Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council November 8 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special County Council Work Session PROPOSED 2007 and 2008 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET November 8, 2006 . Council Chair Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer Dan McShane DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S 2007/2008 RECOMMENDED BUDGET (AB2006 -2636) Caskey - Schreiber referenced page 99 of volume 2. The budget includes $113,000 for economic development. The amount for the Economic Development Council (EDC) is $20,000. She is against that funding. She sat on the EDC board for two years, and it didn't accomplish much of anything. There are better ways to handle the Economic Development Investment (EDI) program. There are internal problems and constant conflict between private and government members that are not easily resolved. There is only an interim director at the EDC. There is no cohesiveness or vision. The money is better -spent elsewhere. Brenner stated she partly agrees. She asked how to administer EDI funds without the EDC. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they've asked the EDC to act as a clearing house for the EDI program applications. They could coordinate private and public sector requests and issues and organizations. The Executive is now meeting with individuals to work out details. Fleetwood asked the reasons for including this money, and the benefits to Whatcom County. Desler stated he respects their concerns. The EDC is a clearing house for a lot of information for organizations and people. It provides technical assistance to local businesses and organizations. The Executive requested the amount, the same as the last several years. If they want to communicate with the private sector in ways more advanced than what the County usually does, they could retain someone else to perform the EDI function for the County. The County Executive's Office could act as the body to receive applications, which they do in the final stages now. They often discuss issues with the potential applicants, as they develop their applications. The Executive's Office gives the applicants feedback and advice on what the County Council may look for in an application. The Executive's Office could do it. If they want a more assertive and supportive role with the private sector operations, they need to seek additional help. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page i 1 2 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Small Business Development Center could take on the 3 task. She's talked to Tom Dorr, who said his organization could do it. 4 5 Crawford referenced page 42 of non - departmental packet. Only one page is 6 dedicated to this item. It looks like the administration, not the EDC, filled out the form. 7 When he was on the EDC Board, there was data about new jobs, prospective jobs, reports 8 to the County Council, and other outcomes. He asked if the EDC is still producing this data. 9 Without having the data, it's tough to allocate money. 10 11 McShane stated the EDC is still providing that data. The EDC is moving away from 12 that type of approach. The private sector is not supporting the EDC much at all. It relies 13 more heavily on the County contribution and the Port contribution. The City of Bellingham 14 is thinking about creating its own EDC position. The County Council and County 15 administration approached the EDC on a contractual basis to provide services, including that 16 data. He was never impressed with that data. He couldn't tell whether or not the EDC was 17 really succeeding. The EDC is trying to redefine its activities, to become more sector - 18 oriented and act as a conduit between governments and the private sector. It is working 19 with the EDI fund to target industries. He likes the direction it's going. It provides a good 20 service to the County. It is struggling with its mission. 21. 22 Caskey- Schreiber stated the EDC hasn't accomplished much the past three years, 23 during an economically good time. Contract with someone more connected to the 24 community. She moved to withdraw funding for the EDC for 2007 and 2008. 25 26 Ray Trzinka, EDC Board Chair, stated the difference between Small Business 27 Development Center (SBDC) and EDC is that the SBDC serves as business counselor to 28 companies. The EDC takes a broader look at the economy in the county, and brings 29 together groups of different economic sectors. The EDC will soon present a combination of 30 what has been done in the past, with new features that will provide value to the county and 31 other stakeholders. They are looking at a similar structure as in the past, including 32 sustaining current private and public financial partners. The EDI contract and the annual 33 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) update is a service the EDC will 34 provide to the County. A new feature will be an Economic Strategic Council, which would 35 consist of a cluster approach to different economic sectors of the county, to allow self - 36 identified clusters, such as the technology group, which is already formed. One 37 representative from each cluster would sit on the Economic Strategic Council. The 38 information from that council would be quality analysis from a cross - functional group of 39 different economic sectors. 40 41 Brenner stated the new feature is a lot like what the SBDC does. Trzinka stated it's 42 more than doing analysis. It's about the different people and coalitions they bring together 43 and the quality of the analyses. The SBDC may look just at a specific challenge to a 44 particular business. 45 46 Crawford asked the annual budget, how much of the budget is private versus public, 47 and whether it's the end of the EDC if the County cuts this $20,000. 48 49 Nancy Jordan, Interim EDC Director, stated the current budget is about $150,000 50 and sustains 1.5 full -time equivalent (FTE) employees. She doesn't have the private /public 51 breakdown information. It's about 60/40. They want to continue to develop these 52 opportunities. This year, the EDC convened practitioners, including the SBDC, Workforce, 53 the Port, including Hart Hodges, and other players who deliver services to the community. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 2 It meets on a monthly basis. They have been selected for a multi - county, multi - agency grant from the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) for the marine industries. The SBDC provides more technical information on the ground. McShane stated the EDC is attempting to create projects by sector. Jordan stated agriculture is another sector the EDC has been working on. Brenner asked who and how they work with in the agriculture community. Jordan stated they work with the Agricultural Preservation Committee (APC), Farm Friends, Conservation District, and many others. They are having many conversations. The different participants are leading different topics. Nelson asked if EDC organizations are recognized nationally and statewide for their grant - writing capacity to get monies from State and federal sources. Jordan stated the State authorizes the Associate Development Organization (ADO), which is given to each county be a contact point for funding. They can come through a number of sources. It's the State's way of authorizing the contact point for the counties. The counties elect who will be the holder of that ADO. That is a choice of the county. Nelson asked if the County administration would do that if the EDC doesn't. Jordan stated it is a different funding source. The line item in the County budget is different from the ADO designation, which comes directly from CTED. Caskey - Schreiber stated she's interested to see how the City of Bellingham will do it. There are other options for doing this work. Nelson stated the Chamber or SBDC couldn't do that. He agrees about what has been going on at the EDC. He was disappointed. There should be greater private - sector participation. The EDC was designed to attract businesses to Whatcom County. It's smart to bring together a coalition to find out the areas where they need help. It takes time and effort to do that. If the County cuts off its funding, the County will lose participation in that process and also the process of what the County can get from the State and federal levels, unless they design another system. He asked what the money would go to, if not this. Brenner asked if the County can fund the EDC for a year, and make it come back to the Council for a review. Caskey- Schreiber stated she accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. She amended her motion to fund the EDC for 2007 only, and come back and show the County Council evidence about to whom they've outreached and what they've accomplished. The Council should see if the EDI applications are increasing and becoming more diverse. Not much progress has been made in the past year. It seems there is competition between what the private sector and public sector want. That's why the organization is set up to fail. The board is enormous, and has diverse interests. McShane stated the Council has a certain expectation of the EDC, as do others. Set the money aside for the EDC. The important part is what the County puts in its contract with the EDC. He's attracted to the approach of funding economic development in certain sectors instead of the broad approach. Focus on areas such as agriculture, which is important for the County Council and County government. It provides direction from the County to the EDC and creates a mix of government support for the private sector. Through this, the County can have some influence on the direction of economic development. He's not interested in the County setting up its own program. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 3 1 2 Motion carried unanimously. 3 4 Fleetwood referenced a letter from the APC and Henry Bierlink (on file). He asked if 5 there is sufficient money in the current budget to implement the proposed agricultural work 6 program. 7 8 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there is staff 9 funding, but no money specifically for the program. They talked about funding some 10 components of the work program. A copy of the work program draft is available. They 11 want to try to do a feasibility study for transfers of development rights (TDR) and do a 12 cluster design ordinance change. He estimates a cost of about $60,000 for consultant 13 assistance for those activities. 14 15 McShane asked if the staff position was a switchover from the Futurewise issue. An 16 issue is the TDR and purchase of development rights (PDR) programs, and how its linked to 17 urban growth area expansion. The Natural Resources Committee was going to have a 18 presentation on this issue, but hasn't yet because of budget meetings. The Council would 19 have had a better feel for that need if it had that presentation. He asked if there is an 20 additional services request (ASR) for that PDR/TDR program feasibility study. Also, they 21 were trying to set up a very public process in the county. Olason stated they were trying to 22 reserve about $35,000 for a facilitator and to publish material for people regarding that 23 process. The budget they talked about was very lean, based on not having the detail yet. 24 They last talked about establishing a working group to work through those issues and focus 25 the program a little bit more. That hasn't occurred yet, so they don't have a certain level of 26 detail. They do have some information that indicates there will be some cost. He described 27 the process that Snohomish County went through. Whatcom County may be able to use 28 some of that information. Pierce and Snohomish counties received grant funds to work on 29 TDR's. Closely follow next year's TDR study. 30 31 Fleetwood stated the Council started discussing an aggressive agriculture protection 32 work program in March. He thought they would actively work on it in 2007. He asked if a 33 supplemental will have to come forward if they really do this. Olason stated that was 34 discussed. They could be more clear on the scope and get out requests for proposals 35 (RFD's) to see what kind of funding they would require. In the first phase, do some projects 36 that aren't TDR's, such as code changes. Those are close to being done at not a great 37 expense. He listed the projects they are doing now, with just staff time. That will be a 38 major upgrade to the program. From June 2007 to 2008, they will focus on the cluster 39 design ordinance and the TDR feasibility study. 40 41 Fleetwood asked if all those things are the extent of the work program, or if the work 42 program will be broader. He asked if there is sufficient money to ensure that the timeline 43 actually happens, if the work program is broader. Olason stated that if the program is 44 broader, the original estimate of $60,000 will be conservative. They may want to do a 45 supplemental when they get more detail. 46 47 Weimer stated there is an approved ASR for $156,000 for the agriculture land 48 preservation program, which is mainly staff. He asked how that person works into the work 49 plan. The ASR is on page 107 of the ASR's. Olason stated that money is targeting the 50 shared position with the Futurewise work. They have additional part-time funding for an 51 agriculture assistant extra help. 52 Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 4 1 Brenner stated this item isn't Futurewise. It is the County's obligation and support 2 for one of those two positions. All these tasks are the same ones they talked about two 3 years ago. It's important to get started on some of these tasks. If they need to budget for 4 it, now is the time to do it. George Boggs was under the impression that the Conservation 5 District would get some money, but it's not in the budget. 6 7 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this is about the 8 critical areas discussion and the conservation program on agricultural lands (CPAL's), which 9 they are trying to get functional. The issue is of timing. The work program for Mr. Boggs is 10 already set for the year. It could be more effective early next year. They are scheduled to 11 do a lot of that work between December and June each year. The County must get in sync 12 with their schedule to work with the farming community. 13 14 Brenner stated the Conservation District, according to George Boggs, is ready to 15 move on this. 16 17 Henry Bierlink, Agricultural Preservation Committee and Agriculture Advisory 18 Committee, stated he really supports the work being done by the Conservation District on 19 CPAL's. It's been a good deal for farmers. It's not fair to ask the Conservation District to 20 do that with no staff or support. If the Conservation District is going to administer and 21 make the County laws work, then the District must have County support. 22 23 McShane asked if there is an ASR that incorporates this issue. Hart stated 24 something was put forward but didn't make it through the process. 25 26 Dennis Rhodes, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there was some 27 discussion of an ASR that talked about one FTE. Now they are sharing an FTE with the 28 Futurewise program. Funding for covering that position and the extra help is in the budget. 29 They additionally asked for $60,000 for programs. At a past Committee of the Whole 30 meeting, the Council was presented with a broader scope of the agricultural program. The 31 Council narrowed down the scope. That's what staff built its ASR around. That is the 32 presentation that is supposed to be before the Natural Resources Committee. The proposed 33 work program talks about the agricultural preservation ordinance and other issues. 34 35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 36 37 Rhodes continued to list the items in the work program. They are at the public 38 interaction process right now. He explained that process. That information will come to the 39 Council at a later time. They initially talked about having a consultant support for that 40 public interaction process, which will be sizeable. The initial ASR addressed that issue, but 41 it wasn't as fine -tuned as they would have liked, because they never got the opportunity to 42 One -tune it with the Council and administration. That's where it was left off. Right now, the 43 budget includes staffing for the agricultural program. 44 45 McShane stated one option is for the Natural Resources Committee to work on the 46 ASR and pass the budget in two weeks, or pass the budget now and amend it to include the 47 ASR. He is concerned about the idea of a supplemental coming out later. The Council can't 48 bring forward a supplemental budget request. The Council has a proposal it hasn't started 49 working on yet. That's where the opportunity comes in. A lot of detail needs to be worked 50 on. The work needs to be sped up. Add $60,000 for support. It would be helpful to put 51 together a more substantial ASR in the interim, or set the money aside. He moved to add 52 $60,000 as a one time expenditure for agricultural program support. 53 Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 5 1 Brenner stated she supports the motion. She asked what the County must do for 2 Futurewise. Rhodes stated two staff are poised to start working on Futurewise when the 3 court makes its ultimate decision. 4 5 Brenner stated the County hires people to work on issues, not on lawsuits. Rhodes 6 stated they refer to the project as the Futurewise project. 7 8 Caskey- Schreiber stated change the euphemism to the limited area of more intense 9 rural development (LAMIRD) issue. 10 11 Nelson stated he would be more comfortable with having $60,000 if it would promote 12 getting a TDR program in place, rather than a bunch of docketed agricultural items and 13 farmland issues. If they don't have a TDR program, he can't support the docketed items. 14 Many people on agricultural lands will be upset with these docketed items. Olason stated 15 the first page of the Proposed Agricultural Work Program (on file) handout talks about a 16 work program that would work with the community to develop some protections. They 17 talked about putting effort into the TDR program in 2007, by doing the feasibility study. 18 The feasibility study will tell them whether the TDB's are worth doing. The third stage talks 19 about coordinating the PDR and TDR program, and also ties into the cluster design concept 20 to reduce density instead of buying it all out. When they get into that phase, they would 21 implement an ordinance and staff up. It will take a lot of work to make the PDR and TDR 22 programs work. 23 24 Fleetwood stated the overall object is to implement the full work program. This 25 came out of Comprehensive Plan amendments that he and Councilmember McShane filed a 26 year ago. They morphed that Comprehensive Plan review into the work plan. He asked if 27 the $60,000 is sufficient to do that next year. This is one of the biggest County priorities. 28 They have lots of money for one -time programs. Now is the time to fund this plan. He 29 asked if it's true that it would take a minimum of $250,000 for the next two years, in 30 addition to dedicated Planning staff, to realize the Council objective. Bierlink stated that 31 estimate, done in May, was originally $600,000 to do the full plan. They scaled that amount 32 back down to $250,000, and now it's down to $120,000 over two years. They recognize 33 that no one really knows what it will take. No one wants to spend the money any more 34 than the Council, but they want to do the job right. That's what they're trying to do. They 35 are looking for an indication that the work done by the Agricultural Advisory Committee and 36 Agricultural Preservation Committee will be meaningful enough that the County will get to 37 work on it, and do what needs to be done. He has been quite pleased with the 38 administration's effort on the staff level. They are moving in the right direction. The 39 question is whether the LAMIRD issue will use up all the staff's time. As long as the Council 40 keeps saying this is a high priority, the staff will make sure it's available to get this done. 41 Now, there has to be something for public involvement and focused efforts. 42 43 Fleetwood stated it's hard to predict with any accuracy what the precise amount 44 should be without having first finished the full discussion on the scope of the work program. 45 The amount of $60,000 sounds better than nothing. He will support that amount. As they 46 refine the scope of work for the program, he hopes they will come back with a supplemental 47 if it's necessary. 48 49 Brenner stated she won't vote to support this budget at this evening's meeting. She 50 wants to hear what people have to say. Put this item in the Natural Resources Committee 51 so they can finish that discussion. The amount of $60,000 won't get them far. The Council 52 has prioritized this issue highly, but put little into it monetarily. This is the perfect 53 opportunity for the administration to bring something forward, but she doesn't want to Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 6 count on that. There are always things that vie for the same monies. She would like to say up front that they are going to do this program, and schedule the item in committee so the councilmembers can vote on it. Caskey - Schreiber stated this issue shouldn't hold up the budget. It should be an easy decision. There is a very large proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, with a large -scale TDR component. It can't be considered without the TDR component. She is comfortable with adding $60,000 specifically to the issue of TDR and PDR agricultural lands related to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Nelson stated the funds would be allocated, not dedicated. Get an idea of how a TDR program can be used once these docketed items come forward. He asked if they will have something in place. Olason stated the four items on the front page will blend into the work program. Those four docketed items won't appear as presented. Instead, they will get the list of items on the work plan. They are talking about $60,000 for two years. They may be into the third year for implantation. There may be additional money at that point. Nelson stated this is an allocation. He hears that they need to get that done now. They can put in committee and beat it to death. The staff will have to do the work, not the Council, to get to implementation. He doesn't need to beat something to death to get a product. Olason stated about one -third of the $120,000 for the two year period will be for public process. It's a very conservative estimate. They will do their best to get as much done as they can with that amount of money. They will have to pick their consultant judiciously. McShane amended his motion to add one -time expenditures of $60,000 in 2007 and $60,000 in 2008 for outside support for the agricultural program. Nelson asked if the administration approved the staff, and this motion adds to that amount. Olason stated that is correct. Weimer stated he approves of the motion. It's a good placeholder. Discuss it in Natural Resources Committee before the budget is passed. Crawford stated he opposes the motion. The addition of a staff" person gives the Planning Department ability to analyze the needs. If the department feels it's a good use, it can come to the Council and say that. The additional staff is enough for now. McShane stated this leaves a placeholder for what the Council decides is its priority for the agricultural program priorities. They may decide to not spend the money at all. Nelson stated make the money specifically for TDR's. Many of the Comprehensive Plan amendments are geared toward a lot of land in the rural areas. He will not sacrifice those lands without having a program in place. Caskey- Schreiber suggested that they allocate $120,000 for the establishment, development, and fruition of the TDR program as associated to agricultural lands. Olason stated staff can dedicate that the TDR program feasibility study is done. McShane restated his motion to add $120,000 for outside support of the agricultural program, including development of a TDR program. He is not interested in pursuing the work program without the TDR program. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 7 I Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 2 3 Weimer moved to approve an ASR to fund the CPAL program through the 4 Conservation District (on file) in the amount of $50,000 in 2007 and $100,000 in 2008. It 5 is less than half of what the Conservation District would like. This program is called for in 6 the critical areas ordinance. It's a high priority program for both shellfish protection 7 districts. They've got a total maximum daily load (TMDL) in place because of high fecal 8 coliforms in the river and in a number of creeks. This is one way to address all those 9 things. He explained the CPAL program. The Conservation District has this program ready 10 to go, but it has received no money to do it. It's an unfunded mandate to the District by 11 the State and the County. 12 13 Brenner stated the Conservation District worked with the administration on this 14 program. She supports the motion. The money is not in the budget, and it needs to be. 15 16 Weimer stated there were discussions between the Conservation District and the 17 Planning and Development Services Department for a contract to start some of this, in the 18 amount of $45,000 to $50,000. Hart stated that is correct. It's getting late in the year to 19 start it this year. The question is one of timing. The staff hasn't brought that conversation 20 to the administration. 21 22 Crawford asked if this ASR is a help to the 4H groups, the granges, and the Future 23 Farmers of America (FFA). There are some positive benefits according to the ASR. He 24 asked if those folks see this as a barrier or a help. It is presented as something that would 25 help the small hobby farmers. He would like some input from those groups. Delay this a 26 little while longer until they can come up with an advisory group to represent the hobby 27 farmers. Make sure they're on board. He's heard from the hobby farmers about the 28 downside of working with the Conservation District. He's not sure if they resist this 29 particular action or any regulatory action. 30 31 Weimer stated he doesn't know who the Conservation District discussed this with. 32 It's a high priority in the District's strategic planning. It`s also a high priority of the 33 Agricultural Advisory Committee. They have done a number of workshops that were well - 34 attended. This is called for in the critical areas ordinance, and people are out of compliance 35 if they aren't doing this. This is a way to help people make sure they avoid trouble down 36 the line. 37 38 Caskey - Schreiber stated she supports the motion. There is a strong correlation 39 between the number of farm plans and the quality of water, especially in Drayton Harbor. 40 The County is bound to provide services for the tax revenue it collects, This is a good 41 service to the public to ensure that their waterways are as pollution -free as possible from 42 farm runoff. It also helps the farmers, who won't get labeled as polluters. The large farms 43 have all been doing their farm plans successfully. The logical next step is to address all of 44 the small farms. They are a hard group to organize. The best way to do that is through the 45 Conservation District, which has had many successes with the larger farms. She expects 46 the District to be just as successful with this entity. 47 48 Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber. All they have to 49 do is say that the primary customers are primarily the low- impact livestock farm owners, 50 including hobby farms. Secondarily, moderate impact farm materials will assist crop 51 farmers, including hobby crop farmers, with critical areas. Add that language to the ASR. 52 She totally supports this funding. 53 Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/$/2006, Page 8 Crawford stated the County has a critical areas ordinance. The critical areas ordinance is being violated. Complaints are out there. The County investigates the complaints about hobby farmers and does enforcement actions. Hart stated that is correct. Crawford stated that's the current problem. The proposed solution is to dedicate $150,000 over two years to assist the Conservation District with preempting farms from getting to that stage. The district is going to go out and get the plans so they don't have as many violations. He asked if they are better off spending the $150,000 on the front end. He asked if there is a savings on the back end. He asked if this has come up with the administration. He asked why the Council hasn't seen this before if this is a great idea. Desler stated the administration signed off on an internal budget transfer in the amount of $35,000 to fund this program in 2006. The County contracted with the district, but the program hasn't been set up yet. They're still waiting for this to happen. There is $35,000 plus a two percent increase available in the budget for 2007 to implement the critical areas ordinance provisions, which supports the farm development issues. Crawford asked the difference between the $35,000 proposed by the administration and the $150,000 of the motion. Hart stated the Conservation District is saying it needs additional funding to put this out, with the technical support for the community. Crawford asked how they came up with the amount of $35,000 per year. Hart stated it was a bare bones transfer from a year ago. They just carried that forward. What the Council is saying is the district's programmatic response. If the County wants the program going, this extra amount is the district's recommendation. They haven't yet used the $35,000 that the County allocated. Weimer stated the district budgets $200,000 per year to implement the program. The reason the district hasn't used the $35,000 is because they've had to allocate staff to other programs and grants. It will take time to finish the work they're doing now and reassign the staff back to this program. Brenner stated the Conservation District won't have any effect with a budget of $35,000. The difference is whether the County really wants to do something with this program, or just provide token funding. Crawford stated the County is doing a lot. It's doing enforcement. County staff is out there all the time writing up violations. They are talking about front - loading a program rather than back - loading a program. Caskey- Schreiber stated the goal of the critical areas ordinance is compliance. This is a better, less confrontational, and more successful way to get compliance. Crawford stated it is possibly more expensive. Caskey- Schreiber stated that remains to be seen. They just added a staff person for $65,000 to do critical areas ordinance implementation and enforcement. This is something they can finish in two to five years. She restated the motion to add $150,000 over two years to the Conservation District to implement farm plans for small farms. Motion carried 6 -I with Crawford opposed. Fleetwood referenced the Small Potatoes Gleaning Project. The State Auditor said the County can't fund it. There is a way to let this happen. There is an exception to the Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 9 1 State Constitution for the poor and needy. The concern is that the Small Potatoes Gleaning 2 Fund program doesn't have a sufficient audit trail to show that the County money would go 3 toward a program that affects or benefits the poor and needy. They can do that accounting. 4 They don't presently, but they can change their policy. He asked if there is a way to 5 appropriate $15,000 over two years for the non - profit, then work with the non - profit and 6 State Auditor to make sure the audit trail is sufficient. Desler stated it seems like a good 7 project. The City of Bellingham can support the project with specific federal funds that 8 allow the funds to be used for this project. The State Auditor told them to let that money 9 flow from the federal government. If the Council really supports the project, set the money 10 aside and make sure they do it in compliance with the Constitution and law. The 11 administration will make sure it happens. If it can't happen, recognize that the law prevents 12 the County from doing this. 13 14 Fleetwood moved to include $15,000 for the Small Potatoes Gleaning Project if it 15 can be funded in compliance with the State Constitution and law. 16 17 Brenner stated she thought the issue was that the County can spend the money on a 18 nonprofit to teach someone how to grow the food or do whatever, but they can't spend the 19 money on the food itself. She totally supports the project. 20 21 Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. 22 23 Caskey - Schreiber moved to amend the funding for the Chamber of Commerce. 24 Provide funds for 2007 only, and wait to go through another local election cycle to see if 25 they truly don't become a political action committee. Remove funding for 2008. 26 27 Brenner stated the Council can't do a supplemental budget request. 28 29 Caskey - Schreiber stated the administration can and will submit the supplemental if 30 necessary. 31 32 Desler stated the administration could put forward a one -year contract, and consider 33 a second contract at the end of 2007. 34 35 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to fund the Chamber of Commerce for 36 2008, and approve only a one -year contract, with review at the end of 2007. 37 38 Caskey-Schreiber did not accept the friendly amendment. It's wrong to channel 39 public money to someone who engages in local politics. 40 41 Crawford stated they use this money for off- season advertising out of the area for 42 the Ski -to -Sea festival. They are funding one little aspect of the Ski -to -Sea festival. 43 44 Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Nelson opposed. 45 46 Brenner moved to reinstate ASR 2007 -327, the .5 FTE for the Assessor, Treasurer, 47 and Auditor for technical computer support. Those are three elected positions that handle a 48 lot of money for the County. It's not enough to have one person service all three of those 49 departments in addition to the Information Technology Division. Also, the Auditor, 50 Assessor, and Treasurer don't make a lot of requests like other departments. She takes 51 their requests very seriously. This is extremely important. 52 53 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 10 Nelson stated that's not the appropriate approach for handling technical support. If they started doing technical support on one level, it can have impacts on other areas. It has to be a coordinated effort to not affect other departments. Desler stated the administrator advocates additional capacity to buy time from the service provider, Compu -Tech. Try that first. They are already adding staff capacity. One priority is to help the Treasurer, Assessor, and Auditor with some of the current technical issues of maintaining and running the systems they have now. The second priority is to work on a replacement set of software. The administration proposes adding capacity to manage the system, beyond the money already allocated in the budget now for that support. The administration is committed to making sure the system runs well. If they need additional capacity, they would work up a solution. Steve Oliver, Treasurer's Office, stated his office has had additional discussions on this issue with the Executive's Office. They were able to clarify the resources that may be available to support the system for the next few years while they plan a large replacement of the County's treasury and financial system. At this point, they are supporting the Executive's proposal. They also understand they will continue to revisit this issue with the Executive on a regular basis to make sure they are getting the job done. (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Crawford left the meeting at 11:45 a.m.) Brenner amended her motion to accept the technical correction for $20,000 for the Compu -Tech support for the Treasurer and Assessor for the year 2007. Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent. McShane moved to approve all the technical corrections proposed by the administration on page one of their handout (on tile). Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent. Weimer asked if funding for Sean Humphrey House is for one year or two years. Desler stated the funding is for one year, in 2007. Brenner stated the funding is ongoing, not one time. She moved to add $12,000 for Sean Humphrey House to the 2008 Budget. Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent. Weimer asked the process for how people get funding through the non - departmental fund. He is looking for a way to set up a process. His idea is to remove $310,000 of funding for 14 organizations in 2008, but put it into a pot called the "good works" fund, and let people apply to the administration for that funding. Caskey - Schreiber stated Executive Kremen already has such a fund. He does an outstanding job of managing that pot of money and helping people who have missed the budget process. She refers people to the Executive's Office for that funding all the time. It would be difficult to invite applications for funding when they already have a big stream of applications. She asked how many requests the County received this year. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 11 1 Desler stated they received many requests. There is both merit and downsides to 2 the suggestion. Have a larger discussion of the impact and what it would take to manage 3 the process. 4 5 Brenner asked who gets some of the money from the slush fund. After this two -year 6 cycle, tell the Council ahead of the budget process about what gets funded. Desler stated 7 he would provide a list to the Council. 8 9 Nelson stated it's not a slush fund. It's the current expense fund. It is not 10 something that is for rainy days or other purposes. It's appropriated through an 11 administrative process and Council approval. 12 13 Weimer stated he is willing to have a longer discussion about this. He's heard from 14 the food banks, Northwest Youth Services, Opportunity Council, and environmental 15 organizations that didn't know money was available from the County. They're looking for a 16 process to make sure the most legitimate requests are getting funded. 17 18 Caskey- Schreiber stated it is not a slush fund. It's a discretionary fund over which 19 the Executive has administration. The administration has been very supportive of the many 20 small requests it gets. 21 22 Brenner stated she understands that the discretionary fund is for one -time things. 23 Ongoing requests usually make their way into the budget process. Desler stated that is 24 correct. It's called the Executive contingency fund. It is listed in the non - departmental 25 section of the budget. The requested amounts range from $2,000 to $10,000. The County 26 develops a modest contract with the agency. If the funding is needed in subsequent years, 27 the administration will make a more formal request to the Council through the budget 28 process, or it's considered in a future year. The Executive reaches out to many people. 29 30 Nelson asked about a senior programmer position for the Administrative Services 31 Department. Desler stated this position has to do with implementation of the data 32 integration project. There is about $1.5 million in grant funding. They hope to get more 33 grants. This is the continuation of an existing position. The purpose of the position is to 34 integrate the law and justice information systems among many governmental agencies. 35 36 Fleetwood submitted and moved to approve the amended ASR for legacy planning 37 for Whatcom County. The previous version was for $60,000 per year for two years. The 38 amended version is for $35,000 per year for two years. This goes beyond creating a vision. 39 This proposal increases the likelihood that they will implement a vision that many want for 40 natural resource amenities in Whatcom County. The results of this process will go into the 41 planning policies. If they can get improved goals and policies into the Comprehensive Plan, 42 it will inform future councils. It's well worth it. 43 44 McShane stated he has refrained in the past from discussion of and voting on this 45 item due to a fiduciary interest. His wife is on the Legacy Planning Committee. However, 46 he was exposed to some of the debate on this last week at the Salmon Summit. The 47 County long -term plans are for 20 years, not 100 years. Those plans were crafted with a 48 lack of some information. They have so much more information available now that needs to 49 be incorporated into long -term planning. He keeps hearing questions about where urban 50 growth areas will expand. People have talked about drawing a hard line around the urban 51 growth areas, but they have no current plan to do that. They also have no future plan to 52 protect watersheds that they know are sensitive to changed land use patters. Therefore, 53 they will keep expanding into new watersheds and then have to fix problems that they Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 12 1 create. Since they did the original Comprehensive Plan and long -term plans, they have so 2 much more information. Endangered species listed have been applied. They have a 3 different regime of regulations and standards the County must meet. They have a much 4 better understanding of advances that have occurred in low impact development. They talk 5 a lot about low impact development. There are places where it works well, and other places 6 where it doesn't work well. It really matters where someone is building. Those things were 7 not considered in past planning efforts. Now, they do 20 -year plans that are updated every 8 five years. People on both sides are getting frustrated because things change every five 9 years. This item will go a long way to create a more certain future about what they protect. 10 This has significant statewide support. Ultimately, it's a huge leverage tool for getting 11 funding for the very things for which they want funding. It is an opportunity for Whatcom 12 County to take a lead on these issues. The Growth Management Act doesn't protect 13 farmland or forestiand all that well. This is a great program. He is in favor of it. It is not a 14 threat to the implementation of the plans they have. It will greatly enhance their ability to 15 implement those plans and prioritize where the County puts its resources. 16 17 Nelson stated he disagrees with having a separate citizen group to do what the 18 County Council should do. If it's an important issue to the Council, then the Council can go 19 through a process for the Planning Department to go to the community and do research. 20 He is concerned about having citizen groups proposing projects and other citizen groups 21 being left out of the process. He is skeptical about how this process would be put together. 22 He is concerned about going outside of the current Comprehensive Plan process. If the 23 State thinks this is a good idea, then the State can create legislation and financing for that 24 type of process. Through the Comprehensive Plan process, they have gone a long way to 25 address needs and concerns. 26 27 Brenner stated she is not sure about who is involved in this group. She's heard from 28 many people who are just finding out about this. People don't know anything about this. 29 Chuck Antholt says that this effort has serious credibility and legitimacy problems with the 30 community at large because he is just finding out about this. She's very nervous about the 31 Council doing this with a group of people that it hasn't appointed. Someone was in charge 32 of deciding who was involved, and it wasn't the Council. The Council represents the 33 citizens. She's never been opposed to this kind of effort. She's nervous about this effort 34 requiring even more work from staff. Instead, do this in- house, but don't take up any more 35 of the staff's time. 36 37 Caskey - Schreiber stated she supports the plan. She was brought into a group of 38 elected officials from every jurisdiction. It came from the Concerned Christian Citizens, who 39 suggested that the governments formulate'a long -term strategy about what they want this 40 County to look like in 100 years. The Growth Management Act (GMA) fails in that respect. 41 It encourages the counties to plan for 20 years. In reality, they need to plan further out. 42 The population is going to double in 35 years. She wants to know what they are going to do 43 to protect the green areas and sensitive areas in the county. Without a strategy for 44 acquisition of those areas, they will not be able to protect anything vital to the ecosystems 45 of the northwest or the natural resources. The vision should come from the citizens to have 46 a better shot at community buy -in and funding. The group will accomplish a lot for the 47 $35,000 per year its requesting. She expects that the composition of the committee will 48 become more diverse. 49 50 Weimer stated he was originally against this motion. It duplicates a lot of other 51 plans that are already done. Some of their plans for what they can accomplish are naive. 52 People who have worked through salmon plans, watershed restoration plans, and 53 comprehensive plans are some of the people most against this because they've already Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 1118/2006, Page 13 1 been through the planning process, but there wasn't any money for implementation. Those 2 people would rather this money go to implementation rather than another plan. He agrees. 3 4 This advisory group is a process that started from the public, not the government. 5 This steering committee will hopefully be able to grow and include more County 6 representation. This group needs to do more outreach to the people who have been in the 7 trenches. For all of these processes, they get to the end, and there is no money. This is 8 the most hopeful thing he's seen to generate community support for whatever will happen 9 to generate that money. If $70,000 gives them a chance for the community coming 10 together to generate that money, he can support it. 11 12 McShane stated the County's role in this project is small. It is to provide information 13 regarding geographic overlays and other scientific information, so the data used for the plan 14 is the best function. The funding sources are shown in the ASR. The effort depends heavily 15 on grants. He's optimistic that the money will be there. There is a lack of prioritization on 16 every level to implement these plans that exist. They don't have money to fix past salmon 17 recovery problems, and now they are going to create even more problems. This is a huge 18 chance to leverage opportunity. The County is asked to play a small part. It will create 19 money for preservation. They must preserve the good things they have before doing 20 massive recovery projects. This will allow the County to share its scientific and geographic 21 background with this group. The group will be able to share back so they can make good 22 priority decisions about where the County puts its money. 23 24 Nelson stated it will be more planning. No implementation will come from this effort. 25 This process is laid out by one group of people. The process must be accepted by the 26 community. Whatever comes of this effort may not be implemented because those who 27 weren't part of the process can object to it. 28 29 Brenner stated her big concern is they can get scientific data to say anything they 30 want. It's been said that this effort should come from the people, not the Council. The 31 Council represents the people. They must have the trust of the community. If they go 32 through this effort, make sure it goes through the Council and through a public process. 33 The product that this group comes up with will not be a County product. She is nervous 34 about where this comes from and who is behind it. If this effort is important, then run it 35 through the County so everyone is represented. Don't give it to an independent group that 36 decides who is involved. 37 38 Fleetwood stated this effort will create beneficial, necessary information that will 39 inform implementation. Implementation on this project will be actions by future County 40 Councils that make decisions on land use issues. In a sense, they don't get implementation 41 from this process. It will inform future decisions. The question is about how they take what 42 they get from this effort and put it into a public document, such as the Comprehensive Plan, 43 which is then thoroughly vetted through a public process. 44 45 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's not convinced that the County can do this any better 46 than a group of citizens. At some point, the County would be invited to participate. There 47 is nothing wrong with citizens trying to formulate a vision of which they would all have 48 ownership. She asked if the legacy group has ever denied membership to anyone. 49 50 Tris Shirley, Legacy Planning Steering Committee, stated the steering committee is 51 open to new membership. He is also concerned that the committee includes mostly 52 Bellingham people. If the work they do is not broadly representative of all the people in the 53 county, they know it won't work. The only way this can be implemented is if it's broadly Special Whatcom County Council Work Session ° 200712008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 14 supported. Otherwise, they are wasting their time. They will do whatever they have to do to achieve that broad support. Fleetwood asked if there are any rules that limit the number of people who can be on the steering committee. Shirley stated they probably should have, but they don't. Fleetwood asked if this is a draft list, and it's conceivable that many people, representing a broad constituency, could be added. Shirley stated this is the current status. They have had some discussion of different models to make this work. They can't have a 200 - person steering committee. They must make sure everyone in the community has a voice on the steering committee somehow, but that they still have a workable committee. (Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane left the meeting at 12:27 p.m.) Brenner asked what the councilmembers are supposed to say to people who claim this process is tainted because it comes from a certain group. Shirley stated people will have to look at the results. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Shirley continued to state that if they've done their job well and solicited broad input in the course of this project, the vast majority of the community will find it acceptable. As long as the work speaks for itself, they don't have to worry about people being as concerned about who did the work. Hart stated this is an alternative model that Executive Kremen started discussing at least two years ago. The legitimacy of any public process will be based on how deep into the community they can get. The original goal was to get beyond the same people they always see over and over again. Nelson stated that if the administration wanted this process, they should have brought forward a proposal for the Council to work through. Most of the committees that worked on the Comprehensive Plan contained committee memberships larger than this. Those people put forward planning processes and ideas that they felt were important. If that is the idea, then do that through a legitimate process, not through a citizen group. He can put together a group of credentialed individuals who would be just as interested in doing this, but who would come up with an entirely different result. Weimer stated he will support this, even though he has concerns. All of the non - departmental requests are from groups with different steering committees that the Council has never questioned. It will be interesting to watch this diverse group. If they can work it out, there is hope that this group can move forward. Brenner stated the Council doesn't adopt the work of other groups, and force it onto the public, This is a process that, when done, would go through a County Council adoption process. She asked if the Council would fund another group that comes forward with the same kind of request. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council funds the EDC, which is involved in economic development planning. Brenner stated the EDC doesn't put something in the Comprehensive Plan. Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 15 1 Caskey - Schreiber stated this won't go inside the Comprehensive Plan. It is a 2 recommended plan of how they might go about preserving and protecting the things they 3 value in the County. It is a volunteer - based, grass roots plan from a diverse group of 4 citizens who are looking for seed money. The County is not mandated to adopt this. It's 5 like the greenways vision. The burden is on this group to seek funding elsewhere. 6 7 Brenner stated it's not going to be like greenways. Once the County puts money into 8 it, it has partial ownership. She will support this if the County funds some other group that 9 comes forward with the same kind of idea. 10 11 Shirley stated that's reasonable. What kinds of things the committee considers will 12 become more clearly defined so the Council will better - understand what the committee is 13 trying to do and how the committee will do it. The committee intends to listen to and 14 resolve any disagreements. 15 16 Fleetwood stated he hopes that the findings from this effort can find their way into 17 the Comprehensive Plan, so it's the official policy of Whatcom County, and there will be 18 something that will inform and, to some extent, bind future councils on land use issues. He 19 withdrew his motion and stated he would make the motion at the evening meeting. 20 21 Brenner moved to add one on -going FTE to Superior Court for administrative 22 support, as requested in ASR 2007 -153, 2007 -215, and 2007 -156, to create one FTE that 23 would be a combination of a judicial assistant, calendar coordinator, and court accountant. 24 25 N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Administrator, stated the Superior Court is an 26 independent branch of government. The County has a duty to make sure it can do its work. 27 The court has said what it needs to do its work. 28 29 Fleetwood asked of one FTE is practical for those six requested positions. Jackson 30 stated one FrE is useless. No other court in the State has no assistance. He submitted and 31 read from a letter on this issue (on file). 32 33 Caskey- Schreiber asked why the administration denied the requests. Desler stated 34 the Executive put forward a series of improvements to the Superior Court and Clerk's 35 offices. There has been discussion between the court and Executive for more than a year, 36 and continue daily. They are trying to gather a lot of information from the Prosecutor, 37 Public Defender, Clerk's Office staff, and Judges about how to fashion the most appropriate 38 and effective court function. The administration has no problem with adding one FTE, but it 39 has other ideas on which it would like to work with the court to adjust existing staff levels. 40 41 Brenner stated these are full -time elected officials. All other full -time elected officials 42 have an assistant. Desler stated the court has staff, including court facilitators, assigned 43 counsel, and drug court staff. The court administrator currently serves as the Court Clerk 44 as well as the court administrator. They are still working out the details of how to properly 45 assign the Clerk's Office staff to the Court. 46 47 Caskey- Schreiber stated she could support adding one additional FTE. She would 48 want to consider the issue more in -depth before adding more than one. 49 50 Brenner restated her motion to add one judicial assistant FTE to Superior Court. 51 52 Motion carried 5 -0 with Crawford and McShane absent. 53 Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 16 1 Brenner moved to approve District Court ASR 2007 -39. Doing this will pay for 2 itself. It will also help people not fall behind in their payments. Desler stated they didn't 3 think that it was compelling that it would pay for itself. There is substantial revenue that 4 would come to the court. There would also be substantial expenditures. The administration 5 is adding staff capacity. In this budget process, departments requested 95 additional FTE's. 6 The administration approved 32.5 of those requests. It was the administration's effort to 7 develop an adequate priority. 8 9 Bruce Van Glubt, District Court Administrator, stated the project won't be terminated 10 based on the Executive's recommendation. They have received ongoing extra help that 11 allows them to continue working on collections. This additional funding in the request would 12 allow them td expand the program and work with additional clients. He is not able to prove 13 that this will bring in more money. He can say that the feedback from most defendants so 14 far is positive. They appreciate the program. 15 16 Caskey- Schreiber asked how many staff are in the District Court office. Van Glubt 17 stated there are three judicial officers and 14 support staff. They've hired an extra help 18 person to deal with these kinds of issues and work on this project. 19 20 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the motion. It's good when they can help 21 people pay their fines. 22 23 Motion carried 4 -1 with Nelson opposed and Crawford and McShane absent. 24 25 Desler stated the cost is $61,000 for the one judicial assistant FfE. He asked if that 26 is consistent with the motion the Council approved. 27 28 Caskey - Schreiber stated it is. 29 30 Jackson stated there was a one -time request for furnishings and computers for the 31 additional staff. 32 33 Fleetwood moved to approve $66,204 for one judicial assistant FfE to the Superior 34 Court, including furnishings. This motion clarifies the motion made earlier. 35 36 Motion carried 5 -0 with McShane and Crawford absent. 37 38 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane returned to the meeting.) 39 40 Fleetwood moved to approve the legacy planning in the amount of $75,000 over 41 two years. 42 43 Motion carried 5 -1 with Nelson opposed and Crawford absent. 44 45 46 A03OURN 47 48 The meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m. 49 501 52 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 53 Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 s 9 The Council approved these minutes on July 10 , 2007. ATTEST: Dana Brown -� 4 0:o ,.- 0. U: *EOF�' i • /�'�� +►ir r fit 4►������ WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON r L" , r curie Caskey -Sc reiber, Council Chair Special Whatcom County Council Work Session - 2007/2008 Budget, 11/8/2006, Page 18