Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance September 12 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee September 12, 2006 Committee Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner Seth Fleetwood Dan McShane Laurie Caskey- Schreiber COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Absent: None 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LIFT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROPOSAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF BELLINGHAM'S WATERFRONT (AB2006 -347) Malcolm Fleming, City of Bellingham Chief Administrative Chief Administrative Officer, stated there is new legislation to allow financing of public improvements that are intended to promote economic development. Bellingham is one of three pilot projects in the State. It is focusing on the waterfront. The State can contribute up to $1 million annually for up to 25 years, subject to the State receiving additional revenues and local matching funds from districts, which is the City, Port, and hopefully the County. The year 2007 is the beset year to calculate the base from which to determine increases in tax revenue occur in the redevelopment area. The program requires that the City submit an application to the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA- CERT), which it did. The proposal includes establishing a revenue development area boundary, a report on low income housing and jobs. They will conduct a public hearing on this issue. Therese Holm, City of Bellingham, stated LIFT can only be used to pay for bond financing for eligible improvements in the revenue development area. The City will pay for these eligible capital projects. Revenues from LIFT will only pay a portion of the estimated cost. Eligible LIFT taxes include incremental excise or sales taxes over the amount collected in a base year, which will be 2007. They hope the State will award the City $1 million per year. In addition to excise taxes, LIFT revenues include 75 percent of the property tax on new construction in the revenue development area. The County, City, and Port will continue to receive 25 percent of taxes on new construction, sales, and property taxes on the base amount established in 2007. They anticipate the 25 years to be 2009 through 2033. She submitted a summary of the estimate of the County contribution during that 25 -year period (on file). She read from the handout of the estimated incremental increases in LIFT revenue from property tax and sales tax for the City, County, and Port of Bellingham. These estimates are based on the 75 percent of the new construction. The 25 percent is the amount the City would retain. The excise tax included in LIFT is the County's general portion only. The sales tax rate is .15 percent. Remove the State administrative fee, and the amount is .1485 percent. The amount of sales tax the County levies for special purposes will continue to accrue to the County. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 1 Nelson asked if the City doesn't receive additional taxes like the County. Holm stated the City has no special sales taxes. The .85 percent that comes to the City is all included in LIFT. It's all contributed to LIFT. No portion of their sales tax was voted to go for a particular purpose. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated much of the County's special taxes are shared with the City. Holm stated the LIFT taxes don't include those special taxes. They will continue to come to the County as appropriate. She continued to read the handout. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the estimates are based on averages. She asked how the numbers were chosen. Holm submitted a handout of the Waterfront Development Economic Briefing to the public (on file). The Council is invited to attend the briefing. They will review the City's assumptions about development. The LIFT taxes were based on these assumptions. The total redevelopment site is 220 acres. She read the presentation on the City's development assumptions. Crawford asked if the project area shown on the map is the development area. Holm stated the 220 -acre development district is bigger than the 86.5 -acre development area. Nelson asked if the revenue development area is all the area where the tax benefit will come from. The 86 acres is where the benefit goes to. Holm stated it's not that simple. The revenue area is larger because the City cannot use any LIFT taxes on projects that are not within the revenue development area. They anticipated the possibility of needed bridges, roads, and stormwater infrastructure in the surrounding area. They wanted to draw the boundary large enough to include any potential infrastructure that they might need to use LIFT revenues for in the 25 years. Also, the actual tax and excise tax generated in the area during the first ten years would not be sufficient to earn the State's annual $1 million contribution. They drew the boundary large enough to capture some of the sales tax on new construction and property tax on new construction in the surrounding area. Holm continued to read the presentation on City infrastructure costs, and the City sources of funds. This chart assumes the City utilities will pay the actual cost of developing the City utility infrastructure from user fees. The street operating revenues would play for capital projects in the area. She continued to read the presentation on economic outputs. Fleming read sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the draft interlocal agreement (on file). Based on comments from Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber, make clearer that this would be done as part of the redevelopment master planning process. They would conduct the study of the transfer of development right (TDR) area based on the City incorporating into the development agreement for the New Whatcom area provisions for a TDR area. The concern was about making sure that happens. A question was about the specific public improvements that would be financed. That information is included in the communication he sent to the Council previously. Ms. Holm's presentation outlined the categories of improvements. There is a long list of projects totaling $197 million. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 2 1 The regional benefits of waterfront development are listed in the eighth Whereas 2 statement of the interlocal agreement. A number of the Council's questions were about the 3 infrastructure projects that LIFT will be used for. There is a specific list in the packet. The 4 County would not have any responsible for bonded indebtedness issued under LIFT. That's 5 spelled out in the interlocal agreement. 6 7 They would develop the waterfront area over a 25 year period of time, in a phased 8 manner. If LIFT revenues aren't as high as projected, they can construct the phases to 9 coincide with the revenues actually received. Ultimately, the bond review and rating 10 agencies will determine whether or not there is sufficient likelihood to generate revenues to 11 finance the bonds. They won't be able to sell bonds in the market if the City can't 12 demonstrate that it can pay for the bond. 13 14 If the County doesn't participate, the project will happen slower and at a smaller 15 scale. Therefore, it won't generate as much revenue for the County and City. If there is 16 $14 million dollars less, they won't be able to finance as many projects. However, it won't 17 stop the project completely. 18 19 These are revenues generated within the revenue development area to provide 20 financing for infrastructure in that area. The benefits of investing in that area will be felt 21 throughout the county. If they invest revenues that are generated by properties in that 22 area, they will expand the benefit area rather than taking resources from the rest of the 23 county. They're using revenues from a small area to benefit the entire county. 24 25 Fleetwood asked Mr. Fleming to elaborate on the benefits to the entire county. 26 Fleming stated there would be more jobs for residents countywide. The mixed use 27 development provides housing and employment opportunities in a way to reduce 28 commuting. That would reduce traffic congestion and reduce the demand for consumption 29 of additional agricultural land. 30 31 Holm stated there will be constructed - related employment. She read the last page 32 of her presentation on construction employment. During the middle stages of development, 33 they forecast 460 construction - related jobs. Construction employment opportunity in the 34 county will be significant. 35 36 Fleming stated another benefit is showing that tax increment financing works in 37 Washington State. Agencies and associations in the state have been pushing for tax 38 increment financing for years as an economic development tool. It has been used 39 successfully elsewhere to finance infrastructure that supports economic development. They 40 expect at least $800 million worth of private investment in this area over the same period of 41 time. 42 43 Holm stated a question was about the County's commitment if development doesn't 44 occur as expected. The State will allow the County to tailor the interlocal agreement to 45 something less than the total amount it could contribute under the LIFT legislation. The 46 County could choose to limit the agreement in terms of the dollar amount or length of 47 funding. In no case would the County's commitment be anything other than what is 48 generated by development in the area. If that isn't the amount of actual tax generated, 49 there is no commitment. 50 51 Crawford stated hold this item in committee so administration can vet the estimates 52 and prepare a recommendation. 53 Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 3 1 The committee concurred. 2 3 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's uncomfortable with the amount the County would 4 contribute being open- ended. State a fixed amount and length of time. Include some kind 5 of guarantee that this is the amount the County will spend to gain jobs and other measures. 6 People will be anxious to participate in the redevelopment of this spot. 7 8 Brenner stated benefits to the county were that it would provide jobs and reduce 9 traffic congestion. However, people who live in the county will have to commute to this 10 place to work in the new jobs. Fleming stated it will provide jobs in this area. As the 11 economic analysis by Hart Hodges demonstrates, it will provide ancillary jobs in other areas. 12 Some of the new jobs will be located near the new housing that will be part of the mixed 13 use development. 14 15 Brenner stated that would be city housing, not countywide. There may be more 16 jobs, but people such as retirees would move in and take up the housing so traffic 17 congestion would not be reduced. She needs more assurance about that benefit. Fleming 18 stated a detailed traffic analysis would be part of the environmental impact statement. 19 20 Weimer asked the competence factor in all the estimates at this time. Holms stated 21 they needed to do some economic modeling on a plan. They won't have a final master plan 22 until the City Planning Department completes it. Therefore, they are preparing the 23 preliminary draft framework plan. The Port has done extensive analysis of its developable 24 space. The City Planning Department has made estimates of the likely density and type of 25 development they would occur. They've tried to balance what they've heard from the public 26 about including parks, public access, and mixed uses. They know they need commercial 27 activity. They have made reasonable estimates to come up with these assumptions. The 28 actual development won't be exact, but this is a reasonable estimate. 29 30 Weimer asked if there is any chance of changing the shape or size of the 31 redevelopment area. They've included areas like Old Town and State Street that are 32 already developing quickly. They will be giving away money they were going to get 33 anyway. He asked why the County would do that. Fleming stated they drew the revenue 34 development area with the best balance of appreciation and property that is likely to happen 35 and the number of projects that will be financed in that area. The boundaries include some 36 things like a traffic circle on Oak Street that will be a significant access point into the site. 37 There are significant infrastructure components that will occur in that area. They are having 38 a public hearing on the revenue development area boundaries. He would appreciate specific 39 suggestions for changes. 40 41 Holm stated the first five or ten years of development of the waterfront will not 42 realistically generate much in the form of property tax from new construction. They will 43 really rely on sales tax in the surrounding area. Environmental cleanup, demolition, and 44 City infrastructure will take up a lot of time. Actual new construction on the site will not 45 happen the first ten years. 46 47 Weimer stated it looks like they are asking the County to be a $14 million partner in 48 the redevelopment of this area. However, the County has no say in how the redevelopment 49 happens. They don't even know what it will look like. He has some concerns about some of 50 the suggestions he's heard about the redevelopment. He asked if there is anyway in the 51 interlocal agreement the County could be included in the decision - making process for 52 determining what the redevelopment will look like. Fleming stated he invited Dewey Desler Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 4 1 to the weekly meetings where they discuss the details of the proposed framework plan and 2 the master plan. The County may participate in the meetings. 3 4 Holm stated some of that information will be available on September 26 at the public 5 meeting. 6 7 Crawford asked if there would be effects from the Healthy Bay initiative if it passes 8 on the ballot. Fleming stated the Department of Ecology (DOE) will determine the cleanup 9 plan the Port has to follow. The provisions of the initiative would require the City to 10 advocate for a certain plan, but the DOE ultimately determines the outcome. The initiative 11 wouldn't materially affect the DOE decision. 12 13 Crawford asked if it would take longer with more cost if they need to do the highest 14 level of clean up according to Healthy Bay. He asked if that would be an impact to this 15 infrastructure installation. Fleming stated it would have an impact on the development 16 agreement between the City and Port. The phasing may be done differently. 17 18 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 19 20 Fleming continued to state that it would delay construction projects and ultimate 21 redevelopment. It just delays things. The LIFT is only valid for 25 years. If it is delayed 22 too long, they wouldn't get the monies they anticipate. 23 24 Nelson stated the County agrees that it won't take any action to reduce tax revenues 25 as long as the bonds are outstanding under the agreement where the County participates a 26 taxing district. He asked what this actually means in terms of what the County can do with 27 sales and property taxes. Fleming stated once they issue bonds that identify a particular 28 source of revenue, they are committing that revenue. The County is not on the hook if the 29 revenue doesn't materialize. 30 31 Nelson asked if restricting the sales or property tax is the normal case with bonding 32 practices. He believed the normal bonding practice does not include restricting what the 33 County does with the taxes, as long as the County pays the bond. Desler stated there has 34 been no legal analysis of this agreement by County staff at this point. The administration 35 would have to go through that process. That question is an issue. 36 37 Nelson stated this would prohibit the future Council to reduce any taxes for the next 38 25 years. He asked what it means if either the City or County may act as a lead entity to 39 further the agreement. Fleming stated that if they are entering into contracts with the 40 State to apply and receive the LIFT contributions, they would administer those contracts to 41 make sure the funds will pay off the debts for infrastructure in this area, and not for any 42 other purpose. That is the primary restriction on the use of revenue. 43 44 Nelson asked who is designated to enter into these contracts, and how that's 45 designated. Fleming stated the City enters into the agreement under the LIFT provisions in 46 the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). They've identified the boundaries of the revenue 47 development area, the infrastructure that will be constructed, and they will issue bonds to 48 finance that infrastructure. The administration is collecting the revenue to pay off the debt 49 service. 50 51 Nelson asked if the administration refers to the City. Fleming stated the County will 52 be involved. The County Treasurer and Assessor will collect the revenue and distribute the 53 revenue to the City. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 5 Holm stated the City is the lead in terms of dealing with the board to apply for LIFT and meet all the administrative provisions. The County's obligation is to segregate and remit the amount of LIFT taxes. They can get further clarification from the attorneys who drafted the agreement. Those technical questions are best answered by their legal staffs. Nelson asked if there is anything that precludes the revenue development area from being in an area not contiguous. Holm stated the State legislation requires the revenue development area to be contiguous, and not purposely exclude any area. Nelson asked if only one area is allowed. Holm stated one area is allowed per county, but people are pursuing a change to that legislation. McShane asked if the area is large enough to achieve the full match from the State, whether or not the County participates. Holm stated it is not, for the first seven years. If there is County and Port participation, the City must make up an additional $2.4 million over the first seven of the 25 years. McShane asked if the square footages in the assumptions are based on a certain number of building stories, and not on acreage. He asked if the assumptions assumes multi -story construction. Holm stated it does. More information will be given at the meeting on September 26. The 5.9 million square feet is based on a floor to area ratio of 1.6, which is about the density of the Historic Fairhaven District. McShane stated one - quarter of the City real estate excise tax (REET) will go into this area. He asked what portion of the City's stormwater fund will be used. Holm stated the water and sewer fund net operating revenues is just about sufficient to cover those costs. In theory, they would reinvest any net operating revenue from the utility funds to pay for the infrastructure. The storm fund generates about $3 million over 25 years. They would have to find funding from existing stormwater revenues or dedicate other sources. McShane stated the County is just completing a major stormwater project in Bellingham's urban growth area. It cost about $1.4 million. That was to provide stormwater infrastructure to the Bellingham urban growth area in Geneva, which will never be incorporated. The County tried to get State money. He understood that the City undermined that effort of the County. Fleming stated he's heard that story. He's checked the City's sources, and found that is categorically false. Dick McKinley said he will personally go to Olympia and do whatever the County wants to lobby for that stormwater investment if the County wants to participate in LIFT. Dick Little, Dick McKinley, and Mayor Asmundson have all denied that the City has done anything to undermine the County's proposal. McShane stated that when he asked for a letter of support from the City Council, the City's Public Works Director argued against it. He is concerned about that. Regardless, the County has significant and expensive stormwater issues within the Bellingham urban growth area. He is concerned about funneling that much money being funneled into this LIFT area when there is a significant Lake Whatcom watershed problem that the County is struggling to address. The County really doesn't have the financial resources to address them. There are opportunities that the County could explore in the future that are very different from the current stormwater structure. He would like to know if that can be worked out. Create a stormwater sub - district as part of the flood district to provide funding in the watershed. It would have an impact on this effort. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 6 1 The bulk of this investment will go to properties currently owned by the Port of 2 Bellingham. The Port will eventually sell those properties. The value of those properties will 3 go up significantly. He asked what happens to the increased value of the land, and if any of 4 that money will be reinvested. Fleming stated that will influence the City and Port 5 development agreement. They've talked about the possibility of having triggering points 6 dependent upon the value of the land sold. They've talked about phasing the project so 7 revenues generated would bridge that gap. They've talked about only funding certain 8 projects if they get certain revenues. There are perception issues about the value of the 9 land. He asked the Port to provide the City with more information on current and projected 10 appraised land values. The Port has done two appraisals on the waterfront in the last two 11 years. One had waterfront property valued at $25 to $30 per square foot, with assumptions 12 based on a higher land use zoning. The more recent appraisal had a value of $18.50 per 13 square foot for mixed use, commercial, fully serviced land. Both appraisals were for land 14 fronting on the water. However, most of the land in New Whatcom is not waterfront. It is 15 upland some distance from the water. They are hoping they will get enough to cover the 16 cost of cleanup and the City cost of infrastructure. 17 18 Holm stated the Port is an entity of Whatcom County whose primary mission is 19 economic development. Any funds generated are reinvested in Whatcom County's overall 20 economic development. 21 22 McShane stated there is a City and Port agreement that this land will remain 23 industrial for 25 years if this isn't done. Also as part of the interlocal agreement, the City 24 would support alternative K of the cleanup. The environmental impact statement has not 25 been done. He asked the cost estimate for alternative K. Fleming stated the estimate is 26 about $44 million for the lagoon and the waterway. 27 28 McShane stated the proposed cleanup that is the current preference is estimated to 29 cost $23 million, and it is a more thorough cleanup. That is alternative J. There could be 30 some influence on the cost if that alternative is selected. He asked what they've heard 31 about Georgia- Pacific remaining operational on the site. Fleming stated Georgia- Pacific 32 currently has a lease through June 2008 for the mill site. That lease is subject to 33 renegotiation for extension. 34 35 McShane asked if they anticipate Georgia - Pacific will have to come up with a new 36 location for its wastewater if it wants to continue using the site. Fleming stated what 37 happens to the site access, wastewater, and how it will get its power are issues of 38 consideration. The Port is working with Georgia- Pacific to determine whether the lease will 39 be extended. 40 41 McShane asked the number of people who work at Georgia - Pacific now. Holm stated 42 there are about 250 to 300 employees now. 43 44 McShane asked how the City visualizes the tissue plant. Holm stated no one knows 45 what will happen for sure. They assume it is there in ten years, and is not there in 20 46 years. 47 48 McShane stated they will have to have a wastewater facility of at least eight acres if 49 the plant remains and a marina is developed. He hasn't seen any discussion of that. One of 50 his biggest concerns is that they really don't know what is going to happen on that site at 51 this time. The County is being asked to fund something when they don't really know what 52 will happen with that site. He questions how cooperative the railway will be with moving Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 7 1 the rail line. He asked if the power plant will remain operating or moved. Fleming stated 2 the assumption is that the power plant will remain. 3 4 Crawford asked the timeframe. Fleming stated public hearing on the LIFT ordinance 5 is on September 18. There is a public briefing on the waterfront development project on 6 September 26 at noon at the Mt. Baker Theater. They hope to have a joint meeting with 7 the City, County, and Port on October 9 during the day to consider the draft interlocal 8 agreement. Action on the LIFT ordinance by the City Council is scheduled for October 16 9 and October 23. They want to deliver it to the State by the State deadline of October 30. 10 11 Crawford asked when the County administration will have a recommendation. Desler 12 stated the County administration is right in the midst of the budget process right now. The 13 budget process is a higher priority than this. 14 15 He's not prepared to recommend the City's proposal. This is a good project for the 16 waterfront, but it may not work for the County. Prior to the LIFT legislation, they could 17 have done this now. The County could pass money to the City to support the infrastructure 18 development costs. This is a requested commitment for 25 years from the general fund, 19 which has many demands on it already. The Council's options are to decline to participate, 20 enter into the agreement as proposed, enter into a variation of the agreement, or look at 21 another revenue source that will assist with this project. The City originally approached the 22 County with this project in May. This project must compete with a number of other core 23 priorities of the County, including protecting Lake Whatcom. The general fund could be 24 used to support that effort. Also, there are significant costs to the criminal justice system 25 that must come from the general fund. The County has two taxing sources, the property 26 tax and the sales tax, that go into the general fund. The City has four taxing sources that 27 include property, sales, business and occupation (B &0), and the utility tax. The attractive 28 element to the project is to help the City generate the $1 million match from the State. The 29 State would commit 16 percent. The County could commit 16 percent of the revenue of this 30 project to help the City, which would be about $3.2 million over 25 years. The County may 31 be able to use the rural sales tax funding. The County bond for the $3.2 million and provide 32 it to the City to match the State funding. The County could help with the economic 33 development in public infrastructure costs, which is a core function of the Economic 34 Development Investment (EDI) fund. The City could prepare an application to the EDI 35 Board. Doing all that doesn't preclude future County Councils from doing similar things to 36 assist the City. The key is to help the City over the hump the first few years in generating 37 the match. That doesn't require the County to commit the funding source for 25 years. 38 39 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Blaine Boardwalk went through the EDI Board. Desler 40 stated the County provided a two -third loan /one -third match. 41 42 Crawford stated he will schedule this again at the Finance Committee and full Council 43 to hear the administration's recommendation. 44 45 46 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 47 48 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH 49 REQUEST (AB2006 -319) 50 51 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this is for Lake Whatcom monitoring an 52 analysis. An interlocal agreement with the City and Water District 10 would be drafted. The 53 general fund would be used to pay for it. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 8 1 2 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. He asked if the objective 3 is to look at phosphate loading sources. He asked how the design of the program was done. 4 5 Sue Blake, Public Works Department, stated looking at phosphate loading sources is 6 the objective. She's been working on this for a year. Last year, they did some simple 7 sampling. They are working with consultants to craft the five pieces of this program. The 8 first piece is the stormwater sampling exercise. It focuses on phosphorus. They've found 9 that previous studies didn't get enough storms to adequately characterize phosphorus 10 coming in from storms. The second piece is illicit discharge component to support 11 mandatory stormwater requirements. They will try to identify the phosphorus loading hot 12 spots and corrective actions. The third piece is a continuation of ambient grab - sampling 13 monitoring. They may find, through the stormwater part and the fifth step, which is the 14 surrogate, that the grab - sampling approach isn't the most cost - effective to understand the 15 system. However, they will keep going with it because that's what they've done 16 traditionally. The fourth piece is getting the models within the next year. They may need 17 staff support to understand the results. They are trying to figure out where to get the best 18 benefit for the amount spent. 19 20 Nelson asked the timeframe. Blake stated each step has a separate and specific 21 timeframe. 22 23 Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is duplicative of what the State Department of Ecology 24 (DOE) is doing with its total maximum daily load (TMDL) study. Blake stated it is not. At 25 this point, the DOE stopped sample collections. Discussions with DOE pushed the emphasis 26 on storm -event sampling. They will have to build waste load allocations with a greater 27 degree of uncertainty, which means more significant management implications. The DOE 28 was contacted when the question of storm sampling came up. The DOE encouraged them 29 to get that information. The scope of work is coming to the Council. Link the data to DOE 30 and see how it affects their modeling exercise. 31 32 Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated the TMDL is not funded for 33 implementation, and implementation is not required. Keep in mind that what they do needs 34 to fit into the context of stormwater management in the entire watershed. It is one 35 element. The TIADL is more focused and regulatory. This program is looking at built and 36 un -built worlds and other elements of the comprehensive surface water and stormwater 37 management. They are different. It won't provide funding or create a framework to meet 38 all the needs created by a comprehensive stormwater plan. 39 40 Motion carried unanimously. 41 42 43 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TWELFTH 44 REQUEST (AB2006 -334) 45 46 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this item has to do with a grant the 47 County received. 48 49 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 50 51 Nelson asked if this is an effort by Homeland Security to train the Sheriff's Office on 52 terrorism. 53 Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 9 1 Don Boyd, Emergency Management Division, stated it is the law enforcement 2 terrorism prevention program. It ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 for the smaller 3 jurisdictions. 4 5 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) 6 7 Nelson asked how much training this buys. Boyd stated the training is generally 8 applied to the Homeland Security Grant program. Training funds are taking from that 9 program. This is primarily for equipment, such as radios, computers, and laptops. It 10 assists all agencies in the county to improve their capability of doing records searches in 11 prisoner safety on the scene. 12 13 Nelson asked if all radios must communicate with each jurisdiction. Boyd stated 14 there is a requirement to be P25 capable, which means interoperability. 15 16 Nelson asked if all jurisdictions will have radio communication. Boyd stated it will 17 enhance all jurisdictions' radio communications. They are still working on solving the big 18 pieces to get State, local, and federal agencies to communicate. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously. 21 22 23 COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM 24 25 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06 -92 TO 26 SOLE BIDDER, SCHOLTEN ROOFING, INC., FOR ROOF REPAIRS AT THE 27 BELLINGHAM SENIOR CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,185.64 (AB2006- 28 336) 29 30 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 31 32 Weimer asked if they attempted to get a second bid. 33 34 Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manager, stated they usually try to do a reasonable 35 list test. If they need to, they will go out again. 36 37 Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated they tried to get 38 other bidders, but it wasn't feasible because of the work schedule. Other bidders weren't 39 available. 40 41 Caskey- Schreiber asked why they chose to use real estate excise tax (REET) I funds 42 and not REET II funds. 43 44 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated REET I is the only funding source 45 available to use this project. Technically, the senior activity center roof is not a park. Parks 46 and roads are what can be funded by REET II. 47 48 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are sure they can't use REET II funds if it's owned by 49 the Parks Department. Desler stated he is sure. They tested that option. It is the view of 50 legal counsel. 51 52 Motion carried unanimously. 53 Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/1212006, Page 10 1 2. REQUEST APPROVAL TO PURCHASE BUNKS FOR THE NEW JAIL WORK 2 CENTER FROM WASHINGTON STATE CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES IN THE 3 AMOUNT OF $51,713.30 (AB2006 -337) 4 5 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 6 7 Motion carried unanimously. 8 9 3. RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 901001 TO INCLUDE 10 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MARINE DRIVE CULVERT REHABILITATION 11 LOCUST AVENUE VICINITY, AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE 12 EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 13 LOW BIDDER, AWARD CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THIS WORK, IN THE 14 AMOUNT OF $89,350 (AB2006 -330A) 15 16 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 17 18 Motion carried unanimously. 19 20 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 21 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HOME PORT LEARNING 22 CENTER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION TO YOUTH ACTIVELY 23 INVOLVED IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE COURT'S SUPERVISION, IN 24 AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $72,000 (AB2006 -338) 25 26 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously. 29 30 S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A 31 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND 32 THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, PROVIDING FUNDING FOR OUTREACH TO 33 HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WITH CO- OCCURRING MENTAL HEALTH AND 34 SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,899 (REVENUE) 35 WITH MATCHING FUNDS OF $9,065 (AB2006 -339) 36 37 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO 42 INTERLOCAL AMENDMENT #6 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY 43 OF FERNDALE FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 6.6 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED 44 WEST OF CHURCH ROAD AND NORTH OF THORNTON ROAD WITHIN THE 45 FERNDALE URBAN GROWTH AREA (CHURCH ROAD ANNEXATION) (AB2006- 46 340) 47 48 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 49 50 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the purpose is to 51 enable the Ferndale School District to create a new school. 52 53 Crawford stated he will recuse himself from the discussion and vote. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 11 Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining. 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC, PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN PROJECT SCOPE INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION, OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES OF THE GENEVA STORMWATER RETROFIT PROJECT, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AND PROFESSIONAL TIME IN ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF PROPERTY OWNERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,545 (AB2006 -341) Crawford asked if the reason for this is because the community reacted, and they're charging the County more money. Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated they thought they had in -house inspection services available, but ended up having to get a consultant to do inspection. A little bit of time is for the Wall Street work. Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. McShane asked if the Wall Street project is suspended this year. Christensen stated it is. They are researching the issue and figuring out their best approach. McShane asked why Wall Street is being discussed and thought about at this point. Christensen stated the community came in and the Council tabled the work on Wall Street. Staff will come up with a recommendation for the Council. The staff has had a couple of meetings with the property owners. Crawford asked if the extra money is for that extra discussion. Christensen stated the majority of the money is for inspection services. McShane asked if the funding is for further design work. Christensen stated it is to look at what the design options are. They are leaning toward the recommendation to not put in swales. McShane stated he went to Wall Street. He thought they would end up taking out peoples' parking spaces. Christensen stated that is the residents' main issue. Also, they've had drainage problems in the past. McShane stated their real issue is the parking. Christensen stated it is. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT TO JOIN AS A MEMBER IN THE WASHINGTON GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY POOL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,300 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LIABILITY AND PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR THE DISTRICT (AB2006 -342) Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/1212006, Page 12 1 2 Caskey- Schreiber asked what this is for. 3 4 Dewey Desler, stated it covers comprehensive general liability. (Inaudible.) The 5 Auditor recommends it. It is part of the general umbrella policy. Because it is a technically 6 separate entity, they said the County must obtain a separate insurance to handle that 7 effort. 8 9 Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the policy specifically does 10 not cover flood liability. 11 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 14 9. RESOLUTION TO ELECT EXPENDITURES OF NATIONAL FOREST RELATED 15 SAFETY -NET PAYMENTS UNDER P.L. 106 -393 (AB2006 -343) 16 17 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 18 19 Motion carried unanimously. 20 21 10. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BY -LAWS REVISIONS 22 RECOMMENDED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE 23 DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2006 -344) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE 24 FCZDBS) 25 26 Crawford moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 27 28 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is concerned that the committee is changing what 29 constitutes a quorum. They're changing their approval number to a simple majority of the 30 members present. She asked at what point a meeting is too small to conduct business. 31 There could be three people making a lot of decisions. 32 33 Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated there must be seven members of the 34 full committee to conduct business. Official recommendations would still require a two - 35 thirds majority of the members present. There are two purposes for these amendments. 36 One purpose is to separate official recommendations from all other business. They make a 37 lot of motions that aren't official recommendations. 38 39 McShane stated he is concerned about the affirmative voting number. The Council 40 wants to hear strong support for their recommendations. The affirmative vote number 41 should be two - thirds of the entire advisory committee. The problem is that seven of the 13 42 members could show up. When voting, an affirmative recommendation would be achieved 43 by five affirmative votes. However, five members out of a 13- member committee is a 44 minority. He's attended some of those meetings. Often there isn't a full committee in 45 attendance, and votes are pushed to get something approved when the opposition isn't 46 present. Cooper stated they can identify a specific number in section VII of the bylaws. 47 48 McShane stated he would like affirmative votes to pass with a majority being nine 49 members. Cooper stated that if seven members of the committee were in attendance, they 50 could have a meeting but not make any official recommendations to the Board of 51 Supervisors. 52 Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 13 1 Brenner stated that isn't democracy. This is a messy thing that happens. She would 2 support a majority of the advisory committee. Cooper stated a majority of the 13 members 3 would be seven members. 4 5 Weimer stated there are 15 members. 6 7 Brenner stated she wants it to be a majority of the members present. 8 9 Crawford stated that would be four members. 10 11 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's too small. 12 13 Brenner stated that would make the opposition show up to the meetings. 14 15 Weimer stated the bylaws shows membership at 15. Cooper stated two of the 16 positions are reserved for the tribes, who have never attended. There is effectively 13 17 members. 18 19 Brenner asked the reason for the amendments. Cooper stated they needed to 20 address the subcommittees section of the Open Public Meetings Act. This became an 21 opportunity to also look at the bylaws to make sure they were working. The intent of this is 22 to make it easier for the committee to conduct business. There are a lot of absences, 23 especially during the summer. This is the recommendation of the committee. 24 25 Crawford stated that the committee recommends that an affirmative vote be 26 achieved with five members. 27 28 Weimer moved to amend to "affirmative vote of eight (8) of the total members is 29 required for official recommendation." Eight is a majority of the 15. 30 31 Nelson stated support the original motion, as it was recommended by the advisory 32 committee in order to function. Anything else is just made up numbers that really aren't 33 defensible. 34 35 Brenner stated she supports Councilmember Nelson, but it could allow four votes, 36 which is not a majority, to approve something. 37 38 Caskey- Schreiber stated that if there are 15 members, only one -third of the 39 members could approve something if 4 or 5 members is an affirmative vote. Given the 40 politics of this committee, there is a lot of divisiveness. She is leery of having a subgroup 41 try to drive the agenda and get something through. It's a perception issue. It's not fair. 42 43 McShane stated the County Council rules are that an affirmative vote be through a 44 majority of the full Council, not a majority of the members present. This as proposed would 45 allow a minority to have their opinion brought forward as advice to the Council. 46 47 Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Weimer in favor, 48 49 Brenner stated the language is not clear about voting to approve official 50 recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and voting on regular business. Cooper 51 stated the quorum of seven is required to have an official meeting. The language could be 52 changed to clarify that. There has to be seven members to have a meeting. The number of 53 affirmative votes required to approve a motion is yet to be decided. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 14 Crawford moved to amend section VII at the end of the first paragraph, - constitutes a quorum for the conduct of a regular business meeting" Motion to amend carried unanimously. McShane stated don't bring this forward to the Council with a recommendation. There is a diverse membership now. He understands why the tribes don't show up. In addition, he has concerns about the members of the committee being only from areas that are impacted from floods, and not all areas of the county. Everyone in the county pays into the flood fund. The Council should discuss this further, given that the tribes will never participate. He is also concerned about diking district members who are voting on projects that affect their districts. Consider how these projects are funded. Think also about how projects are funded overall, compared to the diking districts. Because of a significant change in the majority of the County Council a few years ago, he didn't pay as much attention to it as he should have. Now he is starting to worry about it again. There should be discussion about how this committee operates and the 80/20 match. There is some concern of getting below the reserve amount. He is concerned about staff being taken off of issues that are of countywide significance to focus on smaller issues, which is a result of how the flood advisory committee is working and the Council's lack of connection unless something comes forward that is really controversial. Nelson stated councilmembers and the administration have worked on this. Look at how the funding is used. There is a scope broader than flooding, which includes things like stormwater management and water quality. He agrees that this model is becoming obsolete and the Council needs to discuss it at a future time. Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated there are new subzones. Staff has tried to clearly describe their purposes and what their monies are intended for. As the Council considers future assessments and funds, think carefully about the countywide zone and its purpose. The Council was clear about the intent of the portion of flood funds that went to the water resource fund. Some of that has been lost as new issues have come up. Work with the administration to redefine how the districts operate and their purposes. Weimer stated he agrees with Dr. Roll. He likes the idea of looking at it through the budget process. Motion recommend approval as amended carried 2 -1 with Weimer opposed. 11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC., WHERE VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. IS REQUESTING A 13,500 SQUARE FOOT EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF BAY HORIZON PARK ON ALDERSON ROAD (AB2006 -345) Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. He is concerned about giving a private company an easement like this forever. There is a limited definition. They are granting Verizon this easement in perpetuity. He read what is allowed. In the future, if a communication service is a row of 100 foot towers across a strip of land, Verizon will be allowed to do that. The language should be more specific to exactly what their asking to do. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated this property is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Verizon is not allowed to put above- ground utilities on this property. This easement goes down an existing road. Verizon has their main switch and junction building right in the midst of this property. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) McFarlane continued to state this has been reviewed. Based on the fact that this is a permanent facility in the midst of public land, there needs to be some permanency in terms of that easement. Weimer stated he's concerned because they're talking about running telephone lines to a new neighborhood. However, the language allows them the right to run fiberoptic and all kinds of stuff. It also allows overhead lines. He asked if the County would have to defend Verizon because the County signed an easement that allows them to do things that the National Park Service won't allow. McFarlane stated he can't answer that. Brenner stated this should have been scheduled in the Public Works Committee because it is about an easement that affects County roads. Weimer moved to hold in committee to fix this language. McFarlane stated delaying approval is fine. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Desler stated he is proud of the completion of the new jail center. It is done on time and under budget. They are going through the punch list at this point. When done, the contractor will have 30 days to correct any deficiencies. They will start moving people in toward November or December. He invited the councilmembers to visit the building. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. -7 [D Jill Nixon�fj�y� e�s� Transcription •;\kATC •• Cj''� .W.� + - 0 • CAV An • a Clerk r 11.11111����` WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATJ:OM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sao Crawford, Com [pitAee Chair Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 9/12/2006, Page 16