo. The
County must release its interest to proceed with the project. Landowners have been
reticent to provide easements. The Diking District would like to act as the local sponsor.
Now, recognize that the County is engaged in a number of cooperative activities with the
Deming Diking district, so the Deming levee work is ongoing. Unless the District feels
otherwise, the recommendation is to end this cooperative agreement. Clarify that the
County isn't ending its cooperation with the district in the future, but so that the District can
go forward with this work.
Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated the County has not been able to do as it
promised in the agreement, to furnish all lands, easements, and rights -of -way. The County
has negotiated unsuccessfully.
Brenner stated the Deming Diking District is fine with this action, and wants to take
over the project. Everyone's okay with this.
Art Anderson, Deming Diking District Commissioner, stated this is a creative initiative
on the District's part. He explained the history of this issue. They want to extend the levee
upstream and tie into the railroad tracks, which would protect tribal ground, Mt. Baker High
School, and other areas. Apply the resource to that cost -share for that future work.
Perry Williams, Deming Diking District Commissioner, stated the District requested
Corps assistance with emergency repairs in December during a flood event. The project this
summer will be to rework those emergency repairs and make a Corps- approved levee.
They will also install habitat. He explained the history of what happened in December.
Brenner asked if the County is allowed to let the District use project- specific money
on a different project. Gibson stated the Council approved these on a project -by- project
basis. Another project could come forward for the upper Deming work. That is not before
the Council today.
Williams stated that the District's cost -share would be about $40,000 if it uses the
$200,000. The District could cost -share with the Corps and be the sponsor for the Sande -
Williams levee. The District could also cost -share with the County on the Deming levee.
Nelson stated the Council is today asked to allow the Diking District to take the lead
with the Corps on the Sande - Williams project. The $200,000 would be gone. Anderson
stated he interpreted Mr. Gibson's comments to mean the District could use the money on
another project. He would like to take this to the Flood Advisory Committee. Hold this item
in committee until he can talk to the Advisory Committee.
Gibson stated the County was supposed to respond to the Corps by last Friday.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 10
1 Kelly stated there are discussions with the Nooksack Tribe about its role in those
2 other portions of the Deming levee work.
3
4 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
5
6 Kelly continued to state that there needs to be more discussion about whether this
7 $200,000 could be used for that. The County will have to consider separately using the
8 $200,000 on those other projects.
9
10 Williams stated the District can take the lead on this Sande - Williams project this
11 year. The Deming project will also happen this summer because the County will take the
12 lead on that project. If the County takes the lead on both projects, the Sande - Williams
13 work will be delayed to 2009.
14
15 Hutchings stated that if the Council doesn't take action on this decision today, the
16 County can't move forward timely. The Deming Diking District can't pen a cooperative
17 agreement with the Corps to move forward timely.
18
19 Crawford moved to recommend to the full Council handing this contract over to the
20 Diking District.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously,
23
24
25 OTHER BUSINESS
26
27 There was no other business.
28
29
30 ADJOURN
31
32 The meeti djourned at 1:25 p.m.
33
34
35 1 oil
36 Jill Nixon r tion
teo� r�P,
38 NT ade 9X 'y
0
39 ATTQSb ��i :C •Z
40 _ 0:0
41 - 'k •
42 F
43
44
45 Dana B #n- Davis Chu q— Jerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelso , CoYnmittee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 11