HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 14 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Safety Committee
February 14, 2006
Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Carl Weimer
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
1. STATUS REPORT PRESENTATION ON FERRY OPERATIONS AND FERRY
PROJECTS (AB2006 -101)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated last June's status report included a
summary of recommendations. He gave a presentation and submitted handouts (on file).
He read from the handout. The consulting team is preparing an alternatives analysis. They
hope to have a functional parking lot by the end of the summer, but it may not be fully
complete. It will be complete enough for dry dock parking.
The biggest issue to deal with the new boat is how to move people and cars. The
goal is to minimize conflicts and avoid confusion. There may be some pressure to move
ahead with the boat before other pieces are ready. They will be looking at that timing.
For the Gooseberry Point parking lot to stay dry, they will need to either fill it so it is higher
and gravity will drain it, or they will need to pump out the water.
Nelson asked if that location is the only place for parking, and if there are other
places that would also have drainage problems. Monsen stated there are homes in the
locations that drain rapidly.
At Gooseberry Point, there are conflicts with the two other adjacent docks. For the
Lummi Nation to suggest the County look for a new ferry location would be to get the
County ferry out from between the two commercial service area docks for the tribal fleet.
The County is doing a feasibility study to consider relocating the dock closer to the existing
Stommish Grounds. The ground is more elevated. Also, there could be a multi -modal
transportation center at that location. There is a need for a new road to go north -south
down the center of the peninsula, and that is where the new road would land.
Brenner asked if the County built the ferry dock. Monsen stated it did.
Brenner asked if the proposed new location is quite far. She asked what happens
with the parking lot. Monsen stated the overall move of the dock would include the parking
lot.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 1
Monsen continued to read the presentation regarding long range planning for
Gooseberry Point redevelopment and potential dock relocation. This activity is parallel to
current dock improvements for a new boat. Even if this does become a new location,
they're talking about the same boat.
He continued to read the presentation on the new ferry system fund. The fund is
going to deal with operating costs and fare box recovery and all the revenue expenditure
issues associated with the ferry, including capital expenditures and depreciation. As the
County now invests in capital such as the new boat, the boat will depreciate and the fund
will grow over time to be used for future ferry replacement.
He would like to take this presentation to the community in March. At that meeting,
he would like to get a sense for the Council about the options for setting fares. Today, this
is a policy discussion refresher.
Last fall, the Council created a new definition of operating cost. The 2005 Ferry
Operating Costs handout (on file) shows the total operating cost for 2005 under the old
definition and under the new definition.
The Lummi Island Ferry System Costs and Fare Box Revenue handout (on file)
shows projections over the next few years. Service enhancements are added.
Brenner asked if an additional $85,000 in the 2006 budget is for one more staff
person. Monsen stated it is for one more staff person plus a portion of other staff people.
That person will fill in for boat workers who must take their breaks and still allow the boat
to operate.
Brenner asked if the Gooseberry parking lease is $10,000 in 2007. Monsen stated
29 they don't assume the new lease will be the same price. That number is carried over the
30 next year into the operating cost base estimate.
31
32 Brenner asked if the County is going to spend $170,000 for the backup vessel
33 Whatcom Chief. Monsen stated it will. This handout is only the cost of operating expenses.
34 The cost of keeping the Whatcom Chief as a backup vessel is a higher cost than the
35 increase in the cost of the new boat.
36
37 Brenner asked why they would keep the Whatcom Chief. Monsen stated the County
38 view has been that it is a preferred alternative. This is the first look they've had at the true
39 cost of keeping it. He showed the fund effect of different rate increases.
40
41 Brenner asked if there would be any shortfall if the County does not keep the
42 Whatcom Chief after 2008.
43
44 Ken Richardson, Accounting Supervisor, stated the projected shortfall is $525,000.
45 The cost of the Whatcom Chief is $100,000. There would still be a shortfall.
45
47 Monsen stated there are cost projections relating to a decision that must be made
48 on service level, regardless of whether or not there is a backup vessel. Those projections
49 have an influence over the rate structure they will design.
50
51 Crawford stated he prefers to get the input from the Lummi Island residents from
52 the meetings in March before making any decisions. There are significant costs, which they
53 knew about. That significant cost could influence the fare box decisions, which affect those
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 2
who use the ferry every day. The Council would operate in a vacuum until those March
meetings. Wait and hear what the residents have to say.
Monsen stated that to avoid a shortfall after 2010, there would have to be a fare
box rate change of 75 percent. If the County eliminates the backup Whatcom Chief, the
fare box rate change would have to be 65 percent to avoid a shortfall.
Brenner asked what happens if the Council decides to stay with the Whatcom Chief
and not buy a new boat. Monsen stated the County needs a new boat.
Brenner stated a lot of people have said the boat will last for a long time. Monsen
stated it will, but service levels will go down. Also, boat capacity may be reduced due to
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs. The increased cost to operate the boat can be
reduced by buying a smaller boat, but not dramatically.
Brenner asked if the size of the boat is not a significant reason for the additional
shortfalls. Monsen stated the size is not a reason from an operating standpoint. The size
influences purchase. It doesn't influence rates.
Brenner stated replacement of the Whatcom Chief will not significantly change the
operating costs, which means the rates will not change significantly. Monsen stated that is
correct. The majority of the cost is labor, and they both require three crew members. The
only change in the new boat is the fourth Master position, which is someone to do routine
maintenance of both vessels. The cost for a Master position is built into the cost of the
backup Whatcom Chief. If they don't keep a backup boat, they don't need that position.
Folks should ask about the cost of off boat ticketing. The estimate is $150,000 per
year for dealing with cash management off the boat rather than on the boat. If they do
ticketing on the boat, they would need a fourth crew member on the boat. Off -boat
ticketing is cheaper than adding crew members.
Crawford asked if they considered having a staff ticket person there during all
operating hours. Monsen stated they considered having a staff ticket person there during
the majority of ticketing needed during the week. The majority of transactions are
purchase of multi -ride items.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen stated a machine can handle single -ride tickets.
Brenner asked about the thought that fare increases shouldn't happen until the new
boat is up and running. Monsen stated to do that, they put in a rate increase at the
beginning of each year, depending on what happened the previous year. That's a policy
change. If the Council wants to do that, they will be talking about rate increases a lot more
often.
Brenner asked the reason for increased fares now. Monsen stated increased fares
have to be in place before the new boat gets here. Also, there are financial management
audit reasons to get cash off the boat now. They can delay implementation of off -boat
ticketing until the new boat arrives.
Richardson stated part of putting off -boat ticketing together is a capital cost. It's
the investment in machines. Someone has to be involved in that. This is phased this year
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 3
and next year to start building things, training people, and setting things up. Once they
have it, they might as well use it.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree. All they would have is capital costs, which don't
come out of fares. Monsen stated operating costs are significant. These are only operating
costs relative to off -boat ticketing. It would take a full -time staff person to deal with off -
boat activities and repair and maintenance of machines that eliminates the need for more
staff.
Weimer asked if there is a way to take the cost of ferry and cost of roads to come
up with a per capita cost. Monsen showed a slide comparing the per vehicle cost of ferry
compared to bridges. The operating cost of the boat dwarfs the capital investment. It's
the other way around for bridges.
Brenner asked if federal and State laws would prohibit a bridge. Monsen stated a
bridge was discussed many years ago, as part of a total San Juan Island project. Now,
there would never be an environmental justification for it.
Nelson asked the average time of this boat to go back and forth. Monsen stated it
takes 20 to 25 minutes. The new boat would take 30 minutes. Travel time is identical.
Loading and unloading takes more time. The new boat will have a 30 percent increase in
capacity.
Nelson asked about having two smaller boats. Monsen stated that if the goal is to
increase through -put, it would take two boats, but the operating costs would double.
Brenner stated a ferry is the best mode of transportation. She doesn't know about
charging people for off -boat ticketing a year and a half ahead of the new boat. All the rest
29 of it is capital costs. Monsen stated any delay in expense ultimately reduces the need for
30 fare increases. Any dollar collected today, more than is needed, simply delays the need for
31 a rate change in the future.
32
33 Brenner stated people should pay for a service when they have the service.
34 Monsen stated that is an option.
35
36 2, RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
37 AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082)
38
39 Docket # 2006 -G: Update the Six -Year CIP
40
41 Nelson moved to recommend docketing of this item.
42
43 Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the six -year capital improvement plan (CIP) is to
44 be updated every other year. A revised CIP is proposed.
45
46 Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford out of the room.
47
48
49 Docket # 2006 -H: Amend the Transportation Impact Fee Background_ Information
50
51 Aamot explained the history of the transportation impact fee ordinance. The
52 information includes existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions, and identification of
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 4
transportation projects needed to serve new development for which impact fees can be
collected. Staff would like to update this information this year.
Nelson asked if this is necessary as they look at the six -year road program projects,
which will now focus on what can actually be done in those six years. Aamot stated this is
a companion document that has State required elements needed before the County can
adopt an impact fee ordinance.
Nelson moved to recommend docketing to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Docket # 2006 -Y: Add a goal regarding infrastructure improvements
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated this amendment was introduced by Dave Pros,
a Planning Commissioner. This is to require that all infrastructure be in place to
accommodate development before construction commences and occupancy is allowed.
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated allowing development to occur before
infrastructure is developed is a great imposition on citizens. it would be much more
orderly if infrastructure is in place before development and occupancy.
Holbrook stated any development is required to put in any utilities and
infrastructure required for the development. Impact fees can only be applied to impacts
created by that development. There is a six -year window in which the impact fees can be
expended. Some jurisdictions have tightened up that six -year timeline. The Council just
passed a resolution directing staff to prepare a concurrency program after these
amendments were proposed. Staff will look at all these issues during the concurrency
29 process. Many of these elements can be wrapped into the concurrency program.
30
31 Brenner asked if this item would be duplicative. Holbrook stated he thinks it will be
32 duplicative. The concurrency program will also consider capacity added by a development.
33
34 Nelson stated all those infrastructure needs are paid for by development and the
35 new property owners. Holbrook stated that is correct. Typically, impact fees are collected
36 at the time of final plat approval. Infrastructure must be done for final plat approval or at
37 the time the building permit is applied for. If there are other impacts, it will fall in the six
38 year window.
39
40 Brenner asked when they have the opportunity to tighten up the six -year window.
41 Holbrook stated that is part of the concurrency program.
42
43 Pros stated he would withdraw this application. Look at having the infrastructure in
44' place before the large amount of people move into the area.
45
46 Crawford asked the difference this application would make. Holbrook stated
47 something that may not be warranted during the time of construction and occupancy will
48 be warranted as other development occurs.
49
50 Crawford stated they all agree that development should pay for itself. They have to
51 define what it is that development will pay for.
52
53 Brenner stated they will deal with it through the concurrency program.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 5
Pros withdrew his application.
Docket # 2006 -Z: Add a goal regarding impact fees
Pros stated there is a problem with defining the point when impact fees are
collected. Collect impact fees for each lot when the development is created, not when
there is a building permit application.
Brenner asked if this would be covered under the concurrency program.
Crawford stated the City of Bellingham collects impact fees when a building permit is
applied for. Pros stated the City deals with permits one house at a time. There is a greater
impact for the County, which does large developments.
Brenner stated that an impact fee for a large development will be attached to each
house. The County is not there yet.
Aamot stated the impact fee ordinance will come forward to implement how an
impact fee is collected.
Crawford stated impact fees should be collected at the time of the sale of the home.
The added finance costs would multiply by the time it gets to the sale of the home. The
real estate community and developers prefer to keep the home purchase cost down.
Pros stated an impact fee is collected for a reason, for infrastructure. The
infrastructure should be done before the houses go in.
29 Brenner stated she disagrees. It should be done at the time of building.
30
31 Pros stated he would withdraw his application, but services should be in place at the
32 time the house goes in.
33
34 Docket # 2006 -CC: Add policies regarding utility extension revenue
35
36 Pros stated the problem is that the urban growth area (UGA) is full of infrastructure.
37 The City has put infrastructure outside of its boundaries. Putting in development is
38 rewarding someone who does something wrong.
39
40 Brenner stated they bypass the Planning Department.
41
42 Pros stated that correct. They must serve people. His amendment would dissuade
43 the cities from extending the services beyond the city limits.
44
45 Brenner stated that kind of concern has to do with the interlocal agreements with
46 the cities.
47
48 Holbrook stated the issue of requiring annexation upon extending utilities is before
49 the Planning Commission at this time.
50
51 Pros stated the residents must agree to be annexed. Utility services are there,
52 urban levels of service are developed, but annexation does not occur.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 6
Brenner stated she is in favor of a future interlocal agreement that would require
the City to not extend services without the agreement of annexation by the property
owners.
Pros stated this amendment will discourage the City from extending services.
Brenner stated this seems duplicative, since the Planning Commission is going to
work on this anyway. Holbrook stated the annexation policy is a countywide planning
policy. The County may be able to modify the policy to a stronger annexation policy.
Brenner stated one problem is all the things the County is going to have to do
regarding stormwater. These are things best left to cities, not the County. They are
working with the cities to no longer extend services without annexation agreements.
Crawford stated the obvious challenge is that they would never see another sewer
or water extension from a city. He asked if Mr. Pros is going to withdraw this item.
Pros asked the committee to instruct the Planning Department to make as strong a
statement as possible.
Brenner stated the committee can't instruct the administration to do anything. The
administration and Council have a strong will to come up with an interlocal that does that.
Pros stated the City continued to improve and extend utilities in November that did
not require annexation.
Brenner stated she shares the concern. It will be covered with the Comprehensive
Plan amendments that are already proposed, especially the concurrency amendment.
29 Make sure there is a provision that utilities can be extended for health and safety reasons.
30
31 Pros stated this amendment would stop the City from extending services. If the
32 Council feels that current proposed amendments would be strong enough, he will withdraw
33 his amendment.
34
35 Brenner stated she can't guarantee it, but the committee shares his concerns.
36
37 Pros withdrew his amendment.
38
39 Docket # 2006 -DD: Add a new Chapter 12 and a goal regarding_LOS
40
41 Pros stated level of service is decreasing as population increases. Government
42 should not allow this situation.
43
44 Brenner stated she agrees with Mr. Pros. Don't allow deterioration of level of
45 service because of new growth. That's what concurrency is all about. She asked if that is
46 correct. Holbrook stated that is correct.
47
48 Pros asked if the amendment would slow down that process. Holbrook stated it
49 would not slow down the process. It would be done concurrent with the concurrency
50 amendment.
51
52 Brenner asked if it makes a difference if this item is docketed. Holbrook stated the
53 concurrency ordinance must go through the Planning Commission and Council. All these
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 7
issues will be brought up. It helps to have a policy in place to back up the implementing
ordinance.
Brenner asked if concurrency would address this concern. Holbrook stated this
amendment recommends adding a new chapter to the Comprehensive Plan, which is a new
aspect to the plan. If the Council dockets this item, the item would help reinforce the
concurrency ordinance.
Brenner moved to recommend docketing.
Crawford stated he is opposed to the motion. So much is working toward this
concurrency issue. The individual issues need to be addressed in their respective
Comprehensive Plan chapters. This is an overarching chapter that is duplicitous. The
concurrency ordinance will address the second half of this item.
Nelson stated if the intent is to not increase density if level of service can't be
adhered to. Level of service would control population expansion in areas where they don't
want population. Future councils and planning commissions may not be so objective, and
expand the development. The concurrency program is a better process to go through to
determine levels of service.
Brenner withdrew her motion and stated this would be held in committee for two
weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
Li
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
',��111111111I�1�I
G0UA'
:A T��'���01.��
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
n f�r�d� s,''Col cil Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/14/2006, Page 8