HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council March 16 2004 afternoon1
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
March 16, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 1:43 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S MASTER FACILITIES
PLAN (AB2003 -288)
McShane stated the councilmembers have decided on the criteria they will
use. Now they would weigh the criteria for each master plan option. After that,
they'll let it sit for awhile before reviewing the results. The next steps will be to
draft a plan for public comment. After the Council does the scoring on the criteria,
they will hear from administration about the status of the temporary jail planning.
The criteria worksheet has been forwarded to Councilmember Nelson. He will
complete his worksheet and mail it to the Council Office. The weighing of the
criteria and each option does not commit the Council to a final decision. The
Council will review the results of this process.
The councilmembers weighed each criteria individually, as shown on the
Potential Master Plan Option Evaluation Criteria ranking form (on file).
2.d.
Roy moved to delete criterion 2.e because it is duplicative of criterion 2.b.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to delete criterion 4.a because it's duplicative of criterion
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated the next step is to see how each option fits the criteria.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they really have concrete cost estimates.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 1
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated the councilmembers can ask clarifying questions. Don't pre-
determine where an off -site location might go yet. A new facility doesn't
necessarily have to promote urban sprawl. He asked if they want to consider a
fourth option.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a fourth option could be splitting the law and justice
function away from the jail.
Roy asked how much acreage they're talking about when they talk about the
modular design of option one. Desler stated there is one design that shows 25
acres and the other is 50 acres. The difference is a more sustainable long -term
facility. Site needs are generated largely by parking needs. A 20- or 25 -acre site is
used, they'd just expand parking vertically. Fifty acres for a community doubling in
size every 15 years puts demands on the criminal and civil justice system. There is
a fair amount of growth in that system. A larger site will accommodate the growth
over time. There is an option of 25 acres with parking going up.
Don Hogan, HDR Architect, stated that with the 25 -acre site, the possibility
of expansion is compromised. The larger site allows a 100 -foot buffer around the
property, which uses up a large area. The Kent facility in King County is built on
seven or eight acres in a downtown location. There's no room for expansion, and
the County is planning to expand at another location.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to consider an option of separate law and justice
and jail facilities, even though it hasn't been studied. The idea is to keep some pre -
sentenced inmates near the law and justice center.
Fleetwood asked N.F. Jackson to provide an opinion on that option.
N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Clerk, stated he submitted many memos on this
issue. There are two remote possibilities. One is a remote jail with courts at a
different location. That hasn't happened. A more common option, which he is
opposed to, is to split the courts. Criminal courts go to the detention facility and
civil courts stay at a different location. That is more common. Most juvenile
facilities have split courts and court staff. Other counties in the state do that.
About half the counties have remote juvenile facilities with co- located law and
justice offices, including courts.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if those facilities are outside the county seat.
Jackson stated he believed most are. He's not aware in the State of Washington of
a remote detention facility that does not have courts co- located there.
McShane asked the rationale of having juvenile and adult facilities split.
Jackson stated juveniles and adults can't be co- housed. Having split facilities is a
legacy from the past. In Superior Court in one week, they see 150 to 180 inmates.
They'd have to keep them all near the courts.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if Mr. Jackson doesn't support remote location. Jackson
stated he is opposed because of the inefficiencies that would develop regarding the
cost associated with splitting the courts. He doesn't mind the having all the courts
being co- located with detention facilities. It is an unwarranted waste of taxpayer
dollars to have split operations.
Fleetwood asked if those 150 to 180 individuals who are seen at court are
separate individuals as opposed to people making multiple trips to jail. Jackson
stated they are separate individuals. He explained the current procedure for
bringing inmates to court.
Brenner stated she doesn't support splitting the law and justice facilities.
McShane stated it would be interesting to evaluate the option.
Fleetwood asked if fully evaluating that option gives direction to HDR to do
additional analysis.
McShane stated the councilmembers might find that it might not be able to
score the option because they don't know enough about it.
The Council concurred to consider Caskey- Schreiber's motion as an
option.
The councilmembers weighed each criteria individually, as shown on the
Potential Master Plan Option Evaluation Criteria scoring matrix (on file).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
The councilmembers continued to weigh each criteria individually, as shown
on the Potential Master Plan Option Evaluation Criteria scoring matrix (on file).
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, gave a presentation on the proposed
Community Corrections and Elections warehouse center (on file). The proposal is
for light industrial buildings in the area of Division Street. There are four
components to the buildings. He read the presentation. They are going to have to
either lease or construct space. Consolidate the locations used for storage of
County equipment. All the alternative corrections programs would be at the
location. There would be 100 to 150 additional beds for minimum security
offenders. The mental health triage center would be used by all the communities.
Often those folks end up either in custody or the hospital. The triage center is not
an operational cost issue.
One building would be a storage and an elections center. The second
building would be a minimum security jail with a corner to be used as a mental
health and substance abuse triage center. Parking would be around the buildings
and in back. The County received eight proposals from architects and engineering
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 3
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
firms. The administration proposes to move ahead with this project. Because of
the time it will take to finish the Master Facilities Plan and site a future project, the
County will need immediate implementation of this project. A remote location can
be effective and efficient, and gives them breathing room until a new jail is built.
If the future County leadership wants to sell the buildings, the buildings should be
pre- designed for weight carrying capacity associated with light industrial use so it
can be converted at a marginal cost and re -sold to the public.
Brenner asked if the mental health triage center could stay there. Desler
stated it wouldn't stay if the buildings are sold. He's not sure if they'll ever sell the
facility. In 10 or 20 years, the mental health triage center could be located in a
new place. It can't stay there if the property is sold to a private property.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about space for animal control operations. Desler
stated that use is not built into this program.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's an issue they will have to discuss. The
current facility is very crowded right now. Desler stated he doesn't anticipate that
the current contractor has the ability to expand.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if Security Specialists Plus (SSP) loses their
contract to house inmates, then they'd vacate. Desler stated the projection shows
that the County could either keep or not keep SSP as a provider.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Sheriff and Jail budgets are based on getting the
money that is now going to SSP. Desler stated that continuing to contract with SSP
will cost approximately $250,000. It's a decision that should be made in the future,
not today. It seems that, given the demands and issues with the population, it's
still an open question.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that for the councilmembers to approve this, they
need to know the true cost of this. She asked how they will know that if they keep
open the option of funding two places.
Desler continued to read from the presentation.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Desler continued to read the presentation regarding associated costs. They
generally find that the cost per inmate per day is $61.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the costs to run the Benton County facility is $53 or
less. She asked how they can charge so much less. Desler stated that is because
of economy of scale. They serve hundreds of people. King County charges close to
$80 and also serves hundreds of people. The cost has to do with union contracts,
employee benefits, and other variable costs. In addition, those eastern Washington
jails don't include the cost of medical services, which is enormous.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated the County's cost to house 150 folks all year for $2 million is
$36.50 per bed per day. Desler stated the $2 million is the net additional cost to
the jail. Aggregating all the costs would reduce the daily rate for all prisoners.
Crawford stated the County would receive greater compensation from the
cities if an increased capacity could accommodate city inmates. Desler stated
$1,078,000 of the total $2 million would come from the cities. The County would
have to pay about $800,000. Fees would bring in about $110,000.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is $250,000 if they decide not to contract with
SSP. The animal control operation is another $300,000, not including license and
adoption fees. They could use the minimum - security inmates for labor.
Crawford asked if the County is currently being compensated from the cities
for the inmates at SSP. Desler stated they are.
McShane stated they have to make sure they have good solid commitments
from the cities. Because the jail was full, the County actually saved the City quite a
bit of money in jail costs that it pays to the County. Given that the cities may all
have budgetary concerns, they need to have a good grasp of the ability to actually
fund sending that many inmates to the County. Make sure there is an agreement
that city revenue will come to the County. Desler stated that if the County takes
this on and develops the project, the costs are there whether or not the facility is
full. They're taking on the obligation as an organization. This is not like the
City /County emergency medical service (EMS) program in which they pay
regardless of which jurisdiction is using the service. The County is on the hook with
this facility. If the cities don't use the service of the jail, the County still has to pay
for the facility. Revenues will go down, and expenses will stay the same. That's an
issue with the jail the past few years. He's meeting with all the mayors next month
to discuss this. They've considered the possibility of signing different contracts with
the cities so the cities are obligated to pay a certain amount for the jail service.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the interim jail is a good step toward the permanent
jail. If they're concerned about the cities' participation now, they'll really be
concerned about it then. Get the cities to participate now.
Fleetwood asked the amount of a one percent property tax increase. Desler
stated that tax increase would bring in approximately $200,000. A one -tenth of
one percent of the sales tax would bring in about $2.7 million in today's dollars.
That amount would go up over time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the interest rates are low. She asked how the
County would pay for the facilities. Desler stated the cost to construct is about $8
million. The administration still has to do more work on revenue sources to prepare
for construction.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about the City's zoning of this property. Desler
stated that if the County didn't acquire the property by July 1, 2004, the property
would revert to its original zone. The actual programming work would occur
between April and August of this year.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the County would pay for construction. Desler
stated there may be a proposal to the public this fall for the one -tenth of one
percent sales tax increase to generate $2.7 million per year, beginning next year.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County needs to proceed with the project even
if the tax increase isn't approved.
McShane stated the purpose today is to show that the County is moving
ahead with planning. The County will have to make decisions based on labor
agreements and the cities to get a good sense of the costs.
Desler stated the additional cost to the County is not something the
administration is prepared to carve from the existing budget.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County just got an extra $250,000 from the real
estate excise tax (BEET). Add the SSP money to make up half the cost. The other
option to not go forward is negligent. Desler stated the County will also need a
bond issue and a levy lift if it's going to get serious.
Crawford asked if the County can look at locations other than the Bakerview
site. The Walton Beverage location is for lease. Desler stated it costs money to
have people to do a site analysis. The County doesn't have that expertise or
capacity on staff. He doesn't know the cost to do the analysis. The Walton
Beverage building hasn't been considered.
Crawford stated there are a lot of advantages to that site. It's right
downtown and close to existing services. Desler stated it would involved tearing it
down and reconstructing it, but the site isn't zoned properly. The City was able to
rezone the Bakerview site according to Growth Management Act timelines. They'd
have to wait to rezone another location this fall.
Crawford stated he believes they can get around that timeline. Desler stated
they could if it were declared an emergency.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Walton Beverage site is probably a better
location, but they've already done a lot of work on the Bakerview location. Don't
keep putting off the interim jail. This problem is so significant, they should try and
solve it as soon as possible.
Crawford stated the Council never decided to go with the Bakerview site.
That decision was handled administratively.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated there was a commitment from the Council to allow the
administration to look for a temporary jail site. There are other possible sites that
could come forward, but there's been a fair bit of progress made on this site. If
there's a problem with the Bakerview site, the County could pull back. For now,
continue forward. The issue is operating costs. There would be seismic issues with
the Walton Beverage site. Desler stated the administration has not asked the
Council for approval of the Bakerview site. Nor has the administration committed
the County to the Bakerview site. It only asked the City to rezone the site.
Desler continued to read the presentation, showing possible properties that
can be traded with the City.
Crawford stated this leaves an approximately $800,000 annual operational
cost hole in the budget. He asked if the Executive would propose a one -tenth of
one percent sales tax increase. Desler stated the administration is talking about a
September or November election for this proposal. There are efforts to encourage
the community to support this. The Executive supports this happening this year.
They are talking to people who have opposed the EMS levy who support this.
Fleetwood asked who at the City will be working on this project with the
County. Desler stated they've worked with Mark Asmundson and Don Keenan.
He's also talking to the City Council members.
is.
Fleetwood asked if it's possible to get copies of the photos. Desler stated it
Desler asked if the administration is on the right track.
The Council concurred that it is.
Desler stated the administration wants to have more information for the
Council and the public after going through the design specification phase, in
preparation for an election probably in November. The administration wants to
prepare materials and information about this project and the Master Facilities Plan.
He hoped the public will support a clear vision for the future that the County has
been working on for several months.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on April 6 , 2004.
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council - Master Facilities Planning, 3/16/2004, Page 8