HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance March 13 2007WKATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
March 13, 2007
Committee Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Barbara Brenner
Seth Fleetwood
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION BY CITY OF BELLINGHAM FINANCE DIRECTOR THERESE
HOLM, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MALCOLM FLEMING, AND
FINANCIAL ANALYST BRIAN HENSHAW ON THE CITY'S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM (EDI) GRANT APPLICATION FOR
THE WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (A62007 -137)
Malcolm Fleming, City of Bellingham Chief Finance Officer, handed out and read from
his presentation (on file). There was discussion at the EDI Board about whether they should
use EDI funds for planning or infrastructure. The program information for the EDI program,
which outlines the EDI objectives, policies, and selection criteria, make it clear that planning
can be funded. They are asking for funding for planning for their project, which is required
before they spend money on infrastructure, especially at this scale.
If they applied only the EDI funding request to the number of jobs created, it would
be in the range of $400 per job. If they applied the cost of the entire project, it would be
up to $100,000 per job. Neither of those extremes are reasonable. The project will create
many more benefits for the community, beyond jobs. Those benefits will include waterfront
access, recreational opportunities, expanded economic opportunities, and wildlife habitat
improvement opportunities.
At least 40 percent of the funding from the EDI program comes from sales taxes
imposed on transactions that happen within the city of Bellingham. A significant source of
money for that program comes from Bellingham and should be reinvested in this program to
produce countywide benefits.
Regarding opportunities for input in the redevelopment process and planning, they
have scheduled an EIS scoping hearing for April 16. Everyone is welcome to attend. It is
their opportunity to get their formal comments on the record. Written comments will be
accepted for at least 30 days. A draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will be
released. There will be opportunities to comment then. There will be many opportunities to
comment during the master planning phase.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 1
There was discussion during the EDI Board meeting about the competition between
Bellingham and the smaller cities in the county. He hopes it's a friendly competition that
benefits all areas of the county.
He read the presentation on Bellingham's EDI request, the County Council options,
and the New Whatcom redevelopment benefits.
Therese Holm, City of Bellingham Finance Director, continued to read the
presentation on the City financial model development assumptions, the public and private
investments, the City estimated capital cost, City sources of capital funds, economic
outputs, job creation and wages, and construction impact.
Fleming continued to read the presentation on satisfying EDI objectives. He
concluded the presentation.
(Discussion of this item continued, below.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
BOARD'S FUNDING RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S
REQUEST FOR A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100,000 FOR THE NEW
WHATCOM WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AB2007 -151)
Nelson stated there isn't anything to address the currently- existing jobs, including
Georgia - Pacific (GP). Fleming stated they did an assessment of the impact of the
redevelopment on small businesses, jobs, and housing growth. That assessment identified
a total of 239 businesses currently in the impact area. He doesn't know the exact number
of jobs that exist on the site currently. The analysis is limited to the increase in jobs.
Nelson asked the proportion of jobs that are existing GP jobs. Holm stated all the
estimates are on additional jobs. They don't foresee existing jobs being displaced. This
model just measures new jobs.
Brian Henshaw, City of Bellingham Financial Analyst, stated there are approximately
250 to 300 jobs at GP currently. All of the financial models for the Port and the City enable
GP to operate there as long as it wants to remain on the site.
Nelson stated about 8,500 people are planned to be down in the area at full build
out, including residential and employees. He asked about parking. Fleming stated a
parking plan will be developed through the master planning process. Part of the preparation
work for the EIS is to identify whether it's physically possible to locate sufficient parking on
site. The consultant determined that adequate parking is possible.
Holm stated there will be some level of on- street parking. There will be sufficient
area for service parking until there is demand for a parking structure, paid for by businesses
on -site.
Nelson asked what type of parking building is needed for 8,000 to 9,000 people.
Fleming stated they will know more through the master planning process.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 2
1 Nelson stated they don't really know the full impact of these estimates to
2 transportation corridors and the existing downtown development. They have an idea for
3 what they want for the area, but some of the critical issues aren't addressed. He's
4 concerned about the impacts to current businesses.
5
6 Holm stated they don't have a final plan. They are attempting to illustrate the mixed
7 use envisioned by the Waterfront Futures group. The development scenarios and
8 alternatives are currently being tested by the consultant. The results will address a number
9 of these concerns. They had to start somewhere, which is with a set of reasonable
10 development assumptions based on visioning by the community and the best information
11 they had at the time. They are now subjecting those assumptions to testing, which will
12 result in a preferred alternative.
13
14 Nelson asked if the City is prepared to deal with infrastructure needs, regardless of
15 impacts to water, sewer, parking, and transportation.
16
17 Dick McKinley, City of Bellingham Public Works Director, stated that as development
18 occurs, people will do two things. First, they will be allowed to use surface parking.
19 Second, their individual development agreements will include a commitment to a certain
20 number of fixed spaces in a future parking structure. As soon as enough developments
21 have made commitments in a given area, they will build a structure. The financial
22 commitments will allow them to be bondable.
23
24 They have strong infrastructure already in place for sewer and water. . Storm
25 drainage is simpler in that area because it discharges into a marine environment. They
26 don't have to store it, just clean it up. They have money set aside for transportation
27 projects on the site and money set aside in the capital plan for offsite projects, such as
28 intersection improvements in other areas. The City is committed to the infrastructure needs
29 of this project.
30
31 Fleming stated they looked specifically at impacts to existing businesses on the site.
32 There is a total of more than 200 businesses. There will not be any risk of negative impacts
33 from the project for 149 of those businesses. Fifty businesses have a low risk, and 37 have
34 a moderate risk. Those were primarily small businesses in the social services sector, with a
35 lower rent. Over the lifetime of the project, they would look for newer facilities. There is a
36 small business mitigation plan.
37
38 McKinley stated there are two categories on the site itself. There is mostly the GP
39 mill site and some marine trade businesses. One nice part of this project for the marine
40 trade businesses is that it will be able to grow. There is local, sustainable economic
41 development. The county will be able to support a more sustainable marine trade.
42
43 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
44
45 Crawford stated they are endorsing the EDI Board recommendation that over five
46 years, $1.1 million be granted to the New Whatcom waterfront redevelopment project.
47
48 McShane stated this EDT Board motion was made by Mayor Douglas, The City wants
49 assurance of a future commitment for specific projects.
50
51 Caskey- Schreiber stated her concern was the inequity of the Port's investment to the
52 City's investment. Now, the Port will match the City's loan. However, she still questions
53 whether the Port will only gain $20 million down the road. The Port will recoup its
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/1312007, Page 3
1 investment much quicker than the City. In the future, she looks for that kind of match.
2 The Port's one charge is economic development, and stands to gain the most. She supports
3 this motion.
4
5 Brenner stated they are allowed to fund planning for specific projects. This is almost
6 like planning for a whole new city. She's nervous about providing this as a grant. She'd be
7 less nervous if it was a loan. She prefers things to be more concrete.
8
9 Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. The City of Ferndale
10 proposal is more desirable to him. He likes proposals from the EDI Board that show
11 precisely what they're getting and a narrow timeframe. He likes the idea of specifying the
12 bridge project, for example. Having a $1.1 million placeholder seems like a compromise.
13 The EDI Board fund priorities may be different in five years, and he doesn't want to tie up
14 those funds. Have projects they can fund today. He will not support the motion.
15
16 Nelson stated they don't often have an opportunity on large scope projects to put
17 something on the ground right away.
18
19 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
20
21 Nelson continued to state that something this large and new is a dramatic change in
22 the historical vision of the area. They must have a process in place. The City has outlined
23 rudimentary visions. There are still many questions. Economic development is bricks and
24 mortar in the short term, and planning in the long term. Make sure they answer the
25 question of what the vision will look like. It's important for that community that the process
26 make sense. They must have the financial wherewithal to facilitate the program. The EDI
27 Board is cognizant of the costs and wants to be cautious. He hopes the project planning will
28 address questions and make sense for the vision.
29
30 McShane stated he's inclined to provide funding assurance. He knows they aren't
31 sure about whether that will tie their hands in the future. It ties the City's hands a little bit,
32 too. After they go through this planning process, they will see certain types of
33 infrastructure projects tied to economic development. Those projects would perhaps be
34 funded by the beneficiaries of that economic development. They are creating subsidized
35 development for business and industry. That's what this project and EDI are about. It
36 may be hard to directly link EDI funded projects with the exact number of jobs that will be
37 created. The EDI funds should be spent on something that has very broad community
38 benefit that includes anyone in the county.
39
40 Brenner asked if a loan option was considered. Fleming stated a loan isn't
41 necessary. Use a loan for a project that creates revenue, so the loan can be paid down. At
42 this point, a loan doesn't provide enough value. They have enough cash on hand to be able
43 to pay for this.
44
45 Fleetwood stated planning is a necessary prerequisite that leads to economic
46 development, He supports the request.
47
48 Motion carried 2-1 with Crawford opposed.
49
50 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
51 BOARD'S FUNDING RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF FERNDALE'S
52 REQUEST FOR A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $504,900 AND A LOAN IN THE
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 4
1 AMOUNT OF $1,026,000 FOR THE CENTENNIAL RIVERFRONT PROJECT
2 (AB2007 -152)
3
4 Jerry Landcastle, Ferndale City Mayor, handed out a presentation (on file).
5
6 Greg Young, City of Ferndale Administrator, gave a presentation on its EDI program
7 request and the Centennial River Walk project. He described the location of the project on
8 an aerial photo. There will be a pedestrian promenade and facilities for things like festivals
9 and farmer's markets. At one end of the site, near the river and the bridge, there will be an
10 entry plaza. He indicated the design concepts for the entry plaza in the handout. There will
11 be places for people to sit and enjoy the river. They will construct public restrooms at the
12 entry plaza. They hope there will also be things like espresso stands and other mixed use
13 development.
14
15 There is a committed sale agreement for the entry plaza property. They hope to
16 close in April, when the project is supposed to begin. The City hopes to complete the
17 project by the end of October 2007. The loan proceeds will be repaid through the City's
18 park mitigation funds. The loan provides a debt service level that the City is comfortable
19 with.
20
21 Crawford asked about connectivity with the existing Vander Yacht Park. He asked
22 how people will get over the road. Young stated that is a future phase of this project. It
23 will be a road crossing now. In the future, there may be something like an elevated
24 crosswalk. The house at the current location of the plaza is a rental, and the City will
25 purchase and remove the house.
26
27 McShane moved to recommend that the full Council approve the grant and loan
28 requests for this project.
29
30 Nelson asked if this will be primarily a walking place. Young stated it is a pedestrian
31 promenade. The City planners have put together and the City Council adopted new zones
32 for downtown. This area was zoned residential, and is now zoned mixed use. Almost the
33 entire downtown has been rezoned to encourage mixed use development that includes
34 residential.
35
36 Landcastle stated that the first block south of Main Street, from First Avenue to the
37 River Walk project, with the exception of the River Walk project, is all owned by one
38 individual firm. That firm supports the project and will enhance what they are doing with
39 this project. Further to the south, to the intersection of Cherry Street and Front Street,
40 there will be commercial and residential development. They are doing a small real estate
41 trade with that owner to accommodate a wider street frontage area along Front Street.
42 They will end up with his project being able to use some of that space for parking.
43
44 Crawford stated the downtown core in Ferndale has always struggled to attract that
45 type of synergy. It's needed. It is a good project.
46
47 Brenner asked if there will be any boat launches. Landcastle stated there won't be in
48 this project. The State has a launch across the river. The County's Bicycle /Pedestrian
49 Advisory Committee proposes a walking bridge across the Nooksack. They'd like to see that
50 to connect Hovander Park with Pioneer Park and this facility.
51
52 Weimer stated he supports this project. It will fill a void between Pioneer Park to
53 Vander Yacht Park, and across to Hovander Park.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 5
Brenner stated it will make it easier to ride bikes along the river.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.08, PURCHASING
SYSTEM, SETTING REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNCIL/ EXECUTIVE APPROVAL OF
CONTRACTS RESULTING FROM PROJECT BASED BUDGET APPROVAL AND
SMALL WORKS (AB2007 -133)
Brenner stated she proposes to amend the code to the way it was before the last
change. It would require the award of contracts to come before the Council for approval.
From time to time, the Council has been able to change contracts when necessary. It's
important to have that extra eye. This isn't about the administration. It's about the
concept that they are supposed to be a strong Council that provides checks and balances to
the Executive branch.
Council review also gives the public an opportunity to review these contracts.
Quarterly reports won't happen until after the fact. The County must be as transparent as
possible. It will only take two weeks longer.
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council, for the sake of
discussion.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration supports active
interaction with the County Council. The primary change allows the administration to move
forward with projects in a much more rapid timeframe. Bids on Public Works projects used
to go before the County Council for approval of the low bid. Then a contract is prepared,
which is also brought to the County Council for approval. The administration proposes that
for capital works projects within the Public Works Department only, the County Council
allows the County Executive to take this through the bid process and accept the low bid,
which the County must do anyway, or reject all bids because they are not responsive. As
long as the bid is within the project budget, the administration would move forward to
prepare the contract. There is a series of advantages to that. It would expedite the bid
award process by a number of weeks. They are able to reduce the amount of time it takes
to implement Public Works projects by many weeks. It also saves staff time because they
don't have to prepare multiple agenda items. It also expedites savings. The contracts who
bid on these projects will know that they can get their projects underway more quickly.
They don't have to experience the potential rise in cost of materials and supplies while
waiting to get the contract in place. It also saves time on the bid bond. The cost of printing
multiple documents in the Council packet is also saved. The administration will still provide
the contract to the Council when it is signed. The real discussion about a project ought to
occur when the administration requests a project budget.
Brenner stated the only time savings is two weeks. There have been Public Works
projects in the past that have come forward different from what the Council approved. The
cost of printing is little, compared to what they should do. People need to see this before it
happens, not after.
Nelson stated it's important to see what's going on with project financing. However,
the problem is that there is no connection between contract review, which is an Executive,
administrative function, and budgeting, which is a Council function.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 6
1 Crawford stated that contract amounts over a certain amount must be reviewed by
2 the Council, according to State law.
3
4 Nelson stated that is the only place where the Council can review the contract and
5 funding. Who is being contracted and the timeframe are clearly defined through the
6 Executive powers.
7
8 Brenner stated the Council had that second review process for budget items, in case
9 something new comes up.
10
11 Crawford stated he's comfortable with the change the Council recently did. This
12 applies only to Public Works projects that the Council has already approved. If spending
13 exceeds what the Council approved, it will come back to the Council. Allow the
14 administration to move forward without Council review, when under the State limit.
15
16 Weimer asked how much over budget a project would have to be to come back to
17 the Council.
18
19 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated there is a provision now
20 that says a contract can be amended in the amount of $10,000 or ten percent, whichever is
21 greater, without going back to Council. With the project budget, the Executive can award
22 and amend the contract, as long as the entire project budget isn't exceeded.
23
24 Desler stated a modification in the ordinance included the small works roster contract
25 procedures. It is a procedure Whatcom County doesn't use much. Staff prefer bidding out
26 everything, instead.
27
28 Benner stated the Council might notice something in a project that the
29 administration doesn't notice, which may cause the administration to have to come back for
30 more money. She's not comfortable having the administration make that decision for her.
31 It could save money in the end. This is not about the current administration, but about
32 general policy. Ultimately, the Council takes the heat, not the administration.
33
34 McShane stated the administration's approach is a better approach. The
35 administration would be the one to take the heat. The administration figures out the
36 contract and makes sure everything is covered. Things do come up. When the contract
37 goes over budget, the administration will come back to the Council.
38
39 Motion failed unanimously.
40
41
42 COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
43
44 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -13
45 FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS (ROAD OIL) FOR
46 USE ON VARIOUS COUNTY ROADS, BY THE TWO LOWEST BIDDERS,
47 MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES AND PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM, IN AN
48 ANTICIPATED AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR OF APPROXIMATELY $700,000
49 (AB 2007 -141)
50
51 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
52
53 Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 7
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07 -14
FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC MIXES FOR USE ON VARIOUS
COUNTY ROADS, BY ACCEPTING ALL BIDS AND PERMITTING SELECTION OF
THE VENDOR THAT HAS THE BEST VALUE BASED ON PRICE AND COST TO
TRANSPORT THE PRODUCT TO THE JOB SITE, IN AN ANTICIPATED AMOUNT
FOR THE YEAR OF APPROXIMATELY $200,000 (AB2007 -142)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTION ENVELOPES FROM THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, K
& H INTEGRATED PRINT SOLUTIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,916.68
(AB2007 -143)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SND
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
TWO -WAY RADIO SYSTEMS USED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2007-
144)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND COLUMBIA
VALUATION GROUP, INC. FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR FIVE FARMS
APPLYING FOR THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $18,000 (AB2007 -145)
McShane 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 WHATCOM LAND TRUST FOR
THEIR CONTINUING ASSISTANCE IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM, WITH A
MINIMUM FEE OF $3,000 PER EASEMENT, OR A 6% FEE ON THE FIRST
$150,000 OF EACH EASEMENT PRICE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) AND A 4%
FEE ON THE PRICE OF EACH EASEMENT OVER $150,000 (AB2007 -146)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 8
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
5 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
6 BELLINGHAM TO SHARE EQUALLY THE COSTS FOR DEVELOPING A
7 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING STRATEGY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000
8 (AB2007 -147)
9
10 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
11
12 Brenner suggested a motion, recommended by Councilmember Fleetwood, to amend
13 Section 2 to add a sentence at the end of the section, "The County Council shall authorize
14 and approve the final consultant selection."
15
16 McShane stated the selection process is a request for qualifications (RFP). The most
17 qualified consultant will be selected, and then there will be a contract to go over what can
18 be covered with the budgeted amount.
19
20 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, explained the selection and negotiation
21 process. He thought the City Council would make the final authorization.
22
23 McShane asked who makes the final selection. Desler stated the Mayor and
24 Executive would select the appropriate provider.
25
26 He is not comfortable with the Council making a selection on an RFQ. He asked if
27 the Council has ever selected a consultant.
28
29 Brenner stated the Council approved the selection of the consultant for the visioning
30 process. Desler stated that the scope of work will be approved by the City Council and
31 County Council.
32
33 Brenner stated that's done after the selection of the consultant. That wasn't what
34 the County Council was supposed to do. It's not different from the process where the
35 Executive selects a board appointment, and the Council confirms it.
36
37 Crawford stated that the County Charter gives the Executive the ability to award the
38 contract.
39
40 Brenner stated the Council could still confirm the appointment.
41
42 Nelson moved to amend Section 2 to add a sentence at the end of the section, "The
43 County Council shall make a recommendation for approval of the final .consultant selection."
44
45 Brenner stated that the County Executive told the Council that it would come to the
46 Council for a final decision. The Council doesn't make recommendations for approval.
47 There's nothing wrong with this wording. The Executive makes recommendations to the
48 Council.
49
50 Nelson stated this is not similar to the visioning process, which was initiated by the
51 Council.
52
53 Brenner stated the Council initiated this.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 9
McShane stated he's not comfortable with the County Council selecting who is most
qualified. He is more concerned about the scope of work.
Nelson withdrew his motion.
McShane stated his biggest concern is that the scope of work have a supermajority
approval. Let the administration select the most qualified person based on their review.
Then, the Council has to approve the scope of work. At some point, the Council needs to
direct the scope of work. He moved to amend section two, the second sentence, "A
detailed scope of work for the project will be finalized and approved by the County Council
after a consultant is hired."
Brenner stated that approval is already included in that section.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Motion carried 2 -I with Nelson opposed.
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON
STATE UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION
SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB2007 -148)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL ]AIL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,720 (AB2007 -149)
Crawford stated the amount shown in the title of this item is incorrect. The correct
amount is in the packet.
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council of the amount in the
packet, $202,720.
Crawford asked about not using all the beds.
Wendy )ones, Chief of Corrections, stated they're not using all the beds. They
haven't been since the beginning of the year. Part of the reason is due to the up and down
jail population. When she asked for the budget authorization, she tried to be open with the
Council and Executive that this was her best guess because they were dealing with unknown
information, including the number of offenders that would be able to move to the work
center. They're still struggling with that a bit. They may ask to be released early from that
contract. The money will be returned to the general fund. She's been tracking the use
daily. They are paying for some beds they are not using. Unfortunately, Snohomish County
had the power in the negotiation. They knew they would need some beds, but weren't sure
how many.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 10
1 Crawford asked if the option of getting out of the contract is speculation. Jones
2 - stated she's opened introductory conversations with Snohomish County staff. Skagit
3 County really wants those beds. The contract allows them to pull out of the contract. If the
4 jail population resurges, she may hold on to those beds.
5
6 Crawford asked how many bed nights they didn't use, but paid for. Jones stated she
7 can get that information.
8
9 Crawford asked if they would no longer do this contract at all. Jones stated they
10 wouldn't for now. Her big concern is that they will give up those beds, and then the jail
11 population will go through the roof this summer, which will probably happen. If that
12 happens, she will deal with it.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
17 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON
18 ENGINEERING, LLC FOR THE CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, IN
19 THE AMOUNT OF $150,639, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE
20 AMOUNT OF $445,404 (AB2007 -150)
21
22 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. However, remove
23 amendment number two. Evaluate Wall Street. There have been discussions about
24 filtration systems. Allow the public to get what they'd requested, which was not the bio-
25 filtration system.
26
27 Crawford asked if this amount is added because they are not going with the vaults.
28
29 Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated this amount is added because of
30 additional inspection services, public involvement, and permitting. The project is out to bid
31 and closes today. It includes the reconstruction of Cable Street, the installation of the water
32 line, and then the Wall Street project. They will have that contract in two weeks.
33
34 Nelson stated the citizens on Wall Street were ignored. The citizens were ignored
35 when it requested a particular system. Christensen stated that was the Council's direction.
36
37 Crawford stated the majority of the Council approved of what's presented.
38
39 Nelson stated he would rather this go out to bid for the vault system. Christensen
40 stated they must start work on May 1. The Council can pull that part of the construction
41 contract.
42
43 Nelson stated he will not support the contract. Christensen stated this includes work
44 for the consultant that is not directly connected to the Wall Street work. The last direction
45 from the Council was to move forward with the Wall Street swales.
46
47 Brenner stated she was under the impression that they don't know if either system
48 will be that good, and that they'll have better information this year about the vault system
49 on Alabama Hill. She isn't aware of a rush to get this done. If they are going to spend this
50 kind of money, wait for more information about the Alabama Hill system.
51
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2007, Page 11
1 Crawford stated he also did not agree with the majority of the Council. However,
2 they need to move forward, and the Council must support the Public Works Department's
3 need to move forward.
4
5 Brenner asked the reason for the rush to do Wall Street. Christensen stated they
6 can wait to do Wall Street. The most recent direction he had from the Council was to go
7 forward with it, so that's what he's done to this point. They can wait and do Wall Street
8 another year. It's cheaper and easier to do these projects at the same time. To move
9 forward with Cable Street, they have to approve the amendment to the contract. If they
10 are going to pull Wall Street, the time to do that would be when the construction contract
11 comes forward in two weeks, not with this amendment to keep the engineering moving
12 forward.
13
14 Brenner asked if nothing to do with Wall Street will happen in two weeks.
15 Christensen stated that is correct.
16
17 Motion carried 2 -I with Nelson apposed.
18
19 11. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO DECLARE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2158
20 SOUTH NUGENT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND, WA AS SURPLUS (AB2007 -153)
21
22 This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the County administration. It will be
23 scheduled in two weeks.
24
25
26 OTHER BUSINESS
rFA
28 There was no other business.
29
30
31 ADJOURN
32
33 T
meet in djourned at 1:10 p.m.
3
35
36
37 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
38 ►►►►►1�����1i�r��
40 AVt"
41 0 * +."ice �'•�
42; O. 0;;.� s
43 i
44
45 •
46 4na U ���i „Eour 'll Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sagin Crawford, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 3/13/2067, Page 12