HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance October 10 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Finance and Administrative Services Committee
3
4 October 10, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 present: Absent:
10 L. Ward Nelson None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also present:
14 Dan McShane
15 Seth Fleetwood
16 Barbara Brenner
17 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
21
22 1. REPORT ON PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMERGENCY
23 REPAIRS TO SLATER ROAD NOOKSACK RIVER BRIDGE NO. 512 (AB2006-
24 369)
25
26 Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the staff is required by the
27 purchasing code to inform the Council after an emergency declaration. The memo is self -
28 explanatory. The outside cost for contractors was about $190,000.
29
30 Weimer asked if the County is going to get reimbursed for the cost from the
31 insurance company, including for the staff time. Brueske stated it will. The County staff
32 haven't worked out specifics yet.
33
34 Crawford asked if there is any added benefit, such as a better bridge. Brueske
35 stated the bridge is restored to its original configuration. After the repair, the bridge was
36 load rated to make,sure the repair was successful.
37
38 Nelson asked if there are additional repairs going on at this time. Brueske stated the
39 repairs are complete.
40
41 Nelson asked if the traffic light is working. Brueske stated he's not aware of a
42 problem.
43
44 2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER
45 INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL
46 INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING WITHIN BELLINGHAM'S REVENUE
47 DEVELOPMENT AREA (AB2006 -347A)
48
49 Crawford moved to recommend approval, to begin discussion.
5o
51 Fleetwood stated he appreciates the range of opinions and reasoning offered by the
52 councilmembers. He brought this item forward because it's an opportunity to participate in
53 an exciting project of countywide importance. The project fits with their economic
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 1
development goals expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The issue is the question of whether or
not they believe that County participation will reduce or increase County general fund
coffers. The more conservative, less risk - averse position is to oppose the project on those
grounds. Those reasons have been offered by the majority of the councilmembers and the
Executive. However, it's likely to increase general fund revenues over time, through the
County's participation. There is an increased likelihood of increased future County revenues
if the County participates.
This is a contaminated industrial site. Some people believe private capital will infuse
this project and clean up the site, but that's not the case. Cleanup and infrastructure
development will take significant public dollars. Forty percent of the Whatcom County
citizens live in Bellingham. The County is being asked to shoulder three percent of the cost
of the effort. He urged the councilmembers to support the project.
Joan Beardsley, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the County should be part of
a team to do wonderful economic development in Bellingham and the County. Bellingham is
part of the county. It is a bit of a risk at the beginning. They are all a bit nervous.
However, they have a better chance to make the project successful if they move forward as
a team. The City is committed and has signed with the Port of Bellingham. This should be
a demonstration for the entire state. Tax increment financing can be an economic
development tool that can also be used for different jurisdictions that collaborate. They
need the County to participate to make that point.
The County is not investing anything. It will take money that it would not otherwise
get from property taxes. If the area remains as it is, the area will remain industrial and
there will be no property taxes from it. A small investment makes for a large return. The
County must commit about $580,000 per year of property tax revenue that it would get
because of the development. The county won't get that revenue without the development.
Also, the County will get about $200,000 of property tax that the County gets to keep. The
County's general fund coffers will increase by $200,000 if the County commits.
By the County's participation, the County will help the City live up to their mutual
Comprehensive Plan goals. They both support economic development, increasing the
density in the urban centers, and saving agricultural land. They will put 3,000 to 5,000 in
housing units in this area. To put people there, the development must occur.
Dewey Desler and Executive Kremen expressed concerns for increased costs for
public safety and public health. That may be true, but those increases will happen anyway,
due to additional population, not due to this development. This opportunity provides extra
money in the County general fund to deal with those issues. Support this effort. There are
compromises they can come up with if necessary.
Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member, stated she has little to add to what
Councilmember Fleetwood has said this morning. This project is critically important
economic development for the entire county. They expect to create 3,000 to 4,000 family
wage jobs. The legislators have worked hard to create this legislation that gives them all a
tool to do this kind of long -term project in a way that other States have enjoyed for many
years. It puts Washington in a competitive position with other states. She understands the
reluctance to spend money when they believe the project will go forward anyway. However,
the project will require participation from all three jurisdictions to make this a mixed use
project with the level of cleanup required.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 2
1 McShane asked about the new jobs. He asked how the local infrastructure financing
2 toot (LIFT) will guarantee that those jobs will develop. Ryan stated initial planning shows
3 there will be a mixed use site of 137 acres to include some institutional, commercial, and
4 light industrial uses. Those jobs, in a mixed use setting, won't happen until the site is
5 cleaned up. The LIFT legislation will help finance the cleanup as well as finance the
6 infrastructure that will be required to transform that area to mixed use standards.
7
8 McShane asked what is a mixed use standard. Ryan stated it is a use that includes
9 residential, commercial, light industrial, and institutional uses, such as the University.
10
11 Beardsley stated the draft framework proposal is developed. The Port is renowned
12 for its talented economic development projects. There will be a marina, with a boat and
13 marine industry, which will require skills and higher level employees. They will be higher
14 than average wage jobs. If they can get National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
15 Administration (NOAH), it is an added component. The plan includes a deepwater port,
16 which is rare on the West Coast. There will be good jobs associated with this industry. She
17 is assured there won't be shipping container storage at the site, but other shipping
18 industries will occur. As they work out the actual development plan, there will be other
19 possibilities, such as a maritime training facility. Keep to the spirit of the Waterfront
20 Futures Group to focus on water industries. That will produce more better -wage jobs.
21
22 McShane asked if the population projection is just for the waterfront or the entire
23 redevelopment area. Beardsley stated the projection is the housing that will be developed
24 at the waterfront.
25
26 Malcolm Fleming, City of Bellingham Chief Administrative Officer, stated the
27 population projection was based on an assumption that there would be 3,000 housing units
28 within the revenue development area (RDA), with a projected 5,700 residents, which is
29 about 1.8 or 1.9 people per housing unit. The projection is based on looking at the land
30 available and historical trends.
31
32 McShane asked if a portion of that development will occur in the entire New
33 Whatcom waterfront development area. Fleming stated that's correct. The draft plan
34 indicates the approximate street and open space layouts. They must further develop that
35 plan, including specific land uses, densities, and a time frame.
36
37 Nelson stated Georgia Pacific (G -P) was the largest employer at one time. Beardsley
38 stated it employed about 800 at one time.
39
40 Nelson asked how they are going to fit 3,000 to 4,000 high paying jobs and 5,700
41 residents in the same area. Fleming stated the figures are based on analysis performed by
42 Hart Hodges at Western Washington University (WWU) and City staff.
43
44 Nelson stated he didn't see that level of employment for 3,000 or more being
45 created. They will certainly get some marine jobs, but not 3,000 or 4,000. Fleming stated
46 the LIFT legislation requires documented estimates of potential jobs created. They looked
47 at the available land and identified how much of that land would likely be light industrial,
48 commercial, institutional, and retail. Based on the square footages available, they projected
49 the likely employment, assuming historical trends for that kind of land use. That was
50 calculated through their staff and corroborated independently by WWU.
51
52 Therese Holm, City of Bellingham Finance Director, stated she told this committee
53 three weeks ago that the economic model estimates incremental new jobs within the
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 3
1 projected 30 -year development of about 2,600 new jobs. Those new jobs are based on the
2 type of development they anticipate in the draft framework plan. For instance, the square
3 footage devoted to the different land uses generates the total 2,600 jobs based on 5.9
4 million square feet within the RDA. The Community Economic Revitalization Board made it
5 important that these jobs pay above market in Whatcom County. They did quite a bit of
6 analysis on the type of square footage, wages, and number of employees for each of those
7 kinds of developments. The average wage of those 2,600 jobs is a little over $35,000 in
8 today's dollars. The current average wage in Whatcom County is about $31,000.
9 Significant new construction jobs would be created on the site. For each $1 million of public
10 investment, ten direct jobs and 14 indirect jobs would be created. Given the level of public
11 investment and private investment they estimate, $20 million of investment construction
12 activity would generate another 480 annual jobs that pay an average of $36,000 for many
13 years. The job impact will be significant. That is all based on their initial assumption of 5.9
14 million square feet on the site. The actual height and density won't be determined until the
15 master plan and development agreement with the Port are complete. That is based on
16 long -term, 30 -year build out of the area.
17
18 Weimer asked if the jobs estimate is net. If a part of the University moves, they
19 aren't new jobs. Also, they must replace the G -P jobs. Holms stated the City's model is
20 simply based on an incremental approach, which is new jobs. Hart Hodges estimated a
21 total number of jobs, including existing jobs and jobs that are lost and gained, between
22 2,500 and 4,000. The upper range includes existing jobs and attrition. The model assumes
23 G -P will be in place in 2016. But they don't know if it will be inhere.
24
25 Weimer asked if G -P can continue without the lagoon. Fleming stated G -P has a
26 lease through 2008, with an option to renew. The Port is working with G -P to identify their
27 solution for wastewater issues, site plant access issues, and the other utility requirements
28 as the area develops. Those are all issues that must be resolved before the development
29 can happen.
30
31 Crawford asked the average wage at G -P. Fleming stated he doesn't have that
32 information.
33
34 McShane stated G -P has made no effort to find any other lease areas for their
35 wastewater facility or utilities, according to a Port planner. Given that their lease for the
36 tissue site runs out in 2008, it could be said that G -P probably won't be there after 2008,
37 unless they're suddenly going to do something. According to the past wastewater
38 treatment facility, they need approximately five to six acres for wastewater, unless they go
39 with a very different technological approach.
40
41 Fleming submitted an expanded list of reasons for the.county to participate (on file).
42
43 Holm stated they've been talking about County participation in LIFT with specific
44 numbers. However, the numbers are based on the development assumption of 5.9 million
45 square feet, which may be the high end of the development estimate. Those are not hard
46 numbers. They don't know the allocation of potential future property tax revenues. It
47 depends on the pace of development, the pace at which infrastructure can get in place, the
48 private capital invested, and the interest in the site. They won't know the allocation until it
49 actually occurs.
50
51 Fleming stated LIFT revenues will not be used for cleanup. It can only be used to
52 pay debt for infrastructure. The City would pay for increased operations such as public
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 4
I safety. The area would generate sufficient revenue to pay for the City's operating cost. The
2 increased revenue for the County would more than offset any County cost.
3
4 Crawford asked if that statement is a response to what the County administration
5 has said. That is the core issue. He asked if the County administration suggests that the
6 revenue won't offset the cost. Fleming stated the RDA revenues to the County would be
7 more than enough to cover any increased cost for that particular area. It won't generate
8 enough revenue to cover the cost to provide the service for the entire county. The County's
9 costs for services in the RDA are small compared to the City's costs. The 25 percent share
10 the County gets to keep will more than offset the County cost of development in the area.
11
12 They need the County's participation in LIFT for many reasons. If the County doesn't
13 participate, redevelopment will still happen. The question is how quickly that development
14 will happen and the final scale of the development. The City administration and elected
15 officials would greatly appreciate the County's participation. They want this to happen as
16 quickly as possible, with benefits to the entire county. Without County participation, there
17 will be $16 million less to work with. Redevelopment will happen more slowly and at a
18 smaller scale, resulting in lower revenues for both the City and the County.
19
20 Tim Douglas, City of Bellingham Mayor- appointee, stated he welcomes this open
21 discussion. He met with Executive Kremen on Friday to talk about a number of issues,
22 including the LIFT program. They will meet soon to go through the revenue and County
23 expense estimates. If this information is critical to the Council to make a decision, he would
24 like to see that everyone can see the information about the County's expected expenses
25 versus the County's expected revenue. A good chunk of the revenue stream comes from
26 increased property valuation in the city of Bellingham. As they've watched the
27 transformation of the waterfront, there is opportunity for more good things to happen to
28 make Bellingham and Whatcom County a desirable place to live with true living wage jobs.
29 The County and City must be serious about achieving more living wage incomes. If the
30 concern about LIFT comes down to whether there is enough revenue to cover additional
31 costs, then sit down together to compare estimates. He is confident that the revenue
32 stream will be more than adequate to meet the County's expenses. He would like to also
33 learn from the County what expenses the County thinks it might have to pay.
34
35 Crawford asked if they are able to delay this another two weeks. A recommendation
36 to go forward from the County administration would be influential for him. Douglas stated
37 he wants to understand the County's decision - making process. If there are lingering
38 questions, he is prepared to get that information out.
39
40 Holm stated they must adopt the LIFT ordinance by the end of the month. The City
41 is scheduled to do that on October 23. The LIFT ordinance will be introduced to the City
42 Council on the 16`x'. That is their outside date for any final changes. They are waiting to
43 see whether the County participates.
44
45 Beardsley stated they all talk about visions, but visions require huge commitments.
46 She is also scared to take the next step. They need to find the facts and be very serious.
47 At the same time, facts are just numbers without the vision. Work together to ask the hard
48 questions. She needs the County to help her know the hard questions to ask. Together
49 they will have more people to ask the good, hard questions. The City and Port agreement
50 includes language regarding County participation, as a show of hope. She appreciates that
51 the County is serious about this. The City is serious also.
52
53 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 5
1
2 Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council Member, stated she appreciates this
3 discussion. She hopes the Council will go along with this program. Revitalizing the
4 waterfront is very important. It will affect the city and county for years to come.
5
6 Brenner stated the Council meets next week for budget talks. She would like to hear
7 from the administration.
8
9 Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manager, stated it's a complicated issue, Mr. Desler's
10 initial response was good.
11
12 Crawford stated this committee vote is advisory only. The Council could take action
13 tonight with the Executive available to answer questions.
14
15 Nelson stated there isn't fear about providing the financial support, but there is
16 concern from the Council about balancing their resources and responsibilities. The County
17 faces many issues countywide. They want to be prudent when spending County money.
18 Keep the discussion in the light of their fiduciary obligations, not a reluctance to spend
19 money.
20
21 They recognize the economic value of the project to the community. He has a grave
22 concern about watershed protection to fund Lake Whatcom drinking water. County
23 resources are limited, and City resources are tied up with other stormwater activities. He
24 asked if there was discussion with the administration to bring that to fruition. Partner with
25 the County to provide the infrastructure they will need to sustain water quality in Lake
26 Whatcom. Douglas stated that issue was one of the three priority matters he discussed with
27 Executive Kremen. They didn't get to the details yet. The County, City and Water District
28 10 are all concerned about the issue. It is something they have to do. It is one of his top
29 three priorities.
30
31 Nelson stated it is not much good to do all this development if water quality
32 continues to degrade. There are countywide issues the Council has to deal with, including
33 water resource protection. There has been discussion about how much money the County
34 contributes. The City is asking for a 25 -year commitment from the County. He asked how
35 they protect future councils, in terms of the public demands and the revenue the citizens
36 have to pay in taxes. This ties up the County's property tax changes for 25 years. In 25
37 years, the County could not change the revenue stream mechanism. Douglas stated that is
38 a true statement. However, the reverse question is what happens if they don't get any of
39 the additional revenue. If the redevelopment doesn't occur over the long haul, then the
40 question is what else they have to deal with in the county. The key thing is to work on this
41 project in terms of what they anticipate as expenses, the revenues that will be available,
42 and then assess how it all balances.
43
44 Nelson asked if Mr. Douglas discussed with the County administration other funding
45 mechanisms that would not tie up County resources. Douglas stated he and the County
46 Executive discussed the Economic Development Investment (EDI) Program alternative. A
47 question is how to make a commitment through those funds that is long enough to stand
48 behind the bonds needed for the infrastructure. The bond financiers want a long -term
49 commitment for funding the bonds. There is an alternative mechanism that might be
50 possible, but it also has some significant limitations similar to the proposed funding
51 mechanism. The alternative fund requires a mechanism that would be tough to pull off. He
52 and Executive Kremen talked about legally binding mechanisms to secure those funds.
53 Executive Kremen was going to look into that.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 6
1
2 Crawford stated the program is set up as a one -time allocation. Other counties have
3 chosen to bond that funding stream for long -term projects.
4
5 McShane stated the Council could choose to use those funds in any way it sees fit.
6 The money is bondable. They encourage loans with a very favorable interest rate. There
7 could be a project - specific approach. It could be used to match funds for a period of time,
8 but probably not for 25 years.
9
10 Crawford stated four or five years ago the State committed to the County for 25
11 years. There are only about 20 years left. He doubts can bond beyond the State's
12 commitment.
13
14 McShane stated the County is identified as an economically distressed county, which
15 is a reason that fund is available. The economic distress was from a downturn in the
16 forestry and fishery industries. It should be targeted to the distressed portions of the
17 economic sector. The waterfront could be a part of that. The types of projects on the
18 waterfront that will fit the framework would have to be specifically looked at.
19
20 He appreciates Mr. Douglas's outreach for alternative approaches. The resolution
21 lacks an interlocal agreement. This process, until recently, has lacked outreach with the
22 County to figure out what would benefit the county. The County government was never
23 invited to participate in waterfront redevelopment. There are significant issues that are
24 critical to County economic development and to City economic development that the County
25 is aware of, but the City isn't. There is a policy that is outside of the Economic Chapter, but
26 is very important to this community about economic development. Whatcom County is
27 running out of aggregate resource. All communities that run out of aggregate resource turn
28 to importation. It has impacts to the entire community. Transportation is a major issue,
29 and this is a major part of the County's transportation plan.
30
31 They are under a time crunch. If, in the next two weeks, the Executive can develop
32 an interlocal agreement, the Council can approve it. This resolution doesn't do anything.
33 The Council can't compel the Executive to enter into an interlocal agreement.
34
35 Fleming stated the RDA represents less than one percent of the County's assessed
36 value. It would tie up the County's revenue from that area, which represents less than one
37 percent of the $17 billion assessed value of the county.
38
39 Nelson stated it was not to tie up the revenue source, but to tie up their ability to
40 change the rate. Fleming stated that may not be accurate. A question discussed with the
41 Port was whether the LIFT legislation constrains the Port's ability to change the tax rate.
42 They assured the Port that it doesn't. There is language in the interlocal that makes that
43 clear.
44
45 nelson stated a LIFT requirement is that they not make a change. Fleming stated
46 the legislation says the County can't change its allocation of local tax allocation revenues.
47 The County can continue to set whatever tax rates it believes is important.
48
49 Nelson stated the worst case scenario is an initiative by the public to change the
50 County's ability to collect revenue. The County would have to cut services to make sure
51 that the City got it's committed funding. He can't focus on that one area. He must consider
52 the entire county. Fleming stated the County, Port, and City can change their tax rates.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 7
1 The revenue under the LIFT program is devoted to pay off bonds, which are a binding
2 commitment on the City.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she appreciates the City presentation on September 26.
5 She loves the concept of the project. A tremendous amount of community effort has gone
6 into the project. She likes that everyone has bought into the project. She would like to
7 participate. She doesn't have a concern that the County won't be able to recoup costs
8 should it participate. However, the Port and City partnership doesn't feel like a healthy
9 partnership. She doesn't understand how the Port can expect to recoup its investments in
10 12 years. The City will take 30 years to recoup its investments. It doesn't seem right that
11 the taxpayers have to keep paying another 18 years to support infrastructure of the project.
12 If anything fails, all the risk goes to Bellingham. The Port has minimized its risk. The Port
13 has the ability to issue bonds, but it won't have to. The Port expects to get a good portion
14 of their profits by selling the property, from the marina operations, and from other grants.
15 The City of Bellingham and taxpayers are taking a great risk. If the project doesn't go
16 according to plan or if infrastructure costs escalate over the years, then she's heard the
17 project won't get done. If the project fails, it will fall to the City of Bellingham. It doesn't
18 seem healthy to enter into this kind of partnership. She's heard that the final development
19 agreement has to be worked out. However, she is not comforted that will happen when
20 they are starting with these projections. To commit to 25 years, make sure this is further
21 vetted. Wait another year if they have to. The County experts, such as the Treasurer and
22 Assessor, should take a good look at it and provide feedback. Also, a tax exempt district
23 overlays some of the LIFT areas. Don't rush into anything. Fleming stated it's a common
24 perception that the Port is taking advantage of the City and will make huge profits while the
25 cost of the infrastructure will be borne by the City taxpayers. The development agreement
26 between the City and the Port spells out exactly the City's and Port's obligations.
27 Ultimately, the burden is on City and Port staff to bring forward a development agreement
28 that the City Council can approve. He's been telling the Port that a master plan has to work
29 for both parties. He would like to include the County. It must be good for the community.
30 They have identified a $78 million gap between the infrastructure and the identified sources
31 of revenue. Bridging that gap may require delaying or canceling certain projects, getting
32 developer contributions, or the Port to come up with additional money. Ultimately, the
33 agreement must be approved by the City.
34
35 John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated he agrees with Councilmember
36 Caskey - Schreiber. Until the County Council has sufficient time to understand, it is better off
37 to not say yes. It's reasonable to wait to get more information. The councilmembers must
38 understand what they are committing to.
39
40 In 2002, the public facilities district (PFD) was formed. It was also new legislation.
41 It has been in place in other places in the state. The City identified it as a potential source
42 of income. Granted, it was a different funding mechanism, but the County did commit to
43 funding the PFD for 25 years. The projects envisioned weren't certain, but were major.
44 Over time, they have identified a range of things which have received the benefit of PFD
45 funds.
46
47 Waterfront redevelopment is the same situation, but much bigger. There are the
48 same uncertainties and more. It may be an experiment that falls. The City and Port will try
49 to make the project happen incrementally. Part of the work is in getting the LIFT special
50 legislation. LIFT is different from the PFD funding mechanism in the ways that funding is
51 raised and the tax increment financing. Other states have had that too[ for years. It has
52 been wonderfully efficient. LIFT only rewards the progress they make. There won't be any
53 credit if they don't make any progress.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 8
LIFT is for 25 years because they must have a long -term stable source of funding.
In this case, the long -term stable source of funding depends on progress being achieved.
Because of growth in the area, the PFD is collecting more money than the original plan
estimated. That may also happen with waterfront redevelopment. The redevelopment area
baseline will be set as low as possible, to take credit for every bit of investment that is
made in that area, beginning next year. That would benefit the project by getting credit
from the State each year, up to $25 million.
It is a new concept. The County should not feel excluded from the process. Before
the Port made any commitment, the Waterfront Visioning Group included considerable input
from all parts of the county. The public expectations for redevelopment are clear. The
project also builds on the ten -year effort of the Bellingham Bay Pilot Project. Waterfront
redevelopment allows them to do the cleanup envisioned by the Bellingham Bay Pilot
Project, but also to combine contamination left over from G -P. All of these things will be
cleaned up to a higher standard than they might otherwise anticipate. There are multiple
compelling reasons to consider this ambitious project, which exceeds normal expectations.
Take more time if needed, but don't say no.
Weimer stated this is his toughest issue so far. He would like to get some
information from the administration. He is willing to wait for that information. If he has to
vote today, his concern is the County's priorities. This project will happen with or without
the County's assistance, at basically the same schedule. If the County doesn't go along, it
has $15 million more to spend. The Council must think about the priorities of the county,
and whether the priority is to invest some or all of that money into waterfront
redevelopment. That is not his highest priority. There are huge problems with the law
enforcement and criminal justice system, basic human needs, water needs, and growth in
the Planning Department. That $15 million has higher priorities. Watts stated the 14 goals
of the Comprehensive Plan don't exclude those issues. The Economic Chapter has specific
goals for the County to support projects like this one.
Crawford stated he doesn't question any components of this effort. It's a matter of
priorities. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on using the tax dollars to the
greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. He is excited about this project. This is
the future of Whatcom County. The County should participate via the EDI fund. It may
require the EDI Board to review traditional funding mechanisms and see how they can
participate.
He is concerned about the tax shift. The County tax levy rate will go up every year.
They are funneling their future development stake into this area to produce revenue that
will help pay for that levy. The jail service and other issues aren't going away. It is not
appropriate at this time to commit those future tax increases to one particular infrastructure
funding project. He will vote against the motion.
McShane read Comprehensive Plan policy 7C -8 of the Economic Chapter. The
government is charged to provide services. An easy link can be made between economic
development and services. He walks to work daily along Railroad Avenue. He sees the
economic consequences of not doing as well as they should.. It's been difficult to figure out
how to pay for an interim jail. It's easy to get capital, but it's not easy to get staff to run
the jail. The County should be doing more and better on mental health and other health
issues. The Health Department staff is not adequately funded. The emphasis on economic
development is to put the development where it's really needed, such as the Kendall area
and the Lummi peninsula. The employment factor of this project is important to him. There
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 9
1 could be economic development that will be beneficial, but the City and Port haven't figured
2 that out yet. The question is whether it is good for the entire community as the County
3 government sees it. He doesn't know if this project will fit the needs of the County
4 Economic Development Chapter.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
7
8 McShane continued to state that the City and Port are entering into a funding
9 mechanism without knowing yet if it's good for the community. It's easy for them to do
10 because they will still be negotiating with each other to do something good for the
11 community. As the County government sees it, the question is whether it's good for the
12 entire community in the county. He doesn't know that yet. They are asking him to support
13 something that he doesn't know will fit for the community. Throughout the Economic
14 Chapter, there are a lot of references to water. The County is a resource management
15 government entity that plays a huge role in water resources in the county. They have
16 committed millions of dollars to water. The pressure to commit more money is constantly
17 there. Therein lies the hope. Figure out ways to benefit the City and County regarding
18 water. He hopes to support what the Port and City come up with, but without knowing the
19 details, he is uncomfortable committing a revenue shift from one sector of the community to
20 another sector of the community.
21
22 Nelson stated he thanks Councilmember Fleetwood for bringing this forward. There
23 was a lot of concern about how they would get into the process and respond to the City. He
24 feels somewhat left out of the process, even though Mr. Fleming and Ms. Holm have been
25 great at providing information. He wanted to discuss the County Council's roles,
26 responsibilities, and priorities versus the City's priorities. The City Council has done a good
27 job evaluating and articulating the City's needs and priorities. He appreciates their hard
28 work in advocating for the project. The City and County aren't far off from working
29 together. He hopes they can set up a mechanism to accomplish the dream for the
30 waterfront and to accomplish the County's goals that affect all citizens of the county.
31
32 Motion failed unanimously.
33
34 Weimer stated he hopes the County administration would be present at the evening
35 Council meeting to have a discussion on this issue.
36
37 3. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF BELLINGHAM'S WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
38 PROJECT (AB2006 -392)
39
40 Brenner stated she wanted to express to the City how much the County Council
41 really cares to work with the City to make the redevelopment project happen. She was
42 concerned that if the previous resolution failed, it would indicate that the County is not
43 interested in the project, when it really is interested. She read the proposed resolution and
44 list of co- sponsors. This can be supported with or without the local infrastructure financing
45 tool (LIFT) resolution.
46
47 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
50
51
52 COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
53
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 10
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06 -99
AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH LOW BIDDER, EBENAL GENERAL, INC.,
FOR HVAC MODIFICATIONS TO COURTROOMS 2 & 3, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$222,220 (AB2006 -370)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND APPLIED PRESERVATION
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND MONITORING OF THE
DRAYTON HARBOR ROAD SHOULDER REPAIR PROJECT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $18,118.60 (AB2006 -371)
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Nelson stated this gets a consultant to help the County plan for dealing with
archaeological features of the Drayton Harbor Road project.
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the contract is to do advance
monitoring in support of the shoreline permit application and to monitoring construction.
They will become aware of any sensitive sites before construction. This is also to monitor
the actual work.
Nelson asked if they are doing construction outside of any areas already disturbed.
Brueske stated there is a concern because they are working on the beach itself, which has
not been disturbed for road construction. They may come across archeological resources.
Nelson asked if that's why this is necessary. Brueske stated it is.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONSERVATION CORPS TO PARTNER IN
FUNDING SUPERVISION OF A WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORP WORK
CREW, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 (AB2006 -372)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE FERNDALE SCHOOL
DISTRICT PROVIDING FUNDING TO INCREASE COMMUNITY -BASED WORK
EXPERIENCE AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES FOR TRANSITION AGED
STUDENTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AGED 14 -21, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $22,400 (AB2006 -373)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 11
Weimer stated the Developmental Disabilities Board approves of this contract. It' is
an important program. Get the schools to deal with transition issues earlier on. It may help
get people placed as they move into their adult lives.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY- AND A NORTHWEST
COLLABORATIVE TO DEVELOP A DESIGN STANDARDS ORDINANCE AND
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY, IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $46,000 (AB2006 -374)
rwIt -r-r
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Brenner stated the contractor is an incredible person. This will help the Birch Bay
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
SUMAS TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY /COUNTY JAIL INVESTMENT PROGRAM
(AB2006 -375)
Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
AMENDMENT #1 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUN COMMUNITY
SERVICES TO EXTEND THE DURATION AND FUNDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5
MONTHS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,500, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $90,000 (AB2006 -376)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
AMENDMENT #2 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PUGET SOUND
RESTORATION FUND TO INCLUDE SAMPLING SITES, SAMPLING METHODS
AND A QUALITY ASSURANCE /QUALITY CONTROL STRATEGY IN NORTHERN
CHUCKANUT BAY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,787, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $54,185.60 (AB2006 -377)
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Nelson stated they've had some preliminary information on what this will look like.
He asked how this would be put together in a way that makes sense. Sampling has to be
consistent and equal. He asked if another group would do the sampling.
Erika Strobel, Public Works Department, stated this project is to work with the
Marine Resources Committee (MRC) to bring in community volunteers to collect baseline
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10110/2006, Page 12
water quality information. The most places they will collect in are areas they don't have any
information or recent information. They hoped to expand to Chuckanut Bay, but didn't have
the budget for it initially. They will look at Chuckanut Bay as a separate area. It won't
compare it to Birch Bay or Drayton Harbor. This information will help them characterize
what is happening in the northern section of Chuckanut Bay and whether there are places
where they need to follow up.
Nelson asked if they can characterize it with the limited amount of sampling they will
do. Stroebel stated they intend to begin characterizing it. They want to start gathering
information to help prioritize areas in Chuckanut Bay. If they find an area that has
consistently high bacteria levels, they can begin to check upstream.
Nelson asked if the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has done anything in this
area. Stroebel stated the State has not done anything in this area. The State Department
of Health used to collect marine water quality samples in this area. In the mid- 1990's they
were not meeting water quality standards, that sampling effort stopped because the
shellfish growing area was closed. It is a recreational shellfish growing area.
Nelson stated there is a question of priority. The process must be in place to
address the information gathered, what that information says, and flow it prioritizes with
other marine areas. The Council can't do that from its dais. The process they establish
must make sense. He doubts that work of this low cost will tell them much. It may be an
area in which they may want to spend more to evaluate the effects on the marine life of the
area. Stroebel stated another benefit is the community support it will build. There is a lot
of interest in Chuckanut Bay, but not much work has been done in that area. This is an
opportunity to raise the community's awareness of water quality issues.
Roll stated most of the responses in Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor first triaged
what was there. This information leads to a strategy for making fixes, which leads to a
thoughtful and careful monitoring strategy to identify sources. The fixes cost serious
money. As they take each of these progressions, they will need more resources.
Look comprehensively at the entire marine shoreline in Whatcom County. The
question is how to meet all the needs. They look at this in the long -term with individual
committees from individual areas.
Stroebel stated this project is grant funded. The MRC brings in grant funds to
expand the knowledge of water quality issues in this area.
Weimer stated he supports this item. The Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection
District and Birch Bay folks have tried to figure out how to do some of this monitoring. Here
they go again. They need to address this issue.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST APPROVAL OF WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY'S REQUEST FOR
EDI FUNDING IN THE FORM OF A $300,000 GRANT FOR THE
REVITALIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE NORTHWEST WASHINGTON
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER (AB2006 -378)
Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 13
1 Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manager, stated this is subject to approval in the
2 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). It must be a project listed in the
3 CEDS list. That will come forward or October 24th. This directs the Executive to move
4 forward with amending the list.
5
6 Weimer asked if it is a problem to spend money in another county. Bennett stated
7 this is a regional facility. There isn't a problem.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 10. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE SALE OF
12 COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION — REQUEST #TR2006 -12
13 (AB2006 -379)
14
15 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 11. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE SALE OF
20 COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION — REQUEST #TR2006 -13
21 (AB2006 -380)
22
23 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27
28 OTHER BUSINESS
29
30 There was no other business.
31
32 ADJOURN
33
34 The me ing adjourned at 1.02 p.m.
35
36
37
38 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
39 t,,tuii14111111
41 ATrF \,p� rJ
43 oFc if
OV ,
44 _ �*
45
46
47 D B reou'
ydS�y vF gancil�Zlerk
I�G T
.4* 6•
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, ommittee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 10/10/2006, Page 14