Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance January 16 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee January 16, 2007 Committee Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: L. Ward Nelson None Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner. Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06 -122 TO SOLE BIDDER, ZUMAR INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS, IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $130,595.71 (PURCHASES ARE BASED ON NEED AND THE BID WAS BASED ON AVERAGE USAGE) (AB2007 -034) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06-130 TO LOW BIDDER, HARDWARE SALES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ADS N -12 CULVERT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,646.05 (AB2007- 035) Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF AN ANNUAL SUPPLY OF LIGNOSITE FOR DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS FROM SOLE SOURCE VENDOR, MEENDERINK, LLC, ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS, IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $70,000 (AS2007 -036) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF AN ANNUAL SUPPLY (ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS) OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, UTILIZING WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACTS: ROAD STRIPING PAINT & BEADS IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000; HERBICIDES IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000; TIRES IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000; GUARDRAIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 1 & MATERIALS IN THE AMOUNT OF .$50,000; AND RUBBERIZED ASPHALT IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 (AB2007 -037) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE LONELINESS AND ISOLATION PROGRAM PROVIDED THROUGH THE INTERFAITH COALITION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 (AB2007 -038) Weimer stated this goes through the Northwest Regional Council to the Interfaith Coalition. Each group is taking a small administrative hit to the contract amount. He asked if there is a need to pay for both the agencies, or if they can contract directly. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it's fair to reimburse their expenses. Nelson stated the contract is administered by the Northwest Regional Council. This was originally a pilot study funded from a State grant that went away. The County funded it last year. He asked if there has been any discussion about continuing the program. Make sure the program is being effective. It is a lower -end project at the Northwest Regional Council. Desler stated the Council discussed this in the budget process. Everyone wanted more time to do an evaluation. The Executive recommended funding for one more year to provide time for that evaluation. Nelson stated it's not a bad idea to have the Senior Service Advisory Board. Then the Northwest Regional Council will then purview this. It gives the County an opportunity to examine the program, see if the program is effective, make a recommendation, and even find a partnership with the State to again fund this item. It doesn't hurt to have this run through the Northwest Regional Council because of the senior services and because the Northwest Regional Council advocates on a regional basis. Crawford stated he is opposed to this contract. The program is another area that the County has not funded in the past, and it doesn't have ongoing resources to continue funding items like this. However, since the Council passed the budget, it's appropriate to vote for the contract in this form. Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D /B /A BLACK BOX NETWORK SERVICES TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL AN UPGRADE TO THE CURRENT PABX SYSTEM SOFTWARE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,856.54 (AB2007 -039) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 2 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D /B /A BLACK BOX NETWORK SERVICES FOR THE PURCHASE OF ERICSSON ONE BOX /MX -ONE MESSAGING EQUIPMENT, INSTALLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT VOICE MAIL SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,991.83 (AB2007 -040) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF 100% GREEN ENERGY FOR COUNTY OPERATIONS AT $0.01 /KWH USED (APPROXIMATELY $61,842) (AB2007- 041) Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Nelson asked if the County is buying green energy. Weimer stated there is, an increase in the cost per kilowatt to purchase green energy. Nelson stated the County is subsidizing green energy. That needs to be stated in the documents. Weimer stated the Council discussed that government must lead these efforts some times to get better types of energy going. Crawford stated he is opposed because hydroelectric energy isn't included. This is paying a private sector company to try and build a wind farm in Eastern Washington. They can't get enough private folks to subscribe to this, so they are going after government and big industry. There are better ways to generate power at less cost. This is not one of them. Motion failed 1 -2 with Weimer in favor. 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HOAGLAND'S PHARMACY TO PROVIDE PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY ]AIL AND WORK CENTER, IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $198,778 (AB2007- 042) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Nelson asked if an equivalent generic prescription would be substituted when available. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he would find out that process. Motion carried unanimously. 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DR. STUART ANDREWS TO PROVIDE PHYSICIAN SERVICES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY ]AIL AND Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1116/2007, Page 3 WORK CENTER, IN THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $46,000 (AB2007- 043 ) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DR. RICH ULLSMITH, DDS, TO PROVIDE DENTAL SERVICES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY ]AIL AND WORK CENTER, IN THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $25,000 (AB2007 -044) Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY ]AIL AND WORK CENTER, IN THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $34,320 (AB2007 -045) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Nelson asked if this is for county designated mental health professional (CDMHP) counselors only or psychiatrists. The hourly rate for the service has increased. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he doesn't have that information. The County has had difficulty trying to obtain psychiatric services for the jail. Motion carried unanimously. 13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EVERSON TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY /COUNTY ]AIL INVESTMENT PROGRAM (AB2007 -046) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO OPERATE THE LAKEWAY YARD WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY (AB2007 -047) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Weimer stated there was concern that the government was subsidizing this when private companies were trying to get into the business. In addition, there were few users in Bellingham. He asked if this issue has come up again. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 4 Brenner stated the Solid Waste Advisory Committee hasn't discussed it at the meeting she's been to. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this comes with a recommendation of the Solid Waste Executive Committee. Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated that costs were escalating, as were expectations that the County would defray those costs. The Solid Waste Executive Committee met, and it decided to not increase that budget. Therefore, the City added a user fee. The Executive Committee agreed to subsidize 50 percent of the cost up to $120,000. Since that time, the program has been successful and continues to grow. At some point, there will be some equilibrium with the curbside private services. There is a demand for the material and demand for the site. Now, it's bringing in $60,000 or $70,000 per year. The budget was brought to the Advisory Committee, but the committee doesn't go through each line item. They talk about the programs. There was clear support for the program. For the last two years, the County's contribution hasn't escalated. The escalation in their costs has been taken care of through the user fee. That's a good thing. Brenner stated any topic the Solid Waste Executive Committee discusses should be forwarded to the Advisory Committee. Roll stated they can do that. The Executive Committee has met once per year for the past few years. Brenner asked if issues go to the Advisory Committee or the Executive Committee first. Roll stated it depends on the nature of the issue. They have to look at the interlocal agreement that everyone has agreed to. The Advisory Committee has always presented ideas to the Executive Committee. Weimer asked about stormwater runoff from the Lakeway facility. Roll stated that was almost two years ago. They've done a lot of work, including a whole stormwater treatment system. He hasn't gotten reports since then about tracking the material. Motion carried unanimously. 15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AMENDMENT #8 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TO CONTINUE THE SHARING OF COSTS FOR FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007, IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,610, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $597,947.90 (AB2007 -048) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. 16. REQUEST RATIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE 2004 -2006 IBU /MMP COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007 (AB2007 -049) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 5 17. REQUEST RATIFICATION OF THE 2008 -2010 IBU /MMP COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (AB2007 -050) Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Crawford stated the County staff expressed appreciation to the bargaining unit for a successful, pleasing negotiation. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.08, PURCHASING SYSTEM (AB2006 -467) Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the proposed changes begin on Council packet page 13. The administration would like to discuss current policies, timeframes, contracting adjustments, and costs for administrative changes. One change is to conform to guidelines in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Also, the Public Works Department is moving toward project budgeting, which gives them more time for a single contract, which is normally for a year. Once the Council approves the project budget, the Executive would have the authority to execute the contracts. The contracts could begin two to five weeks earlier. Contractors will be less inclined to request change orders to cover escalating costs. They will have more effective use of staff time. The contractors will appreciate having their contract begin earlier. The administration can return the bid bond to the bidders sooner. Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated this process will be applied to capital improvement projects that span multiple years. The intention is to make an entire project more transparent. Contingency amounts are now built into individual projects, not the annual program. Crawford stated the proposed changes don't say that this is for capital works projects. Rutan stated they can amend the language to reflect their intention. Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the language proposed in section 3.08.090(N) says that the Executive may award the contract unless it exceeds the project budget, without going back to the Council for approval of the bid and contract. Crawford asked if the term "project budget" in section 3.08.090(N) says that it's only for projects, and not for regular budgeted items. Bennett stated that's correct. The County Charter provides for a project budget. That means the appropriation is not based on the year. It's based on the project's duration. It's only for capital improvement projects. Crawford suggested language for 3.08.090(N), "...larger amounts require Council approval. enaet"`ac, in dchieh ea9e In-' the case of capital -. improvement._ projects, the contract amendment may be approved by the County Executive." Bennett stated he can suggest alternate language. Brenner stated the language should be specific to the Public Works Department. Desler stated there are project budgets used in the Facilities Division. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 6 Desler stated that currently, the Executive brings contracts before the Council if they are over $15,000 for professional services and over $35,000 for purchase of equipment and tools. The administration wants the Council to consider raising those amounts, which haven't been adjusted in many years. This is not to avoid scrutiny, but to make sure they are effectively administering the contracts and getting them out the door, without bringing a lot of material before the Council all the time. Now is the time to talk about adjusting the upper limits, Crawford stated it's a reasonable request. Nelson stated the Council Charter has limitations on what amounts can and can't be approved by the Executive. Bennett stated the Code specifies the Executive's ability to contract. The Charter identifies capital projects budgeting. Crawford asked if this needs to be approved today. Desler stated they will make language changes based on the committee's comments. (Inaudible.) There are other County code changes related to other purchases of services and materials, which affects all County contracts. Brenner stated she has a problem with changing things for all contracts. When the Council approves the budget, it approves a concept. If something changes in the concept that the Council doesn't like, this is the Council's opportunity to deny something. If they are talking about already- approved Public Works projects, she doesn't have a problem. It's the County's staff doing those projects. When they are doing work with outside contractors, she's not comfortable changing the process. Desler stated he understands the concerns. There are existing limits now. (Inaudible.) The proposal now is to just raise the existing limits. Nelson stated that if the County doesn't have enough income to meet a contract, the Council may reduce appropriations. He asked if the Council wouldn't be able to do that if the administration makes those decisions. Bennett stated the adjustments to the budget are only at the result of the Executive's request. There is specific language in the code that places a burden on the departments to make a report or not spend money when revenues are less than estimated. Nelson stated that when the courthouse was remodeled. The budget was exceeded each year. He asked how this new change would affect a situation like that. He asked if those amounts exceeding the budget would come back to the Council. Bennett stated the courthouse remodel is an excellent example of how a project budget would work better. In a project budget, they appropriate the money for the duration of the project. In the annual calendar year budget process, the budget is done in July, so they are always estimating where they are going to be at the end of the year. They have to estimate conservatively, and end up appropriating more money through several annual projects then in one project budget. Desler stated this ordinance is not related to budgeting. It's related to the execution of the contract. Nelson stated it still has to do with Council approval of cost overruns. Rutan stated that the staff will also bring forward specific activities to provide the Council a quarterly report on the projects. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 7 1 2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 3 4 Rutan continued to state that the Council will be able to follow along more closely. 5 6 Brenner stated the system isn't broken. She's fine with how things operate now. 7 The Council should be left in the loop. Desler stated this ordinance change is to allow 8 Executive authority, once the Council approves the project budget appropriation. It's 9 something the Public Works Department is requesting to gain some efficiencies in timing. A 10 secondary issue is to talk in concept about other changes the administration may propose in 11 the future to contracting for general services. 12 13 Brenner stated she's concerned about a change to contracting for general services. 14 The Council approves budgetary items, through the budget, conceptually. When the item 15 actually comes forward in the form of a contract, it's not conceptual anymore. It's very 15 specific. There may be things the Council needs to know. She is not in favor of that 17 change. This is permanent. It's not personal about this Executive or administration. This 18 applies to the future. She is interested in looking at specific language, but this is starting to 19 sound like a first step. 20 21 Crawford stated the administration can develop alternative language for the evening 22 meeting. 23 24 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council and requested the 25 administration to bring forward language addressing the concerns raised by the committee. 26 The administration has a lot of latitude in developing the budget and bringing forward 27 appropriations to the Council. The public wanted protection in the form of Council review. 28 They can talk about raising limits. 29 30 Desler suggested amend 3.08.100(6). "B. in fuFtherar�� 31 The. contracts'. for the .de §ign, construction, and 32 right =of -way acquisition for capital projects,- which are within the appropnatIon.approved by 33 the County Council in a project budget." 34 35 Crawford stated he is concerned about 3.08.090(N). It must be clarified that this is 36 for Public Works project budgets. Bennett stated he will work on it. 37 38 Motion carried unanimously. 39 40 41 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 42 43 f. DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED 2007 44 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2006-440) 45 46 Brenner stated she is not comfortable approving the additional information provided, 47 which the Council just received. 48 49 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated have a discussion today and the next 50 Council meeting, then have a hearing the first meeting in February. 51 52 Dennis Rhodes, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they've 53 been making adjustments. The discussion is based on an audit they received. He Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 8 1 forwarded a memo to the administration dated January 10, 2007 regarding proposed 2 Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) amendments to the unified Fee 3 Schedule (on file). He read from the memo. The memo describes the conditions the 4 department proposes to the Unified Fee Schedule. The fees were evaluated to recover both 5 direct and indirect costs. They were to establish $100 per hour for the staff's baseline fee, 6 up from $80 per hour. He worked with division managers to determine the actual staff time 7 it takes to perform each function. They also looked at comparables with other jurisdictions' 8 fees, including Thurston County. 9 10 Based on the 2006 audit, they were meticulous about identifying fees that the 11 Unified Fee Schedule didn't specifically call out. They made sure the authority provided for 12 each fee is identified. The fee changes fell into six categories. He read the categories from 13 the memo. 14 15 Brenner stated she is not comfortable comparing to Thurston County, which has a 16 reputation of being fairly extravagant. Don't make the department so much less dependent 17 upon the general fund that they are actually subsidizing other issues and tasks not 18 specifically attached to the permit. She asked if the fees are supposed to specifically cover 19 only the cost to process those permits. Rhodes stated the fees are based on actual staff 20 time required to accomplish these tasks. They compared to six different counties. He only 21 references Thurston County because they did a formal study. He did not attach Whatcom 22 County's fees to Thurston County's fees. 23 24 Brenner stated Whatcom County should really charge the actual cost of processing 25 the permits, and not anything else. She asked what percentage was based on Whatcom 26 County's numbers versus the comparables of other counties. Rhodes stated everything they 27 did is based on the time it takes Whatcom County staff to do work. They looked at other 28 counties to see how Whatcom County compares. The final decision is exclusively based on 29 the time it takes Whatcom County staff to do these things. 30 31 Crawford asked if Mr. Rhodes has reviewed Skeers vs. Bellingham. He asked if Mr. 32 Rhodes is comfortable that the proposal falls within legal_ guidelines. Rhodes stated he is 33 comfortable with the legality. 34 35 Crawford stated other counties don't have a comparable process for determining lot 36 of record in the subdivision fee. He asked what other counties are doing. Rhodes stated 37 that in his experience, lot of record is not performed by staff of other counties. 38 39 Bob Martin, Planning and Development Services Department, stated Whatcom 40 County is significantly more detailed in the lot of record review than is typical. 41 42 Crawford asked if it is being filtered to any degree, and if it is part of the subdivision 43 in other counties. Martin stated Whatcom County does more of that for either subdivision or 44 short plat than is typical. Many counties don't engage in that review. 45 46 Crawford stated the case can be made that the County can charge that fee because 47 Whatcom County has a higher standard. Also, an appeal to the Hearing Examiner should be 48 no cost. It is so often a disagreement over the code. There doesn't seem to be justification 49 for the increased cost. He doesn't deny that's the cost of the work for the staff. it's a 50 philosophical discussion. Rhodes stated he was asked to provide the administration and 51 Council information on the cost of doing certain things. He agrees that there are some 52 policy discussions. Staff will take whatever direction it's given. The staff has come up with Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 9 1 the baseline data, as requested. One suggestion was to tier the cost of appeals based on 2 the cost of the project. Staff is open to ideas. 3 4 Crawford stated he is interested in pursuing that idea. 5 6 Nelson stated a concern is the cost of the process and the amount of money the 7 public perceives it will get. He asked the increase in benefit received from the increase in 8 fee. Staff and the administration will have to make sure there is justification to the public 9 that they will get an increased benefit for the increased cost. 10 11 Crawford stated he agrees. People are willing to pay when they receive the service 12 and they know there is value to the service. 13 14 Rhodes stated the Planning Department is on the brink of making major changes to 15 the way it operates the permit center. They will see major improvements over the next six 16 months. He's working with the administration and the Planning Department staff on these 17 changes. He's talked to the Building Industry Association and Realtors about the planned 18 changes. 19 20 Desler stated the administration will submit the ordinance for the fee schedule. The 21 committee will discuss it again at it's next meeting. It would go to hearing at the first 22 meeting in February. 23 24 Nelson requested that the administration post the proposed fee changes at the 25 department and on the website. 26 27 28 OTHER BUSINESS 29 30 There was no other business. 31 32 33 ADJOURN 34 35 T meeC adjourned at 12:30 p.m. 36 37 Y 38 40 Ni;�� ir�utas��,ripti h )ill �� ����,v•� �i 41 l�.•�1�AQ Cl/ 42 A-@�r. - �r� '� ;� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 43 ` V •�'r WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 44 45 -� • 46 47� — 48 Dan own Al i Gou _iI Clerk m Crawford, Co mittee Chair 11111111 � 011.% \,` Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 10