Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance February 6 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 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee February 6, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 12:03 p.m. by Committee Chair Robert Imhof in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Sam Crawford Marlene Dawson Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR RURAL COUNTY SALES TAX REVENUE (AB2001 -043) Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the issue is still under development. There was a meeting yesterday of the Rural Sales Tax Development Committee. At this point, they are still addressing issues such as applications, principles, and policies and procedures. They are working with the Port of Bellingham to develop an economic development plan as required by law. They are looking at a proposal that would rapidly develop fiber -optic capability around the county. It would connect all of the cities and a lot of the public operations. It is connected to a project that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is setting up to put lines in to support their system. It is still being discussed and is not a detailed proposal. The committee has been talking about using these funds to leverage key critical public facilities needs, such as water, sewer, and telecommunications technology efforts. Dawson asked about the time period for leveraging the telecommunications project. Desler stated one idea is to leverage a project to back bonds that either the Public Utility District (PUD) or the Port might sell. The backing would last as long as the bonds are outstanding. The bonds would be paid off from the revenue coming from the project. The funds would then be used for other purposes. Nelson stated there is a proposed plan for fiber - optics in the Council's in- basket. 2. REQUEST FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGARDING A LAND PURCHASE REQUEST FROM GARY GRAHAM (AB2001 -046) Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 This item was withdrawn. 3. PROPERTY AND BOILER INSURANCE RENEWAL POLICIES SCHEDULED FOR RENEWAL 2/20/01 (AB2001 -047) Imhof stated there is a slight increase from previous years. Dawson moved to recommend approval. Nelson stated he'd posed a question to the administration earlier. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the answer is contained in the letter on packet pages 14 and 15. They raised the level of limits that they would cover from $73 million to $78 million. Nelson stated he believed the Council had requested to raise the coverage amount. The current policy limit of $5 million has been reduced to $2.5 million. Barry Hanson, Unity Group, stated the coverage they talked about last time was the extra expense coverage for catastrophic loss. That coverage was increased to $4 million. The coverage being reduced is called building ordinance coverage. It was at $2.5 million for years. The program underwriters increased it to $5 million. It was not at the request of the County. They've now reduced that limit back to $2.5 million. It is a reduction in coverage, but it isn't the coverage they addressed last year. Crawford asked if the County ever files claims against this policy. Hanson stated one recommendation is to increase the deductible from $5,000 to $25,000. It brings the renewal premium down. There isn't a frequency of claims. It is for catastrophic coverage. Crawford asked how often a claim has been filed. Hanson stated no claims have been filed on this policy in the three years. The claims they've had are against the ferry. Desler stated the cost of the premium is projected to go up by 3.4 percent. It was related to the increase of premiums. As the stock market forces at work tend to drop, they find the cost of insurance going up. When the stock market goes up, there is access to more insurance at a lower cost. Crawford stated the bottom line is that the County gets an additional $2.5 million in coverage, goes from a $5,000 to a $25,000 deductible, and will pay $3,000 more in premiums. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 Hoag asked what they are increasing the coverage on. Desler stated they are increasing the value of the buildings. The information is on packet page 14. Crawford asked the deductible for an earthquake. Hanson stated the earthquake deductible is two percent of the values at risk at the time of loss, subject to a minimum deductible of $100,000. That's the same deductible that applies for floods. Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND SEQUOIA HILL, INC. TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES TO PERSONS NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $21,314 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $40,729 (AB2001- 049) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Dawson asked if this is the structured employment site. Imhof stated it is. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $732,411 (AB2001 -050) Dawson moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 3. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 PROVIDE SURVEYS OF EXISTING ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED AND CONTINUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ON -SITE SEWAGE MAINTENANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,424 (AB2001 -051) Crawford asked for an explanation of where the money comes from and how the City of Bellingham is involved. Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the city gives the County the money. Imhof asked if the amount is comparable to last year. Chesson stated it is. There is a $2,000 or $3,000 increase. Imhof moved to recommend approval. He asked how long this has been going on. Chesson stated since 1995. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL — INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT, TO PROVIDE FOR PLACEMENT AND FOLLOW -UP SERVICES NECESSARY TO ASSIST INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES TO OBTAIN AND CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT FOR REMUNERATION IN COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS, IN THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $15,294 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $72,733 (AB2001 -052) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY TREASURER AND AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES TO PROVIDE LOCK BOX PAYMENT PROCESSING FOR UP TO 150,000 PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS ANNUALLY, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF UP TO $20,000 (AB2001 -053) Imhof moved to recommend approval. Dawson asked what a lock box processor is. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 Barbara Cory, Treasurer, stated the lock box payment processor is who they send the tax statements to. It is a location in Seattle. The County contracts with the processor to process the tax payments and deposit them in the bank the same day. The processor sends the County a file each day. Imhof asked what percentage of the County's tax statements the processor handles. Cory stated that at first they had a lot of resistance by the taxpayers because the payments go out of the county. This year it was very successful. The processor processes 80 to 90 percent of County tax payments. Hoag asked if that $20,000 expense saves the County money. Cory stated the contract was instituted when the Treasurer's Office had to cut back its staff by two employees. There was a saving of 1.5 staff. The remainder of the people in the office would have to be taken from their other duties to process the payments during tax time because they needed to get the payments deposited in the bank. Now, the staff is able to keep up with other duties at tax time. Imhof stated the other benefit is that the money is deposited immediately into the bank. When the County processed the payments, it was at times a few days before the funds were deposited in the bank. When earning interest, it is money well- spent. Motion carried unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION CANCELING UNCOLLECTIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES (AB2001 -054) Dawson moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 4. PROPOSED HAM ROAD GRAVEL CONVERSION PROJECT (AB2001 -048) Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, asked for direction from the committee. In 1998, a developer asked for a short -plat at the end of Ham Road, which is a dead end gravel road south of Bay Road. There is a right -of -way all the way to Grandview. It is unlikely it will be put through all the way. There is poor sight distance, a big wetland in the middle, and power lines. It will most likely remain a dead end road. When the developer came forward, part of his mitigation was to contribute $13,000 toward chip sealing the road. It is a public road for .54 miles from Bay Road to the south. This developer lengthened it for another 1,000 Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 feet. The road is gravel. For the County to chip seal a road and accept it as a County road, they like to bring it up to standards, which is 30 feet wide for this type of a road. That is significantly wider than the existing road. The existing road from Bay Road is 22 feet wide in some areas and 16 to 22 feet wide in other locations. There are three options. One option is to chip seal at the current width for a cost of $25,000. It would not bring the road up to County standards. The advantage is that there are eleven users that generate 10 trips each per day, totaling about 110 cars per day. It is likely that they could only add eight more users to this road. The total maximum on the road would only be about 190 cars. The disadvantage of this option is that the road would be at lesser road standards. The second option is to widen part of the area to 22 feet, matching the width of the other sections, and then perform a chip seal. That cost is estimated at $170,000. The County could potentially use the latecomer ordinance for future residents to pay for the cost. The road still wouldn't meet the 30 -foot width standard. It would still be a high cost for a dead end, local access road. The third option is to build to standards. The cost would be about $250,000. The budget for all gravel conversions for the year is $200,000. Nelson asked if this fund is part of the overall Road fund. Mills stated it is for converting from gravel to chip sealed roads. Hoag asked if the line item is set or could be changed. Mills stated it could be changed. They could move enough money around to cover this cost. Hoag asked how much the County could get back from doing a latecomer agreement. Mills stated an estimate would be $7,500 for someone who would come along later. There is a 15 -year period of time to pay a prorated amount. If someone develops in the next 15 years, he or she would have to pay that prorated share. After that, the future residents don't pay at all. For the people who live there, if they don't do anything to their property in the next 15 years, then they don't have to pay. They are only getting people who are doing something new in the next 15 years. Imhof stated most of that area is at the maximum build out. Hoag asked why the developer wouldn't purchase the right -of -way. Mills stated the middle section is mostly already built on. Those people are not obligated to donate right -of -way. They have the right to receive fair market value. The developer did donate right -of -way as part of his development, and he widened a portion of the road to 24 feet. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 Dawson stated she preferred narrow roads because traffic is slower and there are fewer impervious surfaces. She asked if the neighbors expressed a preference. Mills stated they have not. Imhof asked how this started. Mills stated it is going through the normal cycle. The cost kept growing, and he felt that he didn't want to spend that much money on a dead end road. Imhof stated chip seal is the appropriate option to take. Hoag stated she would not go with option three. She asked for clarification on options one and two. She asked if option two would get into the wetland area. Mills stated it would not. That would only happen with option three. Either way, they would scrape off the grass from the shoulder area. If they widen the road, then they would get into the wetlands. Hoag stated she was in favor of option two to make the road uniform, and it would be better off in terms of safety. Imhof stated many of the roads that have more use are not 22 feet wide. People chose to live on a dead end road for a reason, and don't want a wider road. He was leaning toward option one. Nelson stated the developer is required to put in a 24 foot road, but the County is not going to upgrade to that standard, so the dilemma is that the County is not upgrading to its own requirement. He asked if there is a preferred width for fire service on a dead end road. Mills stated that under any option, they would put a turn - around at the end of the road. Given the 60 -foot width, there is enough width for a fire vehicle. Crawford asked if the County would have to follow its own rules if it is doing a plat. The County is not asking to do a plat. Nelson stated the County isn't doing a development. The County is doing road requirements to the individual doing the plat, based on the County requirements for roads. Mills stated the County could grant a variance to go with a lesser width if there are good reasons. Essentially, the County can grant that variance to itself. Crawford stated other developers are going to want to do the same thing. He was not saying there is a lack of equity. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/6/2001, 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 Imhof stated the zoning is five acres. Mills stated that the other landowners could be asked to widen the road if and when the larger properties develop. Imhof stated that if the people wanted it, they could have requested it. Chip seal the road and give the residents a dust -free environment. He moved to proceed with option one. McShane stated he would support that motion. Regarding the fairness issue, if the County goes with option two or three, either way the developer is getting a good deal. Motion to proceed with option one carried unanimously. Imhof stated the recommendation would go to full Council at the evening meeting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:39 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, 2/6/2001, Page 8