HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 24 2006I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Public Works and Safety Committee
3
4 October 24, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 L. Ward Nelson None
11 Sam Crawford
12
13 Also Present:
14 Carl Weimer
15 Seth Fleetwood
16
17 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
18
19 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 10.34, FERRY RATES,
20 AND THE 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE (AB2006 -260)
21
22 Weimer stated he changed around the sales forecast from the Public Works
23 Department to provide more incentives for walk on passengers, bicycles, motorcycles, and
24 those types of riders. He introduced a new idea for small cars. He left the rates the same
25 for regular, large size cars, vans sport utility vehicles (SUV's), and pickup trucks. The
26 burden of allowing the walk on passenger fee to stay the same is put on larger sized trucks.
27
28 They've had changing numbers on what the fare rates are supposed to produce.
29 There has been a lot of discussion on what is and isn't included in the 55 percent. They
30 need to have a clear idea of the total amount they are trying to collect. He received the
31 updated 2006, 2007, and 2008 budgets. Those have the amounts that the 55 percent rate
32 would have to collect. For 2006, 55 percent of costs would be about $900,000.
33
34 Brenner asked if this is the original budget.
35
36 Weimer stated he worked off a budget he received in July, which showed that the
37 County is trying to recoup $995,000 in fares. Since then, there has been discussion about
38 administrative overhead and allocation. Some of those numbers seem to have changed.
39 The 2006 budget is less than that amount. The 2007 budget is around $940,000. First, get
40 clear on what that total amount is supposed to be.
41
42 Brenner asked if Councilmember Weimer changed the multi -ride ticket.
43
44 Weimer stated he did not change the number of rides on a multi -ride ticket. The
45 discount amount is 15 percent for both multi -ride tickets. He also did away with the age
46 disability rate, and created a need -based rate instead. They have to decide how they define
47 need. There are many ways to qualify someone for the need -based rate.
48
49 Brenner asked how to address the need -based qualification.
50
51 Ken Richardson, Public Works Department, stated that during the public hearing,
52 staff said that anyone who is Medicaid eligible will be eligible for a need -based discount.
53 That is the standard they have been using for some years.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 1
1
2 Brenner stated she would like to know what those specific numbers are.
3
4 Weimer stated other systems include other needs -based qualifiers, such as the
5 school lunch program or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program. It depends on
6 how many people they want to include in the need -based system. Richardson stated the
7 Medicaid standard applies to the parent in the family. Some of the other programs only
8 apply to certain family members. They have a variety of different income levels that are
9 considered. His understanding of a needs -based discount is that it would have to apply
10 equitably. If they are going to have an income -based standard, the standard should apply
11 to equally everyone who is eligible.
12
13 Brenner asked if staff would rather the Council specify an amount. Richardson
14 stated he would rather they use something like a Medicaid card, so County staff doesn't
15 have to expend the administrative energy to do income verification, which is very difficult to
16 do. Use a predetermined standard such as a Medicaid card, the County staff don't have to
17 assume that administrative burden. Today, if someone comes in with a Medicaid card, that
18 person is eligible for the discount.
19
20 Crawford stated that until they go into a public hearing, he is in favor of the original
21 proposal they have worked on over the last year and a half and as presented in the Council
22 packet for the 2007 Unified Fee Schedule. At some point, he wants to move that this
23 committee recommends to the full Council the schedule in the packet, to see if he can get a
24 majority vote on it. There are a number of ways the committee can proceed. The
25 committee can get into a lengthy debate about need, to which he is very opposed, absent
26 any public testimony to the contrary in a hearing situation. At some point, he needs to
27 make a motion and see if the current proposal in the packet has support, which does not
28 include a need -based discount. He asked if this committee, with no motion on the floor, is
29 going to start discussing these aspects. He asked if it would be more appropriate to get a
30 motion. If they are talking about a major renovation to the fee schedule, a committee
31 member would have to move its approval. If the majority of the committee is interested,
32 they can start discussing amendments if they want to make any changes. He asked if it is
33 the Chair's intention to have a motion on the Floor and discuss this, or discuss all the details
34 without a motion. The idea of creating an incentive to the walk on passengers by not
35 changing the rate is an entire philosophical discussion. He asked why they would want to
36 do that, with all the parking issues.
37
38 Brenner stated she thought the committee would have a discussion, and the result of
39 the discussion would become amendments to put forward for the hearing. She also intends
40 to hear from people before she makes any decisions on anything. The Council heard about
41 having needs -based discounts at the public hearing already. The public stood up and said
42 they wanted such a discount at the hearing and at other meetings. The Council has gotten
43 emails about it.
44
45 Crawford moved to recommend approval of the ordinance in the Council packet to
46 the full Council.
47
48 Nelson stated he appreciates the work Councilmember Weimer did on his proposal,
49 but it's a different direction. He may not be comfortable going in that direction at this time,
50 without a lot of information. They can amend the ordinance in the packet to reflect
51 Councilmember Weimer's proposal if they want. For the sake of process, it's easier to just
52 use what they currently have.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 2
1 Regarding the need -based discount, Medicaid participants don't have cards, they
2 have coupons that they use for medical purposes. Even the State has difficulty at times
3 identifying need -based citizens. Richardson stated anyone who is eligible for medical
4 benefits under Medicaid receives a coupon. The County staff currently uses that coupon to
5 provide a 50 percent discount from the regular rate for people who have a need. The only
6 other discount the County offers is for seniors who qualify for the property tax exemption
7 and for certain disabled persons who qualify under the Washington Administrative Code
8 (WAC). Whatcom County's is the only ferry system in the state that has any needs -based
9 discount. The State ferry system provides discounts for the disabled and seniors over 65,
10 but they aren't need -based discounts.
11
12 Crawford stated they don't offer an exemption on property taxes based on need. It's
13 not appropriate to do it here.
14
15 Brenner stated someone can get an exemption or deferral on property taxes. It's
16 not a senior exemption. It's for seniors who are under a certain income. It is based on
17 need.
18
19 Crawford stated the problem with the ferry is that the operating cost is a certain
20 amount. The County has targeted a certain percentage of that cost to be recovered from
21 fares. That amount will not change. If a certain class of people can pay a different amount
22 based on income level, the County will be shifting that cost to someone else.
23
24 Brenner stated she has a proposal to deal with a need -based discount that does not
25 put the burden on the other ferry riders. There are many things in the County that are
26 deemed beneficial to the environment or somehow in the public's benefit. They do not shift
27 those costs onto another small group of people. They spread out the cost over the whole
28 community because it's a public benefit. That's what the County needs to do with this.
29
30 Weimer stated the ordinance in the packet gives the County fair ferry rates,
31 compared to any other system. It's fine with him to have a hearing on the ordinance in the
32 packet, and then tweak the ordinance after the hearing. His biggest concern is that he still
33 doesn't know what is the final amount they are trying to collect. The salaries and wages of
34 the ferry division were stable through 2005, but jumped $300,000 from 2005 to 2007. That
35 is $150,000 more than they are putting onto the ferry fares, which is enough to let a whole
36 class of people ride the ferry for free. He wants to know why that base number has
37 increased so much.
38
39 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated one increase came from three new staff
40 positions. At the same time, the budget included a continuation of a Public Works
41 administrative cost that were switched to the new staff positions. The net result of the
42 costs is a neutral change. There was a change in a labor line and a nearly corresponding
43 decrease in another budgetary line. His time spent on ferry issues was charged to the ferry
44 previously, and was listed as an administrative cost allocation as overhead. With the
45 creation of a ferry manager and a clerk, a number of staff in the department no longer need
46 to spend their time on ferry issues. That allocation was reduced. Now, the cost shows up
47 in the labor line item instead of the overhead line item. The third position of the fourth
48 ferry master was meant to help transition from the old boat to the new boat. That position
49 has never been filled because no formal action has been taken to move ahead. They still
50 budget for the position because it was approved, but it's not shown as an expense
51 anywhere. That is a $100,000 difference by itself, in that one staff position that they
52 haven't filled.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 3
1 Brenner asked if they are using that amount in the ferry equation. Monsen stated
2 the 55 percent recovery projections are based on budgeted numbers. Ultimately, the 55
3 percent is based on actual cost. The proposed budget for 2007 is about $1.8 million.
4 $100,000 of that is for the unfilled ferry master position. If the County does not fill that
5 position in 2007, the actual cost will be at least $100,000 less. Recovery is based on the
6 actual cost, not a budgeted number. However, the County must make predictions based
7 upon approved budgets. For 2006, they anticipate covering less than 45 percent of the
8 costs through the fare box. How they budget labor versus overhead has shifted. Part of
9 the increase deals with a sizeable increase in the cost of benefits across the board. That is
10 at least $50,000. That goes in the labor category. Of the $300,000 to which
11 Councilmember Weimer referred, $150,000 is due to the ferry master position and the
12 increases in benefits. There is also a cost escalation for the existing ferry crew.
13
14 Weimer stated the 2007 and 2008 budgets show a decrease in benefits over 2005.
15 There is confusion of what numbers they use. The budget doesn't show at all the
16 administrative overhead. Monsen stated that it's common in project budgeting that
17 accounts and expenses aren't necessarily equal, so the report can get skewed. It's a
18 difficult document to read for this topic. He doesn't use that document.
19
20 Brenner stated the cost of anything that is an environmental or public benefit. should
21 not be shifted to the other ferry riders. It should be shifted to everyone through the current
22 expense fund.
23
24 Nancy Ging, 2386 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated there are major estimated
25 changes from before. Talking about fare structures doesn't make sense until the cost and
26 revenue estimates are firm. The estimates haven't been consistent. She asked what the
27 numbers on the spreadsheet mean.
28
29 Richardson stated those numbers are the fund numbers.
30
31 Ging stated she would like a chance to go through the estimates with staff and
32 councilmembers in detail. She asked about benefits and an aluminum loading ramp used
33 during dry dock.
34
35 Richardson stated the benefits estimates were based on a standard cost of 140
36 percent of the base. When they created the new fund, they charged the actual benefit cost
37 directly, for those payroll dollars. There is some difference. The second question about the
38 ramp is that it is a capital expenditure made to increase the life of and preserve the Lummi
39 Island dock. No capital dollars are included in the spreadsheet he put out today.
40
41 Ging asked about the equipment rental interfund for $242,000.
42
43 Richardson stated the boat belongs to the equipment revolve and rental (ER &R)
44 fund, not the ferry fund. The department rents the boat from the County fleet, Included in
45 that rental cost is boat maintenance, fuel, labor to take care of it, and dry dock costs. That
46 amount increases between 2006 and 2007 due to fuel increases and increased dry dock
47 costs. At the end of the year, they look at the actual costs applied to that equipment. If
48 the rental rate exceeds the actual cost, they take the difference. If the rental rate is less
49 than the actual costs, they add it in. The depreciation rate of the vessel is not included in
50 the rental rate, but there is some depreciation on the engines and radar. All depreciation is
51 backed out of the rental rate before it's applied.
52
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 4
Brenner asked if Mr. Richardson can sit down with Ms. Ging. Richardson stated he
can do that. One reason they said 55 percent has to be applied to actual numbers is that
people didn't want to prepay the cost. The actual requirement is to meet the actual cost on
a retroactive basis. When they get to the end of the year, if they over recover the actual
costs, that extra amount is set aside and used later if they under - recover the costs. The
rate structure being proposed has something to do with the forecast of cost, but it's not
based on those costs. It is based on the most equitable rate increase they can come up
with to get close to the recovery rate.
Ging asked if they were going to not try and recover 55 percent for 2006, according
to Executive Kremen. Richardson stated he's not aware of that. Current County code
requires the County to recover 55 percent from January 1, 2006 forward. That is an issue
that can be decided upon through a change in the code by the County Council.
Ging stated overhead is not typically considered an operational cost. That may be
part of the problem with the numbers. A big chunk of the cost that used to be treated as
overhead is now being included as a labor cost, which is what they are expected to recover.
Richardson stated allocated overhead for such things as accounting services, facilities,
business services from the County and road fund has always been included in the operating
cost of the ferry system. In the past, the allocated overhead line item was larger. Now it's
smaller, partly offset by administrative salaries in the administration cost center. Now, that
labor is done directly by him, as opposed to indirect labor from Mr. Monsen and others.
Ging asked if the total bottom line should not have changed much at all, because of
those switches. Richardson stated the overhead allocation relative to the direct payroll was
relatively neutral. He can show how that's true.
Ging stated there is a huge amount allocated for professional contract fees.
Richardson stated there are a variety of projects and engineering requirements involved in
those numbers. The largest single amount has to do with the dry dock every year. It
includes things like renting a launch and extra security.
Ging stated more of the fare cost should be shifted to the larger vehicles.
Councilmember Weimer's proposal is in keeping with what the public has said.
Weimer stated the 55 percent recovery rate is going to be about $1 million. Instead
of arguing over those specific numbers, hear from people who have other ideas about how
to divide the fares. His proposal doesn't generate enough money. Something would have
to be tweaked.
Bud Jewell, 3805 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated they get five cars in a line,
with four lines, on the ferry. If they are going for a special price for small cars, they will
save about ten feet, but can't get another car on the ferry in ten feet. That won't save
anything.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Jewell continued to state that proposal would complicate everything.
Art Thomas, 2620 Isiandview Road, Lummi Island, stated he has concerns about
Councilmember Weimer's proposal about walk -on passengers. The incentive to walk on the
ferry is that it is more convenient. He doesn't walk on because the fee is $1. Walk -on
passengers put more cars on County roads. Most walk -on passengers have a car parked on
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10124/2006, Page 5
1 Lummi Island and a car parked at Gooseberry Point. That's not productive to the
2 environment. A problem will soon be with parking. Ten years ago, six cars parked on both
3 sides daily. flow, there are over 70 cars every day. Some days there are more than 100
4 cars. People walk on the ferry because its convenient, not because of the $1. He supports
5 a fare of $2 to cover the parking costs. Also, he doesn't like the fact that his 14 -foot trailer
6 will cost $14 or $16, but he can live with it.
7
8 Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated they don't like the size of
9 the increase that the Public Works Department proposes. However, it's a fair distribution of
10 the burden amongst all users, which wasn't done at the last fare increase. Mr. Weimer's
11 proposal isn't fair to all users. He doesn't support raising the rate for some users and not
12 all users. It's not fair to reduce the cost of the multi -ride tickets. It shifts the burden to
13 someone else. People who can afford to have two cars get a nearly free ride at the expense
14 of everyone else.
15
16 Brenner asked if there would be more room on the ferry and less wait time for
17 everyone if more people walk on the ferry. Kinney stated it doesn't matter during the
18 summer. There are more people who walk up and down the ramps while talking, taking
19 their time. There are little kids or high tides, which makes it harder to get up the ramps.
20 All that slows down the process of loading the ferry, to the point where they can only get
21 five runs per two hours instead of six runs.
22
23 Brenner asked about the idea of a raise for seasonal single tickets. Kinney stated
24 that is one way to handle it. Mr. Richardson has tried to put a larger discount on the multi -
25 ride tickets for people who use the boat all year. There is some merit to a single seasonal
26 ticket. That's what the State does for its San Juan Island run. He hopes those funds would
27 be used to improve service. That's the issue six months out of the year.
28
29 Brenner asked about continuous service. Richardson stated a large majority of the
30 people at the public hearing on Lummi Island indicated that they don't want to pay for
31 continuous service, so it hasn't been pursed any further at this time. They are still looking
32 at potential schedules that would include more runs, but that issue has been tabled at this
33 point due to public feedback.
34
35 Brenner asked about seasonal tickets. Richardson stated a basic premise of this
36 proposal is to raise the cash rate high enough to give a significant discount to the
37 commuters, everyday users, and people who live on the island. Those people who come to
38 visit will buy the full fare cost. That's how they addressed the seasonal user and the casual
39 off- season user. A seasonally adjusted rate would also affect Lummi Island residents who
40 don't ride the ferry often and can't afford a 25 -ride ticket. The fairest thing seemed to
41 provide a significant discount to regular users on a multi -ride ticket. People who casually
42 use the ferry would tend to pay the cash prices.
43
44 Brenner asked about having the same discount for the ten -ride ticket and the 25 -ride
45 ticket. Richardson stated two things will happen. First, people will buy the ten -ride ticket
46 because the immediate cash outlay is less. The staff ends up selling more tickets. Second,
47 at the 25 percent discount rate, the casual summertime user who comes over for a week
48 will buy the ten -ride ticket, because the discount is sufficient to make the discount cost of
49 ten rides less than the regular cost of seven rides.
50
51 Brenner stated most people want the 25 -ride ticket for convenience. Richardson
52 stated that a large number of people will buy the multi -ride ticket for the discount, not the
53 convenience.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/23/2006, Page 6
1
2 Brenner stated she disagrees.
3
4 Kinney stated he is concerned about Councilmember Weimer's proposed rate for
5 trucks. Many mainland services no longer deliver to Lummi Island. This limits services
6 available to Lummi Islanders and increases the cost to everyone. It is a shift in rates to
7 favor the commuters at the expense of everyone else. There are too many free, reduced,
8 and special rates. If the County wants to provide incentives for environmental or social
9 reasons, then drop the 55 percent operating requirement, set fares that are fair and
10 reasonable, and let the revenue fall where it may.
11
12 Linda Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated she agrees with previous
13 speakers. She's disappointed to hear that the Public Works Department delayed instituting
14 any kind of improvement to service based on a show of hands at that horrible public hearing
15 on Lummi Island. That auditorium was not filled with a true cross - section of the population
16 on Lummi Island. It should not impact the service that the residents get.
17
18 Also, she doesn't remember any survey that resulted in a response in favor of
19 charging more to the trucks and charging less to the walk on passengers. Increase the
20 ferry rate for trucks, and the residents will have to pay more for their utility services.
21
22 She has comments about Councilmember Weimer's proposal, but it isn't officially on
23 the table yet. One concern is the defnition of a subcompact or compact car. She
24 questioned who the authority is that makes that definition. She can fit her SUV in a
25 compact parking space. People who live on the island have to have a large enough vehicle
26 to haul in everything they need from town. They consolidate their trips into town, and need
27 a large vehicle to do that.
28
29 Incentives for walk on passengers is a good idea, but not once they run out of
30 parking spaces. There is no more negotiating with the Tribe for additional space at
31 Gooseberry Point. There isn't a synchronized bus service yet.
32
33 Weimer stated he agrees that it's not particularly environmentally friendly if all they
34 are doing is subsidizing walk on passengers so they can have a car on both sides of the
35 ferry. That's a problem. That's why Councilmember McShane brought up the idea of
36 parking fees. They really need good bus service. His plan for walk on incentives is to really
37 push for better transit systems on both sides. His incentive for walk on passengers is the
38 first step, with the hope that the bus systems are synchronized.
39
40 Polly Hanson, 2781 Westshore Drive, Lummi Island, stated she agrees with
41 Councilmember Weimer's last comment. A variety of adjustments can be made. They may
42 not be simple adjustments. Rising the ferry rates will put a lot of residents in a financial
43 bind, even if they don't qualify for a need -based discount. The ferry service isn't a product
44 she can take home with her. There isn't a solid outcome to that expenditure. The ferry
45 should be serviceable, but not fancy and not untried technology. There should be more
46 convenient bus service to get people around.
47
48 Michelle Luke, 3342 Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island, stated the current transportation
49 system doesn't fit with the increased population of Lummi Island. The increasingly
50 restrictive transportation system under -serves the population. Make the transportation
51 system less restrictive.
52
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 7
1 Preston Schiller, Lummi Island, submitted testimony (on fife). Many years ago, they
2 could get several more vehicles on the ferry than they can now. The fare increase is taking
3 place in a policy vacuum. There has to be more serious discussion of ferry policy in general,
4 including how the ferry is run, operated, possible efficiencies, deck operations, fare
5 collection, and how pricing affects demand. Expanding capacity to meet demand will not
6 work.
7
8 People who should recognize that people who choose to live on an island have
9 responsibilities to that way of life, including being more self - dependent, and not think of
10 Lummi Island as a cul de sac, subdivision, or gated community that is served by a ferry.
11
12 Creating incentives for smaller cars makes a difference, if the crew is properly
13 trained in stacking cars. Not creating incentives for walk on passengers is ridiculous. Price
14 parking as well. It is called a transportation demand management mix. All of these things,
15 when done together, will create a much better system, especially when investment follows
16 policy. They will be able to shape demand. People's behaviors will change. Councilmember
17 Weimer's proposal doesn't go far enough. Discuss peak pricing also. They're dealing with
18 resource allocation. Look at the demand a certain type of vehicle or a certain passenger
19 puts on the system. Run the ferry system as if it were a transit system. Be sensitive to
20 marketing and consumer needs, which good transit planning can provide.
21
22 Richardson stated he will set up a meeting with Councilmembers Brenner and
23 Weimer, Ms. Ging, and Mr. Kinney.
24
25 A big issue for everyone is that there is a bus system out there, but people have to
26 wait up to 30 minutes to get on the bus. There has been discussion of developing a transit
27 terminal, but they'd have to negotiate with the Lummi Nation. That will take more time
28 than they want to take.
29
30 Brenner stated the public hearing will not be on November 8. She will make sure the
31 residents are notified.
32
33 Crawford withdrew his motion.
34
35 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
36 FOR 2007 -2012 (WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — APPENDIX F)
37 (AB2006 -384)
38
39 This item was not discussed, and held in committee to November 8, 2006.
40
41
42 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMM NDATION TO COUNCIL
43
44 1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INCENTIVES FOR ACCESSORY RESIDENCES,
45 INCLUDING COTTAGES AND CARRIAGE HOUSES (AB2006 -346)
46
47 This item is withdrawn from the agenda.
48
49
50 OTHER BUSINESS
51
52 There was no other business.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
AD30URN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
r
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: ► ►ttttttr�i�
Dana grow- Davis, o ci Clerk=
STATE OF*
•,�� y�N0.•.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/24/2006, Page 9