Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 12 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee February 12, 2008 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Sam Crawford Bob Kelly Carl Weimer COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE AND SUMMARY OF SWIFT CREEK PROJECT (AB2008 -083) John Hutchings, Public Works Department, presented a Power Point presentation (on file). The administration is pursuing State and federal funding and support for Swift Creek issues. He will update the committee on management issues in support of those funding requests. Any local government, including Whatcom County, would be hard pressed to find the technical and financial resources necessary to manage a situation like Swift Creek in light of the present regulatory environment. The sediment problem isn't one they can just solve in a couple of years and put an end to the problem. The problem will be managed for many years at a substantial cost. The momentum to address Swift Creek problems is high at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers, Governor's Office, Congressional delegation, and State legislative delegation. With that momentum comes some expectation that the County will participate within its means. The County has to adequately communicate what those means are and pursue State and federal opportunities. Brenner stated the letter from the EPA didn't provide any new information. Hutchings stated folks may or may not appreciate the EPA's findings of the course of the last year. The letter recognizes up front that the County doesn't have the resources for the problem. They point directly to the State to recognize some of the responsibility, and the federal government as well. Paul Pittman, Public Works Department, read from the Power Point presentation. The sediment quality issue has transitioned. Management changed from dealing with sediment that is blocking the channel causing flooding to dealing with sediment that is more of a health issue. Sediment management has been done by Army Corps of Engineers, Whatcom County, Soil Conservation Service, and private individuals. The creek will break free of its banks in absence of management. Surrounding areas can be subject to that sediment and Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 1 release of the material. Swift Creek deposition travels north to British Columbia via the Sumas River. There may be sediment deposition along the banks of the Sumas River. Nelson asked if there are any other indications of flooding along Swift Creek. Pittman indicated the location of sediment deposition. He continued to read the presentation on the status and update. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers highest level staffs are involved. One solution is that Whatcom County would initiate State and federal funding requests for fiscal year 2009. They are submitted those requests now. A supplemental budget request for $190,000 went out to the State in January for construction assistance. They are refining the federal request to get the Army Corps of Engineers involved in a general investigation. They will initiate a project, appropriate funds, and develop an alternatives analysis. Caskey- Schreiber asked what the Council can do to support the State budget request. Pittman stated they are working with Kelli Linville on the request. He doesn't know the status of the request. Brenner asked about going through administrative channels at the State and federal level for grants. Pittman stated they have researched appropriate grants. The problem doesn't fit into any program category. They also considered calling the problem a habitat or ecological restoration, but it didn't fit there, either. Brenner stated they could look into a public health program. Pittman stated that could be a strategy they could consider. Caskey- Schreiber asked if $190,000 will allow them to do the stockpiling and excavating. She asked what happens if they don't get that money. Pittman stated they haven't discussed what they will do if they don't get the money. Weimer asked if the State Department of Ecology (DOE) funded a half -time staff person in addition to the $190,000. Pittman stated that was discussed. The last he heard is that it was passed through the subcommittee and reduced to $135,000, with no additional money for a staff person. Weimer asked when the decision was made that the County would ask for money. Pittman stated the agency group met after the November 30, 2007 public meeting. They decided that the best strategy is to initiate a request for funds, and Whatcom County should make that request. _ Weimer stated he supports a letter from the Council to the State legislature supporting the request for the money. The legislators and Department of Ecology haven't heard from the County about asking for this money. There isn't any lobbying happening on behalf of the County. Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated the money the State Department of Ecology (DOE) offered was one -time funding of $50,000 for the County to hire someone. It's in the County's best interest to not go through that hiring process, and if DOE kept its $50,000 and provided a technical staff person, who would have much better technical expertise. Pittman continued the presentation on the status and update. Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 2 Brenner stated that even if they keep the creek in its banks here, the material is still transported to British Columbia. Pittman stated that will continue. They don't have a management solution for addressing that sediment. Brenner stated the letter made reference to potential problems in Canada. It may encourage them to do more, even if they don't care as much about Whatcom County. Pittman stated the strategy involving the Canadians may be a letter of support, but there isn't a good binding treaty saying they have to control naturally occurring asbestos going down a waterway. Pittman continued the presentation on the status and update and possible funding strategy in 2008. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County administration has talked to the Army Corps of Engineers about dredging. Pittman stated that the County can find an upland site or stockpile in existing stockpile footprints, as long as they don't impact any wetlands. The Corps will give the County a permit in the short-term. The County will have to work with property owners to develop a scope. Brenner asked if the County has a legal response from the EPA. Pittman stated they haven't tried to get the EPA to renounce the issue. They've been working through issues. The EPA is partnering with the County to move this forward. He read the presentation on what happens in the future. The information they have from the EPA is here. The landslide won't stop. The sediment deposition and transport is ongoing. No matter what they do or don't do, the problems will persist. Brenner stated that's why the County needs clarification of what the EPA attorney said. The County could do some work and have private contractors haul stuff to areas that wouldn't pose a risk. No one wants to get near the material now because of what the EPA lawyer said. Pittman stated there may be other metals present that elevates liability. Caskey- Schreiber asked what is going on in the area with this wet winter. Pittman stated the EPA's work to date has held the creek in its banks. They hope the remainder of the wet season will be good. If they get through this winter without flooding, they are in good shape if they can do a project this summer. This fall, they will try and put together a better short -term project. Caskey- Schreiber stated State money won't come to the County until the end of the year. She asked if the County would spend its own money and hope to get reimbursed. Pittman stated they may. If the County gets State money this year, the County will receive it in early July. The County will wait on projects until they know if they get money from the State. If they don't get money from the State, the County will have to decide what to do. Weimer stated the County wrote a letter to Canadian officials, who wanted to come here and find out more. Pittman stated the meeting never occurred. It fell off the radar screen. Whatcom County put together a Swift Creek Background and Management Alternatives document and an executive summary (on file). Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 3 1 Caskey- Schreiber stated she could draft a letter to their legislative representatives 2 supporting the funding request. Pittman stated he sent a letter to Council Policy Analyst 3 Rebecca Craven. 4 5 2. PRESENTATION ON ADJUSTMENT TO UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE AND 6 ORDINANCE PROPOSAL RELATED TO FERRY FEES /RATES (AB2008 -085) 7 8 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, presented a Power Point 9 presentation, in the Council packet, which he also presented a few months ago (on file). 10 He read through the presentation. From his reviews of the information, it appears Whatcom 11 County is in compliance. They've done what they're supposed to do, good or bad. The 12 deficit is real and needs to be paid back. In an effort to stay focused, he needs direction so 13 he can administer this. He needs direction from the Council about who pays and how much. 14 A lot of people will say they can't afford a fare increase, and they're probably right. 15 However, he needs to get compliant with the code. 16 17 Brenner asked if Mr. Abart responded to an email from Nancy Ging about the 18 differences between what the County calculates and what she came up with. Abart stated 19 he's seen a lot of emails lately. 20 21 Brenner stated she would like Mr. Abart to go through Ms. Ging's email at some point 22 and answer her questions. Long ago, the Council was told that the recovery rate was a 23 State requirement or the County couldn't get State funding. She would like to know if the 24 55 percent and the docks being taken out of the road fund are State requirements to get 25 funding. She was told they wouldn't be eligible for funding otherwise. Abart stated they 26 must follow the budget accounting reporting system (BARS) manual. Docks are clearly 27 included for maintenance and repair. They're also included in the County ordinance. 28 29 Brenner stated she would like to see the State law that requires the County to pay 30 for the docks. Those are things she would like to get answers to. She would like to know if 31 it's a fact that the County is not eligible for certain funding if it doesn't have 55 percent 32 recovery and if it doesn't keep the docks out of the road fund. 33 34 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's always hard to meet the 55 percent mandate. She's 35 concerned they just implemented cost increases in 2007. She asked if there was a surge 36 before the fare increase to get multi- ticket rides, which lowered the recovery percentage, 37 and if they can't recover that 55 percent. Abart stated projections are based on the same 38 use as 2007. The lowered cost of the multi- ticket rides was not significant. 39 40 Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see other creative options. Abart stated 41 he's not opposed to any option. More complicated options will have a higher administrative 42 cost. 43 44 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can send the issue to a community citizen group. 45 Abart stated that would only work if the County gives any community group a deadline. 46 47 Caskey- Schreiber stated she also liked the comparisons with other counties and 48 states. She would like a variety of options. 49 50 Nelson stated he doesn't think it's a law that Whatcom County has to have these 51 rates. The County Road Administration Board (CRAB) was reviewing funding for county 52 ferries. A limited amount of money was available. Whatcom County was well below Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 4 contribution compared to other areas that were also trying to get these funds. That is what drove a change to this ferry rate contribution. Brenner stated she was told there was a law. Nelson stated getting $8 million for a new ferry would entail the County to have some responsibility for paying a portion to fund it and to have everything codified. They had lengthy discussions about the correct dollar amount. It's all wrapped around the concept of a new ferry. A new ferry would change the perspective on ferry rates if the Council doesn't want a new ferry. Brenner stated there comes a point in the life of a ferry when they will spend a lot more money on repairs. That's what they've been told. It's been recommended that they are getting to that point. Weimer stated he hasn't seen any spreadsheet that talks about ticket sales in the different categories. He would like to see that information. Brenner asked for a copy of the presentation that is easier to see. Weimer asked how other counties figure their percentage. The County gets revenue from the State. He asked how much the County actually pays after taking out the 55 percent and the State amount. He asked if other counties leave the State amount in the pot before figuring out their percentage. Abart stated that is called the deficit funding. Weimer stated the State amount covers the 45 percent from the road fund. Abart stated he will find the answer to that question. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they keep statistics on ridership of residents versus non- residents. Abart stated he doesn't know how they'd do that. Brenner stated the seasonal tickets could be purchased at a higher rate. Caskey- Schreiber stated parks departments charge higher fees to non - residents. She asked if they could recoup more funding using the current fare structure and the higher volumes allowed by a new ferry. She asked if there are projections about revenue they'll get with the new ferry. Abart stated that is at least two years away. Fuel costs could be vastly different. It's too far away to estimate. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Bud Jewell, Lummi Island, submitted a letter (on file). The State funding for ferries comes from the gas fund. It has to do with the amount of money they take in by fares. He read from his letter. Brenner asked if all County employees, regardless of whether they are on County business, are allowed free passage. Abart stated County employees are allowed free passage only when they are on County business. Crawford asked if the children of County employees going to school would get a free pass. Abart stated he would have to look into the union contract. Those free passes may be in the union contract for ferry employees. Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 5 1 Crawford stated he understands the union agreement is to allow employees and their 2 families unlimited access. Abart stated a County employee on County business may drive 3 across at no cost. Another issue is the union contracts, which may say something about 4 free passage. 5 6 Jewell stated that if costs are allowed to stay where they are, they should talk about 7 renegotiating the 55 percent figure. Get it back to the balance they had that worked 8 before. Change Whatcom County Code (WCC) 10.34.020 so that ticket rates should change 9 immediately, not six months after the rate change. 10 11 Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, submitted a handout (on file). 12 Accounting is not black and white. It's very subjective. Policies and guidelines are all 13 subject to interpretation. With the creation of the ferry fund, there has been a dramatic 14 increase in ferry operating costs, although ferry services remain unchanged. Part of the 15 increase is due to escalating personnel and fuel costs. Another part of the increase is 16 because they are trying to better - define and capture costs. How they collect information 17 has changed, so they are comparing apples to oranges. 18 19 Brenner asked if Mr. Kinney is saying that the increase has more to do with the 20 difference in the way they're doing their calculation than from inflation. Kinney stated that's 21 correct. They may be doing a much better job of accounting for things than they did before. 22 It's not that there is anything wrong. It's just different. He read from his handout about 23 changing costs. Resolve this issue quickly. 24 25 There are many options. Removing the docks is a possibility. Review maintenance 26 costs. Past dock refurbishes and hull replacement work could be capitalized. Change 27 wording in the Code to provide additional flexibility. Rather than requiring that shortfalls 28 shall be recovered, the Code should say that shortfalls may be recovered or the formula is 29 designed to recover costs. That allows the Council time to exercise its judgment. Consider 30 reducing operating costs by the amount of funds provided by the State, including the deficit 31 fund and the fuel tax fund. Subtract those amounts from operating costs, and then apply 32 the 55 percent. They could consider reducing the 55 percent rate. They could provide a flat 33 25 percent discount for all multi -ride tickets. Charge for parking at Gooseberry Point. 34 35 Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island, stated this ferry may require an entirely different 36 approach. His family has lived on Lummi Island for many generations. It's where their 37 home is, and moving isn't an option. For many people, having to rely on riding the ferry 38 isn't fun. 39 40 The ferry captain is one of the best paid positions in the County. In the older days, 41 the captain was in charge of scheduling, supervising the crew, scheduling the runs, and 42 many other things. In the last few years, these tasks were moved to other staff. Have the 43 ferry captain continue to do this job, even if he or she needs clerical staff. The clerical staff 44 could also double as crew relief during breaks. 45 46 The dock structure used to be considered Lummi Island's bridges. Many other areas 47 of the county have many bridges. Remove the docks from the budget. Lummi Island 48 residents contribute the most taxes to the County, including Lake Whatcom residents. 49 Lummi Island is a good cash cow for the County. Staff should calculate that revenue. The 50 residents already pay for the ferry. Look at other ways of operating the ferry. 51 52 Eventually, they will need a new ferry. The proposed new ferry will be expensive to 53 run. Instead, they need a bigger version of the ferry they already have. Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 6 The Lummi Island transportation committee is voluntary. Instead, residents should elect an unpaid ferry commission. Brenner stated she mostly agrees with Mr. Dickinson. Scheduling and other tasks are dictated by the union. She's not sure how much the County can negotiate on those things. Dickinson stated that even though they are union, their purpose is to serve the public. They must do a better job of serving the people, even if it means wrangling with the union. Art Thomas, Lummi Island, stated he is a commuter. The ferry lines have been very good for vehicles since the ferry rates went up. He rarely has to wait. Many people are using the parking lot on the mainland side. There are between 70 and 100 cars in the lot daily. That is the number of cars that aren't in the ferry line. He doesn't think ridership is down, but drive -on use may be down. Charge people for parking. Now, there's a good balance, but they must share the burden. He agrees that money may need to be collected from County employees. Look at ridership and how the fares are collected in the County. They talked years ago about collecting a County -fare, but they couldn't because the State contributed. Myra Ramos, Lummi Island, thanked the Council for doing the survey. There were many creative suggestions submitted with the survey responses. Review that input before choosing options. Don Wines, 2219 N. Nugent Drive, Lummi Island, stated the presentation was oriented toward the revenue side of the equation. There have been few comments on the cost side of the equation. Discuss and analyze the costs. The ferry is middle -aged, not old. There is a lot of value left in it. Mel Kolstad, 1805 Seacrest Drive, stated fewer people will come to Lummi Island of the rates increase. That will in turn require higher ferry rates. Michelle Luke, 3342 Sunrise Cove, stated she thanks the councilmembers for realizing this is part of a long -term plan. She appreciates the Council for continuing to work on the issue with the Island residents. Weimer asked if changing the calculations can be retroactive. Abart stated it probably can't be retroactive. Those were the codes in place at the time. Docks are included as part of maintenance and operations in just about everything from the State regulations he's looked at so far. Brenner stated it didn't used to be that way. It was changed just a few years ago. Practically speaking, docks are bridges. The County doesn't charge people for using regular bridges. They have similar maintenance needs. The dock is an extension of the road. Crawford, stated the County came up with the seven component system for the ferry system. Those components are parking, staging, loading, vessel, unloading, staging, and parking. After listening to this issue for a long time, that model of a ferry system, as a system, is an appropriate way to evaluate the costs. One component of the system doesn't survive without the rest of the system. It would be most constructive to acknowledge the full cost of the entire system and ask if 55 percent is appropriate for funding that system, acknowledging that the remainder would come from the road fund, rather than stepping Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 7 1 back to a debate about what components are or are not part of the system. That argument 2 becomes whether or not a dock is a bridge. He doesn't see the relevance of whether a dock 3 is or isn't a bridge as much as he sees how much that diverts this discussion. 4 5 Brenner stated the time for that is when the committee has a discussion. Now, she's 6 just providing information to Mr. Abart. 7 8 Kinney stated that when the docks were excluded, they were still included for the 9 purpose of State funding. 10 11 12 OTHER BUSINESS 13 14 There was no other business. 15 16 17 ADJOURN 18 19 The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. 21 (� 21 l\ 22 1� 23 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 24 25 26 ATTEST: 28 J . ;NHATC..•�i - 29 30 31 �= = 32 Dana Brown -ESv �CS�4'B4Y�Ift *t 1r```````�o , WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/12/2008, Page 8