HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance July 16 20021
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
July 16, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Sam
Crawford in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 88 -015, ESTABLISHING THE
FERRY PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND, INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY
$400 FOR A TOTAL OF $800 (AB2002 -241)
Eric Schlehuber, Office Administrator, addressed this item and the next two
items. Regarding the first item, each purser will double till from $50 to $100.
Regarding the second item, they want to dissolve the fund because they no longer
need it. The third item is an increase to make appropriate change for selling ferry
passes and other items at the office.
Roy moved to approve items one through three.
Brenner asked why they are changing the fund in number three. Schlehuber
stated they've changed the ferry rates, which have gone up. They are dealing with
larger amounts.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE 82 -107, ESTABLISHING A
SOLID WASTE PETTY CASH MANAGEMENT REVOLVING FUND
(AB2002 -242)
See item one, above.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 88 -049, ESTABLISHING THE
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND,
INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY $100 FOR A TOTAL OF $200 (AB2002-
243)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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.
See item one, above.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
20. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A SALARY SCHEDULE
AND POLICIES FOR UNREPRESENTED WHATCOM COUNTY EMPLOYEES
FOR THE YEAR 2002 (AB2002 -272)
Crawford stated this item would be best discussed during the Committee of
the Whole meeting because it deals with salary negotiations.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -52 FOR ROADWAY CURBS AND GIRDERS TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER, PACIFIC CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $50,398.62 (AB2002 -253)
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE
PURCHASE FROM DUPONT FLOORING SYSTEMS AS SOLE SOURCE FOR
REPLACEMENT CARPET AND INSTALLATION FOR VARIOUS AREAS
WITHIN THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,317.17
(AB2002 -254)
Crawford asked if this is a budgeted item.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is.
Roy moved to recommend approval.
Brenner asked why the contractor is considered sole source.
Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manger, stated that for this product, the
County has to have someone who is authorized by the manufacturer to install it for
the warrantee. There is only one installer in the Northwest.
Brenner asked why they are going with this product.
Mike Russell, Facilities Supervisor, stated this is the only carpet recognized
by Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA), and it also meets all the Washington
State indoor air quality standards. The installation of this carpet has eliminated any
complaints about health, vapors, fumes, off - gassing, and VOC's.
Desler stated the carpet is interchangeable. It comes in large pieces. When
a piece wears out, they just put another piece in. They can't do that with the carpet
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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
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.
that is in place now. This new carpet will be a permanent solution for the flooring
needs of the County.
McShane asked if they would be able to replace the areas where people are
walking through, without replacing carpet in areas where people aren't walking.
Desler stated that is correct. High- traffic areas will be replaced first. The floor that
was put in ten years ago did not last. This is a longer -term solution.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND TECHNICAL RESULTS
GROUP, LTD., FOR LAW AND JUSTICE COUNCIL COORDINATION
SERVICES IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $19,250 (AB2002 -255)
Crawford stated there is a corrected amount of $21,000, which is what is
listed in the Council packet information. This will carry them through the end of
this fiscal year. It was approved as part of the law and justice package. This
comes in lower than the cap of $40,000.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County approved slightly
less than $40,000 in funding for this program. The City of Bellingham approved a
similar amount. They have been contracting with the Northwest Regional Council to
perform all the services. The Law and Justice Council and Executive's Office
recommend that they carve out the piece that relates to the Law and Justice
Council coordination of services to have professional assistance. There was a
request for proposal (RFP) process this spring. It resulted in one proposal from
Technical Results Group, which is recommended. The primary person with this
group is Ron Peterson, a former County Sheriff's Office manager. The
recommendation from the Law and Justice Council and Executive is to continue the
activities of this group and the service. The scope of work description is in the
Council's packet.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Brenner stated she is opposed to this. She is opposed to putting any more
money into the Law and Justice Council. The Law and Justice Council was supposed
to put together a plan, which it did. It was not supposed to continue indefinitely.
It's become its own bureaucracy. Now they are hiring someone from the criminal
justice industry, which is disturbing. This system is feeding itself. It's time to say
no. When the County Council overrode the wishes of the Juvenile Detention
Division by saying it wants the Northwest Care Advocates care program to
continue, the division ignored the Law and Justice Council and unilaterally formed
their own task force that included the Northwest Care Advocates opponents.
Anytime the administration disagrees with the Council's decision, the administration
will just form its own task force. It's time to let the departments tweak things
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 3
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.
1 themselves. The plan is already there. They don't need to continue this Law and
2 Justice Council. They've spent a lot of money on it already. It's time to move on.
3
4 Crawford stated the purpose of the Law and Justice Council includes making
5 recommendations. It was developed from a splintered number of departments
6 involved with criminal justice. They were all coming forward with requests and with
7 little coordination. There is now a functioning group that brings the departments
8 together and makes the recommendations regarding criminal justice funds. The
9 issue this past year about staff support has been contentious. This goes through
10 2002.
11
12 Very soon, the Council is going to deal with the 2003 budget. At that point,
13 it will assess the effectiveness of the Law and Justice Council to understand what
14 they want to do in the future. At that time, the Council may reevaluate the need
15 for this position.
16
17 Roy asked what would happen if the Council did not approve this item.
18
19 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County Council established
20 the effort to revive the Law and Justice Council, which is required by the State.
21 Whatcom County spends $30 million per year on law and justice. The rest of the
22 communities spend another $15 million to $20 million. Law and justice is not a
23 well -oiled machine. It is relatively inefficient. It involves different levels and types
24 of government. The Law and Justice Council is designed to bring them together
25 and focus on key results. The value of this in the coming months is to see the
26 results because County Council invested a lot of money in new programs that have
27 been going for about a year. They are going to review the first year of those
28 programs.
29
30 A high priority of the plan was to develop a better information system
31 through the law and justice system. The County has been working with federal
32 funding sources to get funding for that information system. The support of the Law
33 and Justice Council is key.
34
35 The third issue is solving the jail problems in the community. The Law and
36 Justice Council will play a key role in contributing to that solution.
37
38 Brenner stated she disagreed that the Law and Justice Council makes
39 everything better. It's another level of middle management. She asked what the
40 State exactly requires. She doesn't think the County is required to fund this
41 position. She also doesn't think the County is required to fund anything. The
42 County has its plan, and it is not required to keep this going ad nauseam. She
43 supports the data outcomes. The County could hire the coordinator directly to work
44 on data collection and to see where the County's problems are. That is the crux of
45 the problem. Find out where there are problems and where the departments are
46 working with each other, and make them coordinate better. They don't need a
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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
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.
huge bureaucracy to do that. This is the time to not approve this, not at budget
time after they've hired someone.
Roy asked if the money is already in the budget.
Crawford stated it is.
McShane asked if this is a contract that came out of the Law and Justice
Council budget. Desler stated it is.
McShane stated he is a bit worried that they've created a monster, but he
will approve this contract. However, he will look carefully at funding this program
during the next budget. He's concerned about the ongoing expense.
Brenner stated that just because something is in the budget doesn't mean
they have to spend it.
Roy stated she will vote for it, but agreed with Councilmember McShane.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND CHAMBERS AND WELLS
COUNSELING SERVICES TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE
PREVENTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 (AB2002 -256)
Crawford stated he is impressed that Chambers and Wells are there for every
meeting, which is more than required, and are participating.
Andy Byrne, Human Services Manager, stated they began forming this
contract a year ago. This service is unique. Typically, they do substance abuse
messages broadly. This program identifies kids of the highest risk, those kids in
families in substance abuse treatment. This program focuses intense services on
those kids for a period of 12 months to reduce their risk factors.
Roy asked where they get their referrals. Byrne stated that because of
substance abuse confidentiality, they don't get referrals. They ask the contractor to
identify people. The contractor will recruit other family members in the family who
are not using substances yet.
Roy asked about outreach. Byrne stated they do community -wide prevention
in other programs. This targets specific kids.
Roy moved to recommend approval.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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.
Brenner asked how they know that the program is effective if it is based in
confidentiality. Byrne stated they are asking the contractor to collect specific data
about the risk factors at the beginning and end of the treatment.
Brenner stated she is not comfortable with the contractor collecting the data.
A third party will collect the data. Byrne stated the County will monitor the
contractor and the kind of evaluations and data that the contractor collects. The
County can't look at individual kids to see how they did because of confidentiality.
Brenner asked how the County would evaluate the contractor's data. Byrne
stated that with this contract, the County wouldn't be able to audit without a client
releasing information.
Brenner asked if the contractor gives the people information on where they
can go if they have complaints. Byrne stated the contractor does.
Brenner asked if there is a model that shows this program works. Byrne
stated this was identified by a regional organization as a best practice model.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND LOCAL FOCUS TO PROVIDE
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN AN AMOUNT
DEPENDENT ON PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM
COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM (AB2002 -257)
Crawford stated they would discuss items five through twelve concurrently.
He would like to consider them at the same time.
McShane moved to recommend approval of items five through twelve.
Andy Byrne, Human Services Manager, stated they have been trying to be
more efficient administratively. They used to have 25 contracts. Now there is
eight. They used to contract with providers for each different service. When a
client wanted to move between services, they would have to amend the contract.
These administrative efficiencies provide better choices for the consumer. The
dollars are paid based on services pre- authorized by the Health Department.
Roy asked if the preauthorization is a new factor. Byrne stated it is not. The
State would come to the Health Department with a referral. The provider would
agree to provide the service, and the consumer would want the service. However,
that can't happen until the service authorization forms are okayed. The County will
approve a certain rate and fee based on what the County's best estimate is. The
County has a set limited amount of dollars from the State. His office must make
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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
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.
sure they don't authorize more money than they have. Any contract could serve
any number of clients. All the contracts won't be over the total amount the County
gets from the State.
Roy asked if a provider would get a certain amount of money on
preauthorized contracts, and if the provider has flexibility in terms of how the
provider delivers the services to each of its clients. Byrne stated they don't. It is
based on estimated or historical need. They have a good idea of how many service
hours a client may need. The statement of work specifies the types of services
they want to provide with that money. There is a range of services available. The
provider has the flexibility to provide fewer services if a client needs fewer services
in a month, and to use the total amount authorized on other clients.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND MT. VIEW GROUP HOME TO
PROVIDE SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES,
IN AN AMOUNT DEPENDENT ON PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE
WHATCOM COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM (AB2002 -258)
See item five, above.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COUNCIL ON AGING TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
IN AN AMOUNT DEPENDENT ON PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE
WHATCOM COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM (AB2002 -259)
See item five, above.
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR
WASHINGTON TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES IN AN AMOUNT DEPENDENT ON PRE -
AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM
(AB2002 -260)
See item five, above.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 7
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.
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE WHATCOM CENTER FOR
EARLY LEARNING TO PROVIDE EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES FOR
CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN AMOUNT
DEPENDENT ON PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM
COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM (AB2002 -261)
See item five, above.
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED
EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO
PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN AMOUNT
DEPENDENT ON PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM
COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM (AB2002 -262)
See item five, above.
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND CURRENT INDUSTRIES TO
PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR ADULTS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN AN AMOUNT DEPENDENT ON
PRE - AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM
(AB2002 -263)
See item five, above.
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL
SERVICES TO PROVIDE SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT AND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES, IN AN AMOUNT DEPENDING ON PRE -
AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY D.D. PROGRAM
(AB2002 -264)
See item five, above.
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DSHS —
PASSPORT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND
EXTEND THE CURRENT AGREEMENT AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS, IN
AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $24,496 FOR A TOTAL MAXIMUM
CONSIDERATION NOT TO EXCEED $173,851 (AB2002 -265)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 8
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.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Department Director, stated
this is the Passport Program, which is totally funded with State dollars. It is a
system to ensure that children in foster care are adequately tracked in terms of
their medical care.
Roy moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DSHS —
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS), TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING OF $23,882 AND EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT FOR
AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS, IN AN AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $169,495 (AB2002 -266)
Crawford asked if this is the same situation as the previous item.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, stated it is similar.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT — MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL NARCOTICS TASK FORCE
PROGRAM CONTRACT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
NORTHWEST REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE IN THE FUNDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $118,056 (AB2002 -267)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they've had an ongoing
arrangement for several years. The County receives Department of Justice money
for the drug task force effort. A number of agencies are involved in that effort.
Roy moved to recommend approval. She asked what the Task Force does.
Desler stated the Task Force investigates and arrests drug dealers and users. The
Task Force is a coordination of efforts where various agencies are assigned specific
people to work only on drug interdiction efforts. It is very covert.
Roy asked if the County has any choice on how to use this money. She
asked if they have to use it on enforcement, or if they can use it for education.
Desler stated the task force has been around for about 20 years. It's well
established, but the County doesn't have to do it. It is something that the federal
government has assigned resources to. This is a positive arrangement.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 9
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 asked if the $491,860 match is from the County's general fund.
Desler stated that a lot of it is County money. He doesn't have all the details at
hand, but he can get them. The prosecutor's drug fund money comes from this.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated this has become a large contract. He is interested in looking
at this further, and looking at the matching money. He doesn't know how
successful this 20 -year battle on drugs has been. He would like to make a
comparison of this task force and what will happen if they don't do anything. They
are pouring in $600,000 just in the Sheriff's budget. He asked how many other
fiscal impacts there are to the jail. The money in the program seems to be
targeted to the smaller operators. He is concerned about the big picture of what
this might be doing to the general fund. The federal government is so worried
about this, but it is not providing the County much money compared to what the
County is spending. Maybe the County is not getting the federal money it should
get from being on the border. However, now is not the time to decide not to
approve the contract, since it started July 1.
Crawford stated National Public Radio (NPR) recently featured Sheriff Dale
Brandland and Prosecutor Dave McEachran on a nationwide program on this subject
and Whatcom County's relationship with the border and the fact that the federal
government is not paying its share in dealing with these issues. He asked if the
administration could set up a presentation to explain its perspective on what is
happening with this money and what the possible solutions are.
Desler stated the committee could pass a motion that requests a
presentation on information that includes where the match money comes from, the
task force results in the last 20- years, and the efforts that are underway for
receiving more federal funds in the future to support this effort. A motion would
get a better response from the people from whom they need to get the information.
Crawford asked Desler to set up that presentation.
Brenner stated she has a problem with continuing to spend this kind of
money on prosecution. She would support the money if it were for treatment. This
idea is of criminalizing people with drug problems. Deciding what drugs are illegal
is a political decision. They are not winning the war on drugs. They are just
creating bigger bureaucracies. This whole idea is despicable.
Roy agreed with having more information on this issue. She asked if this is
one of the programs being evaluated by the Law and Justice Council. Desler stated
it is not.
Roy asked if the County gets information on the results of the task force.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 10
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 that question could be incorporated in the presentation.
McShane stated he supports the contract for the time being. There are so
many local problems they have to deal with. He wonders if they are slowly taking
on a problem that is not a local problem because of a policy decision made
elsewhere.
Motion carried unanimously.
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND INTER- FLUVE, INC., TO PROVIDE PHASE 2 WORK ON THE
BEAVER CREEK BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT IN THE AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $27,152 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$134,403 (AB2002 -268)
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated Inter -Fluve provided
four alternatives for this project. Two alternatives protect the bank and two
alternatives protect the pipeline. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee chose one of each type of protection. The advisory committee chose to
do a bank protection project to protect the two properties and the house, or to do a
sewer encasement to protect the sewer. They needed to start permitting the
project in May to begin work this summer. The advisory committee recommended
talking with Water District 10 to get their participation. Ideally, the water district
would do pipeline encasement at the same time that the County did the bank
protection project on the house. Both properties and the pipeline would have all
been protected. However, it didn't turn out that way. The water district feels that
this site is not much different than other sites in their jurisdiction. The water
district feels that it needs a comprehensive analysis of their entire system. The
water district approves of the County's project, but cannot fund its portion of the
project right now because the situation is not an imminent threat. The situation
now is that the pipe goes under the creek and has three feet of cover. She
calculates that they will see two feet of scour.
The advisory committee reconsidered the project because the water district
is not participating. The advisory committee recommended moving forward with
the bank stabilization project. The advisory committee also recommended that the
project be conditioned on the water district signing a hold harmless agreement so,
if the County does the project and anything happens to their pipeline that has to be
fixed, the water district will hold the County harmless from anything that happens
to their pipeline, and the water district will put the County's project back when they
are done. The water district agreed to the hold harmless agreement, but still does
not want to move forward on their portion of the project right now. The water
district feels that the County's project will provide some protection by keeping the
creek from migrating farther downstream and exposing new portions of the
pipeline. The water district is also interested in monitoring this site to see how the
bank stabilization project would actually impact their pipeline. At this point, she
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 11
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.
would like the Council to provide direction on whether staff should move forward on
this project. Inter -Fluve had some money left from phase I. They've spent about
$3,000 beyond what they allocated for phase I.
Brenner stated she supported the project because all the parties supported
it. She asked Ms. Cooper's opinion of the project. Cooper stated the solution
seems appropriate. The question is what the public interest is because the project
won't protect the pipeline.
Roy asked if the County would go out and fix this if this was a meandering
creek somewhere else with a house nearby. Cooper stated they have in the past.
There is usually some type of public interest. They have done bank stabilization
projects, but they are typically part of a bigger system where they want to stabilize
the system.
Roy stated she is concerned about setting a precedent for fixing something
that is threatening private property. Cooper stated the question is whether there is
enough of a public interest value for the water district to learn from and for the
County to protect a couple of properties and a house.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is an appropriate
question. They always need to look at the public benefit. He doesn't have an
opinion on this case specifically because he doesn't know enough about the system.
McShane asked if it is correct that Inter -Fluve has spent $107,000 so far on
Beaver Creek. Cooper stated no. About $40,000 was allocated to an alternatives
analysis for Beaver Creek. The other $67,000 is for Mosquito Lake Road.
McShane stated they've done an alternative analysis. He asked if the
remaining work is a final design. Cooper stated that is correct.
McShane asked if the final design would cost $27,000. Cooper stated that
includes construction and inspection assistance.
McShane asked if this design included another parcel on Beaver Creek.
Cooper stated it does. The neighboring property is imminently threatened, and it is
undeveloped.
McShane asked about an estimate for construction costs. Cooper stated the
construction estimate is approximately $80,000 or $85,000.
McShane stated projects like this require a match from the property owner.
Cooper stated that is correct. A property owner would typically pay 20 percent, or
15 percent if the project is designed to enhance fisheries, which this would.
McShane asked if they could deviate from that match amount. Cooper stated
the Council can.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 12
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 he would prefer to deviate from the 80/20 contribution. The
project was a stretch with the sewer line, but now it's gone beyond that. The
property owner should put up more than 15 percent, and the property next door
shouldn't be developed at all.
Deb Lambert, Water District 10, stated the water district hopes to work with
the County and Department of Ecology (DOE) on a long -term solution for this
situation. The question is whether the County is responsible to protect someone
who knowingly buys and builds on a flood plain. The water district comes from a
different perspective in that there is the Clean Water Act, clean water lawsuits, and
fines and stipulations. Unfortunately, there is a system that runs parallel to and
through the creeks in Sudden Valley. When the water district looked at this
situation, they believe that doing one area at a time doesn't make sense. In some
instances, they've rerouted the sewer lines that have gone through the creek. They
are trying to look at long -term planning.
Brenner asked if this would still help prevent pipe damage, even without the
water district participation. Cooper stated meander bends tend to migrate
downstream, which is what this meander bend does. If it continues to migrate, it
could expose more of the pipeline.
Brenner stated it is in the public's interest to prevent the pipes from being
exposed and damaged. She liked Councilmember McShane's idea. She would be
more interested in a 50/50 match. Cooper stated it would just be a matter of the
Council changing the match percentage in the flood works agreement with the
property owner.
Brenner asked if the County has any liability if it doesn't fund this and the
pipes break or a person gets flooded. Gibson stated the County does not have any
legal liability.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported Councilmember McShane's idea of
changing the funding structure. She encouraged the landowners to pay 60 percent,
since it will benefit them the most.
Roy stated she doesn't want the County to get involved. It's hard to
rationalize spending public money on this.
Brenner stated the only reason to be involved is that there would be a public
interest if those pipes go, even if it were caused by a private entity. She asked if
the persons who built this house knew that they were building in the flood plain.
Cooper stated no. The people bought the house within the last year. They weren't
from around here and familiar with the streams.
McShane stated the public benefit is that if the River and Flood Division is not
involved, there is a tendency for the public to do things without having a good
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 13
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.
design. The County already provided a fair amount of design on this project. If
this were to go forward, an approach would be to enter into agreement with the
property owners. The County would take care of the engineering cost, and the
owners would pay for the construction cost in its entirety, up to a certain amount.
There is a benefit to doing a good, fish - friendly project.
Roy questioned whether the County is responsible for someone's lack of good
judgment.
Brenner stated that people do need to know about a piece of property they
are purchasing. Cooper stated she doesn't know if this is a flood plain. The
problem is erosion, not flooding.
Brenner asked if there are ramifications to other properties if the County
doesn't do this project. Cooper stated they don't have a long -term plan for this
area. The creek will continue to move if it is not stabilized. There is a good chance
it could take out that house this winter. It will impact other properties and more of
the pipeline.
Brenner asked if there is a better place to stabilize it. Cooper stated this is
the place. Rivers adjust to the sediment and flow that comes down the river.
McShane moved to approve the Inter -Fluve contract amount, pending
agreement that the property owner or owners pay the full construction cost.
Crawford asked the cost of construction. Cooper stated the preliminary
indication is that the construction will cost about $80,000.
Cooper asked if the owners would contract with a contractor for the
construction, or if the County would do the construction and be reimbursed by the
property owners.
McShane stated the County should build it.
Crawford asked the assessed value of the house. Cooper stated she doesn't
know that information.
Brenner asked that the staff send information to the owners letting them
know that any work they do has to be permitted. She wants to make sure that the
owners don't do something they shouldn't.
Crawford asked what would happen if the owner decides not to pay for the
construction. He asked if the County would just not do the project.
McShane stated that is correct.
Crawford asked if there would be liability to the County.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 14
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
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.
Roy stated they've been told that the County is not responsible.
Gibson stated the question is whether the County formed a special
relationship and obligated itself to the owners. The answer is no.
Crawford asked if the County received a recommendation from the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee. Cooper stated yes.
Crawford stated Water District 10 recommends moving forward.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she initially approved of the project because of the
Water District 10 contribution and protecting the pipeline. She asked if the owner
has recourse from the person who sold them the property. Cooper stated it was a
For Sale by Owner.
Crawford stated that is a civil matter.
Crawford asked if the existing undeveloped lots in the area are subject to
regulations that this house wasn't subject to when it was built. Cooper stated she
believes they are still buildable lots.
McShane stated it would be a matter of whether the Planning Department
would require a critical area evaluation. The builder would have to hire someone to
determine whether or not it is safe.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would be liable if it is permitted.
McShane stated no. The builder has to hire his or her own individual
contractor to make that determination. The contractor would be liable. The County
does review the reports it receives. On occasion, the County has challenged a
report, which goes through the Hearing Examiner and Council appeal process. It's
difficult to protect everyone. Unfortunately, this property owner didn't do some of
the due diligence that he or she should have. He has sympathy for these kinds of
people. They don't have any idea how huge the creek flow can become.
Crawford stated he would speak in favor of the motion, with regrets and
sympathy to the property owner. He restated the motion to propose to the owner
that the County will continue with reconstruction, if the owner agrees to bear the
cost of construction.
Gibson stated the ordinance is written so that the County does the projects,
and the owner shall contribute 20 percent, which means that the owner shall pay at
least 20 percent. If the owner really wants the project to be done, then the owner
can volunteer to pay more.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, 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
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 there is any potential for County liability if this is approved.
Gibson stated there is not. The choice to move forward is still up to the owners.
Motion carried unanimously.
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RE
SOURCES TO PROVIDE CLASSROOM EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2002 -269)
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Roy out of the room.
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PERMIT
PROCESSING OF AN INVOICE FOR PAYMENT OF THE 2002
RETROACTIVE ASSESSMENT FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTIES
RISK POOL IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,139 (AB2002 -270)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this is one part of multiple
insurance arrangements. They are committed to contributing to the cost of the
premiums. The amount is within the budgeted amount.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Motion carried 2 -0 with Roy out of the room.
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM REGARDING PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION (AB2002 -271)
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the ordinance was
introduced two weeks ago. This is an interlocal agreement. It doesn't require the
same time period for approval as the ordinance.
Crawford stated they could review the changes at the evening meeting after
the public hearing.
The committee concurred.
Brenner asked if the sales tax money would totally pay for this.
(Clerk's note: unidentified staff person indicated that is correct.)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 16
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
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.
Gibson stated the public hearing tonight is on the ordinance.
McShane stated they could have the hearing on this ordinance. If approved,
the Council could approve this interlocal agreement.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the Council took the direction to
create this district in the spring. Shortly thereafter, there were changes to create a
joint City /County public facilities district. That's what this is about.
Brenner asked if the County could form another district with another city in
the county. Gibson stated the requirement under Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 35.57 and RCW 82.14 is for the expenditure of at least $10 million.
Practically speaking, there isn't any other city in the county that has that kind of
money.
McShane moved to recommend approval, pending the approval of the
ordinance.
Gibson stated the City of Bellingham approved the agreement yesterday.
The resolution appointing board members will also be before the County Council
tonight, and was approved by the City Council last night.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST CARE
ADVOCATES (AB2002 -043)
Brenner stated the County Council discussed this in the fall. At that time, the
County Council said it wanted to continue this program and fund it for six months,
with the condition that the administration would come back to the Council during
that period with a solution of how to fund it for an additional six months through
grants. The concept was to fund it for an entire year so they can collect the data
necessary to give the County the information it needs to go after more grant money
for this program. That was the motion. At the time, Mr. Desler said the
administration will find the money if this is a high priority. The Council said it was a
high priority. The Council voted on doing that with the understanding that the
administration would come back to the Council.
Now that contract has lapsed. No one has come before the Council with any
information. That wasn't the directive of the Council. The Council clearly said what
it wanted. She asked why it didn't happen. They need to fix it. The program still
doesn't have enough data to get more grant funding. The County committed
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 17
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.
money already to do this. She asked what they can do to fix the situation, and why
this hasn't come to the Council before the contract lapsed.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated in the spring of 2001, there
were recommendations to the Council as a part of all the law and justice programs.
One recommendation was to approve a contract with Northwest Care Advocates.
That contract ran to the end of 2001. The administration chose not to extend the
contract, as a part of the administration's efforts to balance the budget for 2002.
During the budget deliberation process, the Council approved an additional
appropriation of $40,000 for the first six months of 2002. At that time, he told the
Council that the administration would support the effort to continue the program at
the Council's direction, and would work closely with the mental health community
to find other appropriate resources to support some kind of a response to this
problem in the community.
The next day he asked the Law and Justice Council to help the administration
come up with a solution of how to address the needs of these youth, who are at
risk. The Law and Justice Council created an 18 or 20 member task force that
worked over the next few months. There was a number of people from the
community who represented other human services community. The task force met
for a number of weeks, and presented a number of recommendations. Those
recommendations have not been formally transmitted from the Law and Justice
Council to the County Council. The administration took the recommendations from
that task force, with all the elements, and submitted a grant application to a
governor's committee for $80,000. The application did not look like the existing
contract with Northwest Care Advocates, but it did address the recommendations
that came out of this task force. The response from the governor's committee was
that it was not prepared to provide funding until July 2003.
The administration submitted another application for funding through June
2003. He is confident that they will get funding for that effort. That effort would
specifically implement the recommendations that came from that committee to
respond to these issues. It does not include money to contract with Northwest
Care Advocates. It does respect the recommendations of the Juvenile Services
Administration and the special task force. He expects to present all of this to the
Council soon for its approval. He tried to follow the intent of the Council. He also
sought to build a consensus among a lot of people on what they should be doing.
Brenner stated Mr. Desler just made comments that are not accurate. The
Council was very clear in what they voted on. The Council said it wanted the level
of crisis management services. Mr. Desler is talking about addressing the general
needs of the youth. The Council didn't talk about that. The Council specified crisis
management services at a level that they were. Juvenile Detention refused to
sponsor Northwest Care Advocates in applying for a grant because they said it
would compete directly with Juvenile Detention. Juvenile Detention didn't get the
grant. Maybe Northwest Care Advocates would have gotten a grant. The County is
supposed to do what is in the public's interest, not what is in the interest of some
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 18
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.
1 department head. The Council made a decision and it wasn't respected. The
2 administration submitted a grant application, but it won't get the grant for this
3 year. However, they refused to let someone else submit an application, which
4 would have been funding for the County to use for those programs. Mr. Desler said
5 that the Council gave direction on the general needs of youth. That is not what the
6 Council voted on. The Council vote was about continuing that level of service for
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
crisis management in Juvenile Detention, and nothing else. Most of the people on
that task force are in direct competition for monies with Northwest Care Advocates.
The only people who didn't have a financial interest in this outcome were the
National Alliance for the Mentally III (NAMI) representative and a consumer. They
both voted to continue the program. There was a stacked deck on that task force
from start to finish. It's appalling that the County would treat any contractor that
way. The kids in Juvenile Detention are not getting the service they were getting.
They are not going to be able to go another year without an increase in accidents
and injuries. This isn't just an issue. They are talking about people's lives. The
administration has no right to ignore the Council's direction.
Crawford stated he has been attending the Law and Justice Council meetings.
Until the County Council decides that the Law and Justice Council is no longer
effective, he will respect their concerns and requests for how the County
approaches the criminal justice system because they are the experts.
Roy stated she attended a County Council budget meeting before she was
elected to the County Council. As a member of the audience, she recalls the
discussion the Council had on this issue, which is different from what Mr. Desler
said. She remembers a level of service discussion. She would like that discrepancy
clarified. She thought the Council's discussion last year was about having the same
level of service for the rest of the year.
Desler stated he thought a very general discussion took place on that date.
There was no specificity to it. The administration asked a lot of people to help them
understand the needs of the youth. The task force came up with a report. The
administration took that report to heart. The administration thinks it will be able to
get funding for the program so it doesn't come from the general fund. He thinks
the funding will be sustained over a multi -year period. The executive branch thinks
that meets the intent and purpose of what the Council took as an action on
November 13, 2001. The administration never said it would continue a contract
with Northwest Care Advocates for what they were doing. The administration
wanted to respond to the problem and provide a general level of service that dealt
with that problem.
McShane stated he recalled budgeting the service for half a year. It's clear
what the Council's policy direction was. The Council doesn't do contracts. There is
a dispute here about how contractors are treated. He saw some letters go back
and forth between the members of that task force. The tone of those letters was
disturbing. The conflict has caused harm to individuals who are committed to the
mentally ill. He hopes not too much damage has been done.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 19
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
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 that in two weeks, a proposal would come from the Law and
Justice Committee. He has a hard time understanding the importance of
addressing this now. They will have this debate in two weeks.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CREATION OF A WHATCOM COUNTY
DEBT POLICY (AB2002 -252)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that recent changes in State law
call for the County to develop a debt policy. The Treasurer's Office staff has a
draft. In the future, they can refinance debt to take advantage of lower interest
rates. This is an initial discussion about this issue. He expects to have more
involvement by administration and Council in building a debt policy.
Karen Thomas, Cash Management Administrator, stated someone from the
Treasurer's Office introduced the debt policy to the Administrative Finance
Committee. Under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), that is the committee
that approves the debt policy for the County. There are issues in the draft that go
beyond the scope of that committee. This is a good place to bring it up to discuss
how to proceed.
Crawford stated that the word 'debt' in this context refers to anything that
the County finances. He asked if the County has historically taken on much debt.
Karen stated it has not.
Desler stated the County has a low debt load compared to other jurisdictions
in the state. The debt load has to do with buildings. The County makes a
semiannual payment for this building and the Civic Center building. The bonds
have different dates of maturity and different interest rates. Part of the debt policy
would include a review of the decision - making process in regard to refinancing debt
or taking on new debt. The .8 of one percent of sales tax that the County collects
might be used to repay the bonds.
Crawford asked if it would be a good time to assume some debt now given
the low interest rates. Thomas stated the government doesn't like it when counties
and local governments borrow at low rates and then invest it. It is making money
off the U.S. Government because local governments borrow at tax - advantaged
rates. There are income limiting rules in place that require the local governments
to use the money within a certain number of years, or pay it back to the U.S.
Government. The Administrative Finance Committee will talk next week about
possibly refinancing some of the outstanding debt.
Roy asked if the County currently has a debt policy. Thomas stated no. This
is a draft of a new document. The County has done things in traditional ways, but
there are issues that Council needs to consider, such as targeting a credit rating.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 20
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
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.
Nelson stated this is a draft policy. There is no County debt policy currently.
The administration needs to be involved. They need to understand the goals and
objectives for capital investments in the future, how this pertains to investment
strategies, what type of strategies they are implementing currently, and the
impacts of those strategies from this type of policy.
Thomas stated the Treasurer's Office can continue to work on the draft if
everyone is comfortable with it. They can go to the various parties as needed.
When the staff comes up with a final recommended policy, it can come back.
Crawford stated that is what he prefers. When the final recommended
version comes to the Council, it would be helpful if it contained hypothetical
situations to make it clearer to him and others who are not very familiar with
county credit ratings. Thomas stated the policy could be as general or as specific
as they want. The Council can give the Treasurer's Office as much control over the
debt as it wants to.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/16/2002, Page 21