HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance June 26 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
June 26, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Robert
Imhof in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Absent:
Marlene Dawson
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ANNUAL REVIEW OF FERRY RATES AS SET FORTH IN WHATCOM
COUNTY ORDINANCES NO. 89 -103, 91 -046 AND 93 -040, WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF NO RATE INCREASE FOR 2001 (AB2001 -195)
This item was withdrawn.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB2001-
200)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the first item is for $14,000 to
the Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) for staff to work with
the Utility Committee on pipeline siting. The second item is to appropriate $17,000
to Planning and Development Services from grant funding for completing a marine
shoreline land use inventory. The third item is to PDS to support rural and
economic development geographic information system (GIS) work for rural and
small city economic development efforts. It is coordinated with the County's GIS
work. Item four is to appropriate $57,220 received from various stakeholders
involved in completing the Birch Bay subarea plan. Item five is to provide $15,000
to focus on mineral resources in eastern Whatcom County. The previous plan to
partner with the state will not happen. The administration proposes that this
money continue to be appropriated, and contract directly with the consultant.
Brenner stated another option is to make a request to the Commissioner of
Public Lands. Whatcom County is a critical county. The commissioner is very
county- oriented.
Imhof stated that would be useful and save the County money. This is an
extension of the study already done. Ask Mr. Sutherlund to consider that proposal
and put money to DNR personnel to do the study. He will contact Mr. Sutherlund.
Desler stated item six is to appropriate $76,000 to continue litigation for the
infectious waste ordinance.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Crawford questioned Council packet page 30. He thought the amount was
$25,000 for the year.
Brenner stated she understood it was $76,000 to get them through the
litigation process entirely, not just the year. Desler stated he recalled the
discussion was that $75,000 would take them to the end of the year. There are
many unknowns.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he had asked for what the
attorneys thought the cost might be for the remaining part of the year. He recalled
that amount would also complete the entire case.
Crawford questioned what the $76,000 included. Grant stated he recalled
that it would not include the evidentiary hearing. The $25,000 is what he thought
the attorneys would spend on the expert witness and to develop the testimony and
information for the summary judgement. They capped the contract at $75,000
without further appropriation by the Council. The contract didn't discuss what
would be spent on the various phases of the project. He recalled that if the lawyers
didn't have to get into an evidentiary hearing phase, it could be resolved in a
summary judgement motion. The summary judgement motion would require some
amount of factual development from the expert witness that the lawyers were going
to use. The lawyers felt that the $75,000 would take care of the summary
judgement phase in this calendar year. If they get into an evidentiary hearing, it
could go into next year.
Crawford asked if they've consulted with any other attorneys to find out if
there is a more cost - effective way to do this. Grant stated they have not.
Crawford asked if that could occur. Grant stated the attorney has to be
selected by Dave McEachran. It does not go through the request for qualifications
(RFQ) process. The selection of Mr. Koontz was natural because he's already
undertaken a good portion of this issue. It doesn't make sense to change attorneys
midstream. They also selected Mr. Koontz because he felt he could develop a
theory to defend the ordinance.
Imhof asked how much they've spent so far. Grant stated they've spent
approximately $87,000.
Imhof asked when they expect a decision, and if they will need funding for
2002. Grant stated they would potentially make a decision by fall of 2002. The
lawyer felt that they might get the summary judgement done in 2001 if things run
smoothly. If they have to go into an evidentiary hearing, which is a potential, then
they are going into another year to find out the result, by fall of 2002.
Imhof stated this request would get them through the summary judgement.
Grant stated that is correct.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Imhof stated if the case goes further than that, which it probably will, the
decision would be next fall and cost considerably more.
Brenner stated the law firm was picked for several reasons. They are one of
the top firms on this issue and have dealt with this county before. This isn't an
issue in which they can hire any attorney.
Crawford stated his instincts are telling him to look for a cheaper solution.
He asked if there is a more affordable method for the taxpayers to pursue. Grant
stated he didn't think Mr. McEachran would hesitate to take another look at that
aspect if the Council asks him to do so. It doesn't make sense to change lawyers at
this juncture. The lawyer has done a lot of work already, which would have to be
redone. The County would end up spending more if it changed lawyers, unless it
found one that worked at a much cheaper rate. There are a few lawyers at this law
firm that have a viable defense for the ordinance.
Crawford asked if there is a time issue other than how long the company
continues to process the medical waste. Grant stated there is not. The ordinance
was drafted so it doesn't step on someone's constitutional rights.
Imhof stated the longer they drag it on, it would cost more money.
Crawford questioned whether there have been any violations found in the
last year that they've been enforcing the current ordinance, other than the waste
cap.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Acting Director, stated there
have not.
Crawford asked if there has been any incident of anyone having an infectious
disease. Delahunt stated not that have been reported.
Grant stated the contract rate for Koontz is $175. Locally, the rate is $125.
The rate is low for a Seattle attorney.
Brenner stated workers have notified her that they've known when the
inspections would occur, and that people from the facility have gotten sick.
Councilmember Crawford approved an article saying that there was a leaking mess
out there. This is a contract that was made as a result of the County Council voting
to proceed. These are the questions that should have been dealt with when they
had the discussion with the attorneys.
Crawford stated he is only asking the questions to find out if there are any
new things they need to consider. He is trying to consider the urgency of this.
They are faced with an extraordinary cost. He misunderstood the amount
discussed in executive session. He was not sure he was willing to approve this.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
Grant stated the amount of $25,000 was an estimate of the cost for the
expert witness. That is a part of this $75,000 request.
Desler stated the next item is to appropriate money for the public defender
for the cost of a murder case.
Crawford read from information on Council packet page 34. He questioned
whether it is a law that the County has to provide two defense attorneys.
Jon Ostlund, Public Defender's Office Director, stated the officers of the court
and the Supreme Court are struggling over a proposed rule. The County is
obligated to provide competent and adequate defense, depending on the
seriousness of the case. Any death penalty case has three mandatory levels of
review. The first level is a direct appeal. The second level is a restraint petition,
which is happening right now in the 1997 Elmore case. The Supreme Court
appoints attorneys, reinvestigates every bit of work that was done by trial counsel.
In the Elmore case, they are tearing apart the work his office did in that case,
including a challenge of the qualifications of the lawyers. Their main interest is
providing adequate and competent defense of Mr. Kinney. Judge Mura is pressing
his office to get a mitigation package to the prosecutor, in which the prosecutor
reviews and makes a determination of whether to file a death notice. Once the
death notice is filed, it is not withdrawn. It goes forward as a death penalty case.
Crawford asked if Elmore's attorneys are tearing apart the defense to show
that a proper defense was not provided, even though the prosecutor got a murder
conviction. Ostlund stated that is correct. These are state attorneys. Thousands
of hours of work have to be done by qualified attorneys.
Crawford asked if it is possible that the state attorneys successfully show
that there was not an adequate defense provided by the Whatcom County Public
Defender's Office. Ostlund stated they would come back and retry the case.
Crawford asked if Elmore would walk because he is no loner a convicted
murderer. Ostlund stated they would retry the case. The average cost to the
County for a death penalty case is $300,000. The average length of time ranges
from 11 days to 50 months.
Brenner stated that there are more steps, more reasons for appeal, and
more safe guards provided to the defendant. The amount is a lot, but not an
unusual amount for a death penalty case. Ostlund stated this is what he
anticipates the cost to be this year, assuming that a death notice is filed. They
won't know until October. They anticipate a trial next spring some time. The
amount they've projected is more than average because they have to go to many
states and send investigators and attorneys out with travel costs.
Brenner asked if the prosecutor could seek life without parole.
Crawford asked if it is a cheaper way to go.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Brenner stated she was sure it is. Ostlund stated he is trying to convince the
prosecutor to not file a death penalty.
Crawford asked what the prosecutor has spent so far on this case. Grant
stated he didn't know.
Ostlund stated that in any aggravated murder case, when extraordinary costs
are incurred, the County can petition the state for reimbursements of costs.
Imhof asked the likelihood that costs would be reimbursed. Ostlund stated
he couldn't say.
Brenner asked if there is a limit to the reimbursement. Ostlund stated he
didn't know. It is up to the state legislature.
Desler stated the administration plans to file a claim for those costs. The
County can make an excellent case for getting its costs reimbursed.
Crawford asked what portion of the $148,000 is reimbursable under the
program. Ostlund stated he assumed all of it could be reimbursed. He was not
sure about the capital costs.
Crawford stated he was reluctant. The problem is that they have the
increased expenditure with no increased revenue.
Desler stated the next item is grant funding to the Parks Department to
support the renovation and maintenance to the Pine and Cedar Lake trail system.
There is $364,000 in increased expenditures and $110,000 in revenue.
There is a transfer of $82,000 to a retirement plan fund to provide the employer
portion of the Whatcom County supplemental retirement fund match. From the
Public Utility fund, which is the rural sales tax development program, appropriate
funds for the fiber optic project.
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Crawford moved to reduce the amount of $76,000 to $26,000 for defense of
the infectious waste ordinance. Have another consultation with the attorneys.
Brenner stated the Council gave direction on this issue. The Council knew
what the amount was. The staff and attorneys have put a lot of work into this at
the Council's direction. It is important that people make their opinions known so
they don't waste people's time. It is not right to change this at this point.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
Crawford asked if the County has to spend the money for the Kinney case
before it can seek reimbursement. Desler stated it does.
Crawford asked if the state looks at all the applications they have for
reimbursement, and distributes their funds according to their fund amount. Desler
stated the legislature appropriates based on the applications. Six or seven cases
were applied for. The amount appropriated would rise and fall depending on the
cases filed.
Motion to recommend the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CITY OF
BELLINGHAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING A BELLINGHAM FLOOD
HAZARD REDUCTION IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT (AB2001 -207)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, submitted a resolution as a result of
Council discussion at the Water Resources work session. The summary of the
recommendation is the last item on the first page. He recommends that the project
be funded not to exceed 75 percent or $800,000 total. The County has about
$800,000 of undesignated budget authority.
Crawford stated he recalled that the Flood Advisory Committee did not
recommend the land acquisition portion. Administration recommended doing the
land acquisition portion. He asked if the land acquisition portion is included in the
resolution. Monsen stated it is included. The resolution is his recommendation to
the Council. The total project amount is estimated at $1.1 million to $1.2 million.
The total estimate for the land acquisition portion is between $600,000 to
$700,000.
Crawford questioned the reasons for spending money on land acquisition,
and why the Flood Advisory Committee was against it. Monsen stated a concern of
the committee was that land acquisition could quickly eat into the Flood fund
balance. On the other hand, the committee recognizes that it is unusual to not
have land acquisition costs. This is the only project like this before the County for
consideration. The County can't ignore land acquisition as a part of these types of
ventures. They should not exclude projects that substantially include land
acquisition.
McShane stated he attended the last Flood Advisory Committee meeting.
The Flood Advisory Committee is struggling with trying to come up with an overall
policy. His impression was that the committee was supportive of this project. They
just don't have a policy for it. The projects should be evaluated case -by -case to
recommend to the Council, as the Board of Supervisors, to make the call. He
looked at trying to establish a land acquisition policy, and was not sure that was
possible.
Crawford asked who would own the land. Monsen stated the City of
Bellingham would own it.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
Crawford asked how the land would be used. Monsen stated a berm would
be built to hold the floodwater.
Crawford stated he wanted to move it forward because it protects valuable
industry.
McShane stated the berm would encompass the seven -acre property, which
would become part of the flood plain and hold water. He asked if that property's
need to hold water is an integral part of the project.
Tom Rosenberg, City of Bellingham Assistant Director of Public Works, stated
it is not. The reason for the purchase of the property is to place the flood control
berm, so the flooding waters are directed to the appropriate watercourse. It so
happens that the property is laden with wetlands and types of soils so that it
requires them to purchase all of the property. They are still in a state of flux about
exactly how much property is needed, but they are almost sure they need to
purchase it all.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Rosenberg continued to state that this element is a system of improvement
along Squalicum Creek that they've been working on for 20 years. They have spent
close to $2 million. This element is a key to making the entire system of
improvements a success. The component cost for acquisition would not be as high
because it is apart of the entire Squalicum Creek project.
Monsen stated they will always continue to look for the lowest cost
alternative to land acquisition. Regarding the Squalicum system, the Flood District
participated in cost sharing to acquire land upstream of this location, which was
approved two years ago.
McShane asked if it is possible to come in with fill and create an industrial
building location that would also act as a berm. Rosenberg stated they've looked at
that possibility. It is not too probable. They spent two years looking at that option
to optimize the use of the property for the property owner. Unfortunately, it
doesn't look like it is possible to do that. The property is too swampy. The amount
of mitigation required because of the wetlands uses up the property stock quickly.
Brenner stated she understood that the assessed value is quite lower. She
asked if an appraisal was done, and if the appraisal took into account that the
property is useless. Rosenberg stated two competent appraisers did two
appraisals. Both appraisals are at amounts similar to each other. He was not at
liberty to disclose the appraisal amounts at the moment. The amounts are below
the range of the $800,000. That will be a part of the negotiation.
Crawford questioned whether Councilmember McShane supports the land
acquisition.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
McShane stated he supports it. His concerns have been addressed.
Imhof stated his concern was also with the cost of the land acquisition, but it
seems that the price of the project seems to be dropping. He supported the
project. They need to protect the industries they have in that area.
Imhof moved to recommend approval of the resolution as presented.
Hoag asked if the Flood Advisory Committee knew this was coming before
the Council. Monsen stated he met with the chair and vice -chair regarding his
recommendation. They knew the Council was meeting on this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR PROCEEDING
WITH FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OF THE '"Y" ROAD LANDFILL (AB2001-
208)
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Acting Director, stated they did
an initial investigation at Y Road in 2000. Recommendations came forward for a
larger phase II to look at water and the landfill situation. She spoke to the Council
about phase II some time ago. The Council direction was to speak to the
Department of Ecology (DOE), and come back with options for assistance in
funding. The options are listed out in the Council packet.
There are two options for DOE assistance for funding. Option one is the DOE
voluntary cleanup program to complete an independent clean up. Under that
program, the County would be eligible for reimbursement of 50 percent of its costs,
to a maximum of $100,000. The DOE would provide consultation but not approval.
In order to get reimbursed for the cost, the County would need to complete
whatever cleanup might be necessary. The cleanup cost could be in the total for
reimbursement. The County would also need to get a no further action judgement
from DOE. That may be problematic at the landfill. She didn't have hope that the
County could get a no further action judgement. That leaves the County with
option two. Option one is not a great option. It is more appropriate for smaller
sites.
Option two is under the Remedial Action Grant Program. The County could
be reimbursed for 50 percent of its investigation and cleanup costs. There is no
maximum amount set. One consideration is that the County has to enter into an
agreed order or consent decree with DOE. Legal documents specify what the
County has to complete for the investigation phase. There would be cleanup
requirements once the investigation was done. The County would enter into a legal
agreement with DOE for oversight. The County would have to pay for a portion of
DOE's time to develop a consent decree. This is a more time consuming option.
Another issue is that DOE has oversight. The County would have assurance that all
state requirements are met. Funding is available once they sign the consent
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
decree. The County would also be protected from third party lawsuits, and it would
resolve the legal liability with the state.
A third option is for the County to just pay for the investigation itself.
Imhof stated the DOE has a number of consent decrees with other
jurisdictions. It protects the County. It is going to be money well spent.
Crawford moved to recommend option two.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the amount of
$300,000 is a based on a projection from a consultant. The scope of work will be
worked on with DOE during the consent decree process, and the cost will change.
Hoag asked if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or anyone else
would provide funds. Delahunt stated she was not aware of any federal funds that
the County would be eligible for.
McShane stated he urged the Council to not go with the consent decree
approach. The cost would end up to be more than $300,000. He was not sure the
DOE would be satisfied with proposed scope of work. It locks the County into an
agreement he was not comfortable with. Phase II of the investigation is just the
beginning of the overall expense. Depending on the results of the phase II
investigation, there may be more ongoing costs much more than that, particularly
for remediation of the landfill. He was not sure the County wants to be locked into
that. The County would be protected from third -party lawsuits and resolves legal
liability from the state. However, the state would really cover itself to take over
that liability. It will get very expensive very quickly for the County. The County
should assess what questions it wants to answer from a standpoint of protecting
the citizens. It is the Council's responsibility to some extent to look at the financial
implications of this very carefully. He encouraged developing another option.
Imhof questioned whether option two would still come back to the Council
before entering into the consent decree. Delahunt stated it would. That would
have to be between the County attorneys and the State's attorneys.
Imhof stated that if the Council doesn't like what it sees in the consent
decree, it could opt for option one. If the State asks for more than what the County
is willing to give, then the County has the option to go back to option one. It is a
process to look at, and find out where the County's liability is, and how much it
would cost the County.
Brenner questioned why the County purchased the landfill that was owned by
Georgia- Pacific (GP).
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated the County
purchased the land in 1953 and had a municipal landfill there. From 1967 to 1970,
the County closed it and transferred it over to GP. From 1970 to 1995, the County
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
doesn't know if GP ever used the site. The County became aware that GP was
going to sell the site to a private individual, and so purchased it back. The County
did own the site and used it as a landfill.
Brenner asked how they find out whether GP used the site. Prieve stated
part of this next phase would include testing.
Monsen stated one issue is that, even though the County owns the property,
another party who caused a problem on the property would be potentially liable.
Just because the County owns it, it does not excuse a previous owner or user from
liability.
Hoag asked for an explanation of what Councilmember McShane does not
want to be locked into.
McShane stated the consent decree would not ask the questions the County
wants to answer in a cost - effective manner. This is a difficult position for everyone
to be in, especially the Health Department and the Public Works Department.
Within the one government entity, one department is concerned about the health
and safety of the community, and another department is dealing with the liability
cost. They are enforcing against themselves in a way. DOE is going to ask every
imaginable question that is not necessarily a cost - effective approach to gauging the
effects to the community. He was not sure the County wants to attack the issue as
aggressively as DOE may want the County to do. There are many landfills in the
County, and this may not be as bad as other landfills in the County.
Hoag asked what DOE would require that would cost the County more.
McShane stated he could imagine that DOE would ask that the landfill, which
was closed prior to the landfill regulations, would comply with current landfill
regulations, which means installing liners and ongoing monitoring for 30 years for a
suite of chemicals. He was not comfortable with that. It is not asking the
important and fundamental questions that he wants answered in a timely manner.
Crawford asked Councilmember McShane's recommendation.
McShane stated a third option is to get their real concerns identified. Ask
what they are really worried about and why they are worried about this landfill.
Imhof suggested they develop those real concerns and postpone this
decision.
McShane stated that would be a difficult discussion between staff in the
Health Department and Public Works Department.
Delahunt stated they could go through the phase II scope of work and pick
out what the Health Department considers the most important aspects of the four
tasks that the Health Department wants to see done as soon as possible. Then
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
they would come up with a dollar amount on what the tasks would costs. There are
things she would like to find out this season. She would like to drill down through
the landfill and get samples of leachate at the worst time of the year, which is right
now, to see what they actually find in the leachate. They've done sampling
peripherally in the stream and nearby wells.
Imhof asked if they've found anything in anyone's well. Delahunt stated they
did not. They did not really find anything in the stream. She wanted to look at the
worst case.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
Crawford moved to ask staff to prioritize the four items in the phase II scope
of work, and come forward with recommendations.
Imhof suggested that staff look at what needs to be done this year.
Prieve stated they had $50,000 put aside for this. They were so confident
that Health Department and DOE would enter into the contract that they spent that
money with Executive approval. They put in a cutoff wall at Cedarville to intercept
some of the groundwater and reduce the leachate there, which is an ongoing
expense. They would have to come back to the Council with a supplemental budget
request. The next time to do that is in September, unless they did a limited scope
of work with a budget under $10,000.
Desler stated the County has $250,000 in the Solid Waste fund balance. A
modest revenue stream is coming into the fund.
Imhof asked staff to develop a budget and bring it back.
Hoag asked what the four items are. Chesson stated the four items include a
geo -probe investigation to sample the leachate, a door -to -door survey of all the
residents to see who is drinking from what aquifer, and additional surface water
sampling.
Delahunt stated the direction from the committee is to not enter into a
consent decree now, and use County dollars to review phase II.
Hoag asked if they would look for mercury. Delahunt stated they would.
Imhof stated this item is held in committee until the staff develops a budget
and scope.
Brenner stated she would rather have that direction to administration come
to full Council as a recommendation.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
48
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES AND WA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO
PROVIDE FUNDING TO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000
(AB2001 -209)
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND FISHPRO, INC. TO REPLACE TWO CULVERTS BLOCKING FISH
PASSAGE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000 (AB2001 -210)
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
NORTHWEST CARE ADVOCATES TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES FOR YOUTH DETAINED IN THE JUVENILE DETENTION
CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $37,000 (AB2001 -211)
Crawford stated the funding amount and source on Council packet page 81
says the amount is $22,000, for a total amount of $37,000. He asked the source.
Steve Paus, Juvenile Court Administrator, stated the law and justice group
approved this proposal. They went into this year with a budgeted amount of
$22,000 for this service and a contract with Northwest Care Advocates for $15,000.
This contract brings them together for a total amount for the year. This was part of
the $1.8 million set aside from the General fund.
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RIDDELL- WILLIAMS,
FOR THE FILING AND PURSUIT OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WASHINGTON TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -011, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000
(AB2001 -212)
Crawford stated that in order to be consistent with earlier action, the
committee should reduce this amount by $50,000. He moved to amend the
amount to $25,000.
Brenner stated Executive Kremen and the Council were clear about what they
wanted done and the cost when they met with the attorney. This is an insult. It's
better to vote to not do anything. There is no way to bring this to a declaratory
judgement for $25,000. The reason this came back was because the County
screwed up on procedural issues that the County should have known about and
done right the first time. That is where the cost came in. The County had done
another ordinance with the Health Department. Nothing is working. This had
strong support. The intent of the Council should be respected. The public did not
want to stall on this. They deserve an answer on the constitutionality of this.
Hoag questioned why they are cutting this amount. This is what the Council
agreed to do.
Crawford stated he is making this motion to be consistent with the earlier
action. He did not want to rehash the earlier discussion.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated Executive Kremen supports
moving forward with the full amount. If the Council has no interest in appropriating
the money that the prosecutors and the County has negotiated with Ridder
Williams, then it makes no sense to contract for $25,000. If that is all the Council
wants to spend, then the administration would like to come back with other
responses that might be appropriate for how to carry this forward. It may or may
not include involvement of the contracted attorney. He did not see the
administration executing a contract for $25,000 for the attorneys.
Crawford withdrew his motion to separate the budget item from the contract.
Crawford moved to approve the contract, however it doesn't make sense to
approve this contract until they decide the amount they are going to spend. He
was opposed to the contract.
Motion failed unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTER - COUNTY OMNIBUS AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM, KING,
AND PIERCE COUNTY, AND OTHER COUNTIES THAT MAY JOIN IN
THIS ALLIANCE, TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACROSS
COUNTY BOUNDARIES TO THOSE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS MUTUAL
AID AGREEMENT (AB2001 -213)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, 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
Crawford questioned whether the County could be compensated for overhead
costs.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated Whatcom County would not use
the Executive's Office or Council expenditures as a basis for determining overhead.
They would look at those things normally contained in the Administrative Services
fund, such as personnel, legal, and information technology. This agreement
provides the legal framework where one county can be of assistance to another
county. It has been under construction for months. They believe that other
counties will join. The Executive recommends approval.
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Robert Imhof, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/26/2001, Page 14