HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance July 24 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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
July 24, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Committee Member Sam
Crawford in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Absent:
Robert Imhof
COMMITTEE 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)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he is only asking for a discussion,
not a decision, on this issue.
Dawson asked if the security personnel costs were included in the proposed
rate. Monsen stated they were not.
Crawford questioned whether the security fee should be included in the rate
increase. It is a fee for service. The most direct compensation for that would be
from the people who drive on the ferry.
Monsen stated a vehicle fee now is $2, plus $1 for the driver and each
passenger. Last year, there were about 135,000 vehicles traveling on the boat. If
the County is going to continue with the policy of recovering 55 percent of cost at
the fare box, the security fee is a $.21 per vehicle increase. The County is in the
midst of labor negotiations, which will probably result in another increase of a
nickel. Annual repair and maintenance cost increases will be $.25 to $.30 per
vehicle. They are getting closer to having a proposed lease agreement with Lummi
Nation for parking on the Gooseberry Point side. That increase may be about
another nickel. The total increase is about $.60 per vehicle. For ease of financial
transaction, do an even dollar transaction so the ferry crew is not dealing with
coins. If they go with a $1 increase, the County could set aside about $50,000 per
year for future capital expenses. That is based on the assumption that the County
stays with a 55 percent cost recovery formula. He always assumed that the fare
structure would be adjusted to deal with security. The cost recovery could come
from a combination of passengers, vehicles, or parking lot users. Increase the ferry
rate for vehicles and not for walk -on passengers to increase capacity by
encouraging walk -on travelers and the use of parking spaces.
Crawford asked the Executive's Office to come up with a proposal with a rate
increase of $1 per vehicle, and present the proposal to the Finance Committee. He
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
is interested in doing all of the things Mr. Monsen presented. He liked creating
funding mechanisms for parking, security, and the future of the ferry. All of those
things appeal to his notion of fee for service. The ferry route is another County
road, but with extraordinary costs and circumstances. Rather than the Council
unilaterally raising the fare, come up with a proposal that takes into consideration a
$1 per vehicle increase, and then have a public hearing on it to get the input of the
island residents. He has yet to talk to any resident who said they would outright
oppose a fee increase. He would like to hear from the residents.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated administration would put
together a proposal in two weeks.
Dawson asked about comparative rates for other ferries. Monsen stated that
the Whatcom County ferry is one of the cheapest. The Whatcom County ferry runs
longer hours, has increasing usage, and has lower overhead costs. The ferry is at a
point where it is at capacity.
Hoag stated a ferry fee varies with the length of the ride also. The cost
recovery could be accomplished with a $.50 increase. She asked for assurance that
a $1 increase will not be pushed even higher in the future. Monsen stated the
assurance is that, in this operation, the budget is reviewed and adopted by the
County Council, and it is very restrictive as far as what can or can't happen. It is
easy for him to describe the actual costs. There is not a lot of discretionary
activity. The Island Transportation Committee (ITC) has shown a preference for an
even dollar fee increase and raising the rate so money will be set aside for capital
expenditures. Set aside money into a reserve used only for a specific decision. The
ITC has not made a dollar increase an official recommendation, but that has been
the tone of their opinion. Have taken this to the ITC for their reaction. Their next
meeting is August 20.
Hoag asked if a person buying a book of tickets could pay less than the dollar
increase per ride. Monsen stated one issue the ITC is working on is forming a
recommendation on whether there should be discounts for multi- tickets. A high
percentage of users already use a punch card. The County needs to consider
whether or not it should deal with fare collection off -boat instead of on -boat. If
that is the case, handling coin will not make a difference.
Crawford moved to request that the administration put together a proposal
for a $1 per vehicle fare increase, with a breakdown of where the money would go
and how the money would be distributed per the Finance Committee's intent. In
addition, hold a public hearing when the proposal is ready. He would like to see
this come back as soon as possible. A hearing could be scheduled in September.
Hoag stated she would like information on discount fares.
Crawford asked if there are discounts currently. Monsen stated there are.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
Crawford suggested that the proposal contains the same types of discounts,
and then collect comments on the discounts from the residents.
Desler stated their recommendation should include the history of how the
County got to this point with the fares, as well as all the elements of the current
fare pattern.
Monsen stated they did not address the special fares for larger vehicles and
special trips.
Crawford questioned whether the Council needs to vote on the current
proposal in the packet.
Monsen asked if it is the Council's intention to come to a decision
expeditiously now, and then ask if implementation would be upon the Council's
decision or on January 1.
McShane stated he preferred to accept the staff's current recommendation.
It will take quite a bit of time for the administration to do this. There needs to be a
lot more discussion and community input. It can wait a year.
Hoag stated she was unsure about approval. She was concerned about an
increase of a whole dollar.
Crawford stated he was inclined to approve the motion. The rationale for not
having an increase comes from last year's costs. They are now talking about next
year's costs, which they already know will be a minimum increase of $55,000.
Monsen stated that the security costs will increase the overall cost, and there will
be additional cost for parking space and a labor agreement. They know there will
be cost increases. He doesn't foresee a pattern of revenue growth because the
ferry is at capacity.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR PROCEEDING
WITH FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OF THE "Y" ROAD LANDFILL (AB2001-
208)
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated this was discussed at
the June 26 meeting. At that meeting, the committee requested the staff to bring
forward a scope of work to further characterize conditions at the landfill. This
modified scope of work will help to further identify impacts from the landfills to
groundwater and surface water. At the end of each task in the memorandum, he
highlighted the most significant cost. The total of the highlighted amounts doesn't
equal the total requested funding amount of $126,000, which also includes work
plan preparation for submittal to the State Department of Ecology and the State
Department of Health and the consultant's fees for project management, report
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
preparation, clerical costs, and costs of a liaison with the different agencies. The
actual cost of the scope of work is $126,000.
McShane stated he appreciated the staff's and the consultant's efforts to pare
this down from the original estimated amount. He supported the door -to -door well
survey. That will alleviate a lot of concerns about the landfill area. He was not
sure he was comfortable with investigating the shallow aquifer. They will have to
cut down a lot of trees for the Y Road 1 landfill. Proximity to Carpenter Creek
makes it vulnerable. The creek has a lot of trout. Quarterly surface mining would
go a long ways. He was uncomfortable with the geo -probe investigation. Refer to
some of the work done by other consultants. There are a lot of boulders in that
aquifer. Chesson stated he is not convinced they understand the aquifers beneath
the landfills. This is an attempt to identify the different layers of aquifers. This is
the best method to do that.
McShane stated the Health Department is in the position of being the
regulatory authority on this. The councilmembers are also looking at the budgetary
impacts as owners of that property. One question is whether this is the best
approach. It creates some discomfort between the Health Department and the
Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department.
Crawford stated Councilmember McShane's recommendation is to approve
the door -to -door well survey, question the geo- probe, and go with the quarterly
surface mining.
McShane stated it would put people's minds at ease to do some more water
sampling at some of the wells to make sure they didn't miss any seasonal variation.
This time, under different seasonal conditions, they might see something show up.
He supported sampling Carpenter Creek. Olson Creek is far away.
Dawson questioned whether there is a possibility of getting reimbursement
for the investigation. Chesson stated there is not.
Dawson asked why under option two the County is eligible for 50 percent
reimbursement of investigation costs.
Regina Delahunt, Interim Health and Human Services Director, stated the
direction at the previous Council meeting was to not enter into an agreement with
the State Department of Ecology (DOE), which is option two. Instead, the County
would fund a pared down study. At a later date, if the County found anything of
significance, the County can then enter into the agreement with the Department of
Ecology.
Hoag questioned whether the information in the previous Council packet is
considered to be independent clean -up. Delahunt stated it is not. The County
would pay for this portion of the investigation. It would not necessarily come under
any grant reimbursable.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
Hoag questioned why this option would not be eligible for option one funding.
McShane stated the County would have to earn a No Further Action
determination. It is unlikely that this new option would result in that
determination.
Delahunt stated it is unlikely that a landfill will ever get a no further action
(NFA) determination. The staff doesn't think the County would get reimbursement
under an independent clean -up.
Hoag questioned which recommendation is from staff.
McShane stated the staff clearly recommends option two.
Delahunt stated she still preferred option two, but this is another option.
Hoag asked if the items listed in the new proposal would still be
accomplished with option two. Delahunt stated they would. Even more than that
would be accomplished. Option two would be a bigger investigation.
Chesson stated the scope of work and budget that would satisfy DOE would
cost about $350,000. That is just for completing an investigation. It does not
include clean up costs if contaminants are identified.
Hoag stated the new proposal is just for investigation. Delahunt stated the
County may have to do some additional investigation, depending upon the results
of the new option. The new proposal could be considered the first phase of the
DOE expanded scope of work. Once the first phase is done, they may not have to
go further.
McShane stated the County should go its own way, and not with the DOE
scope. The Departments of Ecology and Health are already questioning the validity
of geo -probe water samples. They want great monitoring wells. That does not
cover the cost of covering the landfills. Those kinds of costs, covering and ongoing
monitoring for many years, are what the County would end up with. The DOE will
not enter into a consent decree without following the standard approach toward any
landfill that is currently regulated. The DOE will not do an enforcement action if the
County answers the essential question of whether this is having an impact to health
or the environment. The County doesn't have any evidence yet that that has
occurred. It warrants some further investigation. Monitoring along the creeks
would do that. Monitoring any other wells would do that. It might be nice to get
more information on the aquifer, particularly around Y Road 2. It is right next to
the creek.
Chesson asked if a geo -probe investigation of Y Road 2 would be appropriate.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
McShane stated he wanted to see the rationale of doing a geo -probe versus
putting in monitoring wells. Additional money could be spent out there. It would
be an easy investigation to do.
Dawson moved to recommend option two. It is important to have DOE
involved as a partner.
Hoag asked if the County would be eligible for clean up dollars. Delahunt
stated the County could enter into the agreement with DOE later if it found
something of concern while doing the first phase. If the County doesn't find
anything of significance during phase one, it wouldn't be necessary to enter into an
agreement with DOE.
Hoag stated the County wouldn't have to do anything more if it did enter into
the agreement with DOE and no concerns were found. She supported the motion.
It is more comprehensive, and gives the County better assurance. The importance
of people being able to drink water that is safe is critical.
Brenner stated the County can't count on an agreement that DOE will
contribute to clean up costs. She asked if the County would be guaranteed of
getting grant funding. Delahunt stated the County has a good chance of getting
the grant funding.
Brenner stated she didn't like being stuck with what DOE tells the County it
has to do. If there is a public health problem, the County is obligated to take care
of it anyway.
McShane stated the issue is not about protecting public health. That is a
given. The proposed scope goes further than that. The issue about the consent
decree is more of a legal issue. The DOE takes over the liability of that landfill.
Currently, the landfill is a liability to the County. The DOE has to turn over every
possibility before taking on that liability. It is an enormous risk, so the consent
decree will include a tremendous amount of investigation, and then lead toward
some mitigation measures that will include covering both of those landfills. The
DOE will want the County to do monitoring for years. Even though the state pays
50 percent of the cost, the costs will add up. The state has to cover its liability. It
is more of a legal issue. He never saw any indication of leachate in Carpenter
Creek.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned whether the County is committed to clean up if the new
option results in evidence of contamination, and then becomes required to signing
the agreement with DOE. Delahunt stated the County would not have to sign an
agreement with DOE to do clean up. The County could pay for it all.
Hoag stated paying half of the $350,000 to follow the DOE program would be
better. Otherwise, the County may end up at square one and be required to do a
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
full investigation with full remedial clean up. That is not a risk worth taking.
Delahunt stated the staff will push for doing as much as they believe is necessary at
the landfill to answer the question about whether it is having an impact. From a
financial perspective, the questioned is whether the scope of work agreed upon with
the DOE will cost 50 percent more than something the County would do on its own.
Hoag stated that if the DOE requires the County to do twice as much
investigation at half the cost, then the County is essentially paying the same
amount of money, but is losing the liability. Delahunt stated she agreed, which is
why she recommended option two, rather than doing the County investigation.
Brenner stated she would agree if they knew the cost would be just twice as
much for half the price. They don't know that. Delahunt agreed that they don't
know.
Dawson stated the agreement would come back to the Council for review
before they make a final decision.
Brenner stated that the DOE would include in the contract a requirement that
the County has to do whatever they deem appropriate at whatever time. That is
her biggest concern. She asked that the County get information on what DOE
would require. Now, the County could be required to do all kinds of things that
they may not think are necessary. It would be writing a blank check. Delahunt
stated the County would have to negotiate the consent decree agreement.
Brenner stated that, at that point, the County could not agree to the consent
decree and revert to this proposal. Delahunt stated the County could do that, but
negotiating the consent decree is quite a bit of work. The Council should be sure it
wants to do that before the administration begin negotiations.
Crawford questioned where the funds would come from.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they may come from the Solid
Waste Fund. It also has to go before the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the
Solid Waste Executive Committee.
Delahunt stated they need the geo -probe information to find out information
directly about the quality of the leachate in the landfill, and whether a surficial
aquifer exists or doesn't exist. It is information they need.
Crawford restated motion to accept option two.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford stated the item will move forward to full the Council with no
recommendation.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, REQUEST
#6 (AB2001 -230)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that the supplemental budget
proposes to appropriate $75,000 to the Health and Human Services Department for
its on -site septic (OSS) system no- interest loan program to assist residents with
repairs.
Appropriate $37,971 for the burn ban program. They anticipate revenues of
about $28,000.
The third proposal is for the RID Guaranty Operating transfer regarding past
due assessments not yet collected from the Cordata area from the Trillium
Corporation. They expect the funds to come to the County in the future, but the
administration proposes a transfer to cover the bond payments. The fund would go
into the bond payment fund.
Crawford questioned where the funds would be transferred from and where
they would go.
Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Department Office Administrator, stated the
RID Guaranty fund was set up to cover any shortfalls in making the bond payments
on the RID. They are proposing to transfer the money from the RID Guaranty fund
to the Debt Service fund.
Desler stated the last proposal is to appropriate $100,000 from the
Conservation Futures fund to purchase 20 acres on Lookout Mountain for a potential
park.
Dawson stated a resolution will come forward to the Council that promises
fair distribution of Conservation Futures funds toward agricultural lands. The
community can bring forward a plan in April 2002. If they look at the total amount
of funds that have gone into the parks over the last few years, they may need to
use all of the existing Conservation Futures funds for agricultural lands to be fair.
She would like to delay this until April 2002.
Crawford moved to recommend the first three items; the OSS program, the
burn ban program, and the RID Guaranty as recommended by staff.
Brenner stated she supported the original motion to earmark funds for
agricultural development rights. However, there may be a timeline to get this
done.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated the City of Bellingham will eventually own that area.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
Roger DeSpain, Parks Department Director, stated the City of Bellingham
approved money to purchase adjacent land in the city. There is a timeline on this.
There is an agreement between the City and Nielsen Brothers Inc., and an
agreement between the County and Nielsen Brothers Inc. The deadline is the end
of this month. It is not his timeline, but is required by Nielsen Brothers Inc. The
County agreement is subject to County Council approval.
Hoag asked if the City's agreement with Nielsen Brothers Inc. would be
negated if the County doesn't approve. DeSpain stated it might be. It would
create a landlocked parcel.
Hoag asked if the County could consider the purchase next April. DeSpain
stated he would ask Nielsen Brothers Inc., but he couldn't answer for them.
Dawson stated that just because there is a timeline, it doesn't mean
someone else is lined up to buy it. Also, if a parcel is landlocked, they could get an
easement.
DeSpain stated the Parks Commission looked at the area. Bikers, hikers, and
horse riders very actively use Lookout Mountain. Whatcom County is growing. This
is going to be the main place where future homes will be developed. If the County
were to acquire this, it would be a trailhead. The second phase would be to get
easements from the timber companies, before the land is developed into homes. It
is difficult to get trails built once homes are built. The plan for the second phase is
to have the easements so they are held in perpetuity. They would use
Conservation Futures funds for that purchase. The area has a wonderful view of
the bay. The Parks and Recreation Commission looked at having a partnership with
the City. Past complaints were that other Conservation Futures fund purchases
were far away. A focus was to use funds on areas that are closer. This deal fits
that requirement. Another concern is always maintenance, operation, and
development costs. The City would agree to maintain the parcel, as they've done
with Squalicum and Boulevard parks.
Brenner stated they should spread the Conservation Futures fund money
across the county. DeSpain stated it is important to work with all areas of the
county.
Brenner asked for a map showing all the areas where Conservation Futures
funds have been spent. DeSpain stated he would provide that map in the future.
Dawson stated she was hesitant to go forward until they secure funds for
saving agricultural lands.
Nelson asked if this is in the same area as the planned Whatcom connector.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the connector would cross
somewhere through this property.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
Nelson asked how it would impact the connector in the future. DeSpain
stated the land for the road would have to be purchased back, and those dollars
would have to go back into the Conservation Futures fund. It should be noted in
the agreement that the area may be targeted for the road to go through.
Nelson stated two of the proposed routes would go right through the
property. He didn't want that to be a problem in the future.
Hoag stated it seems that the only access to the property is in the City's
portion of the acreage, not the County's portion of the acreage. She questioned
how the City's parcel would become landlocked if the County does not purchase the
20 -acre parcel. DeSpain stated both parcels would be landlocked. There are 80
acres next to the 40 -acre parcel that are scheduled to be developed. The access to
the 80 -acre parcel is from Birch Street. The City agreement with the developer is
to provide easements up to the 40 -acre parcel. If the deal falls apart, they will lose
both the 20 -acre and 40 -acre parcel. They will have to negotiate with the
developer to get access to the parcels.
Larry Simkins, Bellingham Parks and Recreation Board, 501 - 13th Street,
stated the 80 -acres to the north is the Birch Street Development. The reason that
Nielsen Brothers Inc. won't split the 40 -acre and 20 -acre parcels is because the 20-
acre parcel would become landlocked if the City purchased the 40 -acre parcel. If a
developer bought the 20 -acre parcel, he or she would not know how the easement
could come through.
Hoag stated that if the City does not purchase the 40 -acre parcel, then it will
landlock the 20 -acre parcel. Simkins stated that is correct. In addition, this deal
has been discussed for a year and a half or two years. They've been trying to come
up with an equitable arrangement to purchase the property. This didn't just
happen all of a sudden. This property is the backdrop to Bellingham, and it is in the
path of progress.
Dawson stated she would be willing to support this if she had five votes to
overturn the veto.
Mark Peterson, 1100 Roland Street, Bellingham, stated the mountain biking
and non - motorized access at that parcel is a huge benefit to this community
socially and economically. The mountain bike community and industry in Whatcom
County are in excess of $25 million. In the last two years, Bellingham has been
rated in the top ten of places in the world to ride. This part of the mountain is a
key piece of the area. It is close to a metropolitan area and is easily accessible.
This has become a destination area. He is the chair of the subcommittee for the
recreational trails and open space for the newly appointed Whatcom County Bicycle
and Pedestrian Committee. This is a key corridor identified in 1993 for access
between Whatcom Falls Park and Lake Padden Park. The corridor created would be
a loop between those two parks systems, and would complete the Greenways
system. The property has incredible vistas. Time is of the essence.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
47
Crawford questioned why they would lose this deal if the County doesn't act
now. Simkins stated the Nielsen Brothers Inc. are anxious to sell this piece of
property.
Crawford questioned the zoning of the property.
Nelson stated it is zoned Rural Residential, two units per acre (RR2).
Simkins stated that the land would be developed after the Birch Street
developed. When the Birch Street development is done, there will be pressure to
develop the 40 -acre and 20 -acre parcel. It would be nice to have some green
areas alongside the development that will happen up there.
Crawford questioned whether the City ever discussed the option if the County
waited a year. There are two issues going on. One issue is purchasing this location
for a park. The merits of that are good. The other issue is that the Council has
discussed the direction it will go when using Conservation Futures fund dollars. The
direction in the past has been parks. It has come to the surface that the Council
needs to make a significant change. The timing here is the irony. The Council is
now conflicted about trying to send a strong enough message that it did approve
significant changes to their direction, which was vetoed. The question is whether or
not to take this good proposal and sacrifice it for the time being until they can get
an understanding with the Executive's Office about how proposals are going to
come forward on Conservation Futures funds. It is important to know how anxious
the Nielsen Brothers Inc. are to sell the property. Simkins stated he tried to get the
County Parks Board involved in this sooner. The citizens of Bellingham pay into the
Conservation Futures fund as well. They don't feel as represented because none of
the dollars are being spent in their area. This is a chance to partner with the City of
Bellingham to show goodwill. The interurban trail is the best example of that
partnership. Nielsen Brothers Inc. can come back and sell it to the County another
time. However, once they begin bulldozing the Birch Street development, they are
not going to want to sell it to the County for $100,000. This year, $700,000 will go
into the Conservation Futures fund. The cost of this parcel is one - seventh of those
dollars.
Hoag questioned where the key corridor goes through these parcels.
Peterson stated the corridor goes through the western most edge of the portion of
the 80 -acres within the city, and continues on the western edge of the 40 -acre.
Nelson questioned why the issue of the Whatcom connector has not come up
before. Peterson stated this area is not the best spot for the connector. The
connector will have to be moved to the south of the area to be cost effective.
There are three different ridgelines through that area.
Nelson stated they haven't had an engineering study done to determine that.
Peterson stated there is a 60 -foot drop off in that area.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
Hoag asked to find out if Nielsen Brothers Inc. are willing to extend the
deadline to after April 2002. DeSpain stated he would find out before the evening
meeting.
Dawson moved to recommend holding item four until April 2002, when the
Conservation Futures fund recommendation comes from the Agricultural Advisory
Committee.
Crawford stated he was not sure that it is appropriate for this Council to not
have a map or contracts in the packet. This is the first he's heard of it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Crawford stated the Council is very interested in this deal, but it is difficult
for them to make a recommendation right now.
Simkins stated that all property purchases eventually come down to a
deadline. This is one of those situations where this is a golden opportunity. This is
not new.
Brenner stated she was sorry about the timing of this. She supported
earmarking funds for agriculture, but she didn't want to hold this hostage as well.
The city residents also contribute to Conservation Futures fund.
Hoag stated that if they had the commitment for funding to agricultural
commitments, she would be more comfortable with this agreement.
Nelson stated the connector is a more global issue for the constituents. He
wanted to support this, but didn't know if it would become difficult for locating the
connector. That issue has to be resolved in his mind.
McShane asked if they could come up with an agreement by the end of July
that an easement would be granted in the future. One of the concerns with the
connector is that it should be a connector, and not an avenue for creating more
development. If they set aside these lands, it really would be a connector. It leads
to making a more attractive element. He would support this proposal as it is now.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford stated he wants to think about this some more this afternoon and
get more information from the seller.
(Clerk's Note: The meeting was recessed at 1 :45 p.m., until the end of the
Public Works Committee. The committee reconvened at 2:15 p.m.)
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONS OUTLINED IN
THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF -
DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000 (PL- 106 -393) AND REQUEST FOR
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
48
VOTE ON PROPOSED WSAC TIMBER ANALYST/ COORDINATOR
POSITION (AB2001 -232)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they've discussed the federal
laws entitled the Secure School Funding Act and Community Self- Determination Act
of 2000. This act provides for a stable source of funding for those counties with
extensive federal lands. The program is a bit complex. It provides revenues to the
County. Over five years, 40 percent of revenue designated for Whatcom County
goes to the Road fund each year. Another 40 percent goes to schools in the state
school fund. The last 20 percent goes to programs that can be organized around
key areas that have to be reviewed and approved by an advisory committee.
Administration advocates setting up a two - county advisory committee with 15
members from three categories, with the Secretary of Agriculture making the
appointments. Councilmember McShane has tentatively been identified to be a
member of that committee. The Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC)
thought there was a choice about how the revenues to the county could be
determined among the portion of the money for the entire state. The best formula
for Whatcom County was adopted by the majority of the counties. However, the
counties opposing that decision asked that a ballot be issued.
Crawford asked if this would affect school funding. Desler stated the schools
would not be effected because the money comes out of the state fund. It will make
a difference to the Road fund. It will make a difference to Title Two and Title Three
monies. The Executive recommends that the first choice on the ballot be the choice
of Whatcom County.
Dawson moved to recommend going with the administration's
recommendation for payment based upon the state's highest three year average.
Hoag stated she was fine with either choice. The argument made at WSAC
about having it based on the individual counties' three highest years did sound
fa i re r.
Brenner questioned whether each county could do it its own way. Desler
stated no. Recently, an official from the federal government indicated that this
might all be moot, and that the federal government already decided that it would
be based on the state's highest three year average. That is the administration's
recommendation. This is an experimental program. It is an opportunity for
counties to work with the federal government on the future of the federal lands.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved to recommend approval of the timber analyst /coordinator,
who would work closely with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Board and will make recommendations that will use more of the forest for cuts that
have been done in the past.
Desler stated the administration supports the motion.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated Councilmember Nelson expressed a concern about the amount
of control that Whatcom County would have over this person's decisions. Desler
stated it comes down to participation level in WSAC. The person will report to the
WSAC Executive Director, who in turn reports to the WSAC Board of Directors, of
which Whatcom County is a member.
Motion carried unanimously.
Desler stated they do not need to make decisions on the Title Two and Title
Three programs now. There would be more discussion in September. The
administration recommends moving cautiously with this program. Develop a mix of
programs in which the County receives funding, then support through the advisory
committee the other programs implemented through the Forest Service. The
regional advisory committee would have the responsibility for oversight and
recommendations for those programs and activities. A range of things can be done
including conservation easements, habitat, emergency medical services (EMS),
timber - related education, and other programs.
McShane stated the EMS program has to apply to federal lands. He will put
together some ideas on how to proceed with Title Two and Title Three. Title Three
is where the County would decide on its own where the money would be spent, as
long as it fit within the guidelines. The County would need a mechanism to make
those decisions. An advisory committee would be made up of County staff to
provide good recommendations, with some overlap of citizens who are a part of the
Resource Advisory Committee. No action is needed on this now. He would work
with Mr. Desler on this.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #01-
85 FOR SECURITY SERVICE AT GOOSEBERRY POINT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE BIDDER SECURITY SPECIALISTS PLUS IN AN ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $51,520 (AB2001 -234)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Crawford stated he wanted to continue looking at the ferry fee issue.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE FROM VENDOR CURT MEENDERINCK BY PUBLIC WORKS
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF ADDITIONAL LIGNOSITE FOR
DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS, IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF $20,000 (AB2001 -235)
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
47
48
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Crawford questioned whether the rate is the same as before.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, indicated that it is.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
SETTING A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO WCC
1.10 (AB2001 -236)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF LAW &
JUSTICE COUNCIL SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,720 (AB2001-
237)
Crawford moved to recommend approval. He asked if this was to pay for the
Northwest Regional Council (NWRC) services.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is.
Dawson asked how much longer this will go on. Desler stated it was
established as a regular committee. Their work will provide assistance, advice, and
help for years to come. The County is required to have a Law and Justice Council.
The Law and Justice Council now has been more active than in the past.
Crawford stated the County Council would have allocated the $1.8 million
itself. However, this group of people is looking at the most appropriate way to
spend the funds. The cost of the facilitator is money well spent.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES
FOR THE LAW & JUSTICE COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,720
(AB2001 -238)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
48
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND NIELSEN BROTHERS INC. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A
TWENTY (20) ACRE PARCEL OF LAND (TAX PARCEL #380333-
497069) USING CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $100,000 (AB2001 -239)
Crawford stated he is waiting for more information. They did not recommend
approval in the budget supplemental request for this item.
Consent Agenda Items 17 and 24
Brenner asked why the contracts are not for a full year.
Andy Byrne, Human Services Manager, stated the money is from the North
Sound Regional Support Network ( NSRSN). The two -year contract typically ended
in June. The NSRSN extended it for six months.
Regina Delahunt, Interim Health and Human Services Director, stated item
17 is a three -month extension to coordinate with the state.
Brenner asked that the summary statements say where the money is coming
from.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration would tighten
up the elements of the summary description.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH SOLE SOURCE COMPU -TECH, INC. TO COMMENCE
THE DATA INTEGRATION PROJECT TO MERGE THE WHATCOM
COUNTY SHERIFF'S AND PROSECUTOR'S MASTER
NAMES /ADDRESSES FILES INTO ONE SHARED DATABASE AND
UPGRADE AS /400 IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,600 (AB2001 -240)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Crawford stated he thought this had to be sole- sourced because Compu -Tech
has written code for the County on this program, but retained the license for the
code. Previous contracts allowed Compu -Tech to maintain the license. Compu-
Tech has now used that code in programs for other counties.
George Reid, Information Services Manager, stated that is correct.
Crawford stated he believed a software product could be licensed and sold to
different users, without allowing the users to own the source code. However, if a
county pays a company to write a source code specifically for the county, then the
county would often specify in the contract that it gets to own the code instead of
the software developer. If the county opted for another party work on the code,
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
47
48
the entire source code would be there. He questioned Whatcom County's position
on that. He asked how to get Whatcom County into the situation of owning the
code for something it paid for. Reid stated Compu -Tech sold the base code to
Whatcom County. The other two counties do not look, act, and feel the same as
Whatcom County. Whatcom County is paying for enhancements to the base code
to make it work the way it needs to work in Whatcom County. Other counties have
also paid for the base code, and are paying extra to program the base code to their
needs. That is the point of a programming service bureau. The Prosecutor
determined it is a sole source because the County does not own the code. If the
County changes the code, it has to notify Compu -Tech.
Crawford stated he would like the County to be in the position to own
something that it pays for. Reid stated the County's ownership is for the source
code, and can change it in- house.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WA, INC. TO
EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $36,000 FOR AN AMENDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $65,000 (AB2001 -241)
Dawson moved to approve Consent Agenda items eight through 28 by
acclamation.
Crawford stated this is a tremendous amount of work. He commended all
the community volunteers who participate on the County boards and commissions.
Andy Byrne, Human Services Manager, stated they all the contracts are for
developmental disabilities services, with the exception of the two for revenue.
Crawford stated the funding of all of these are from state contracts. He
appreciated having the funding source listed on the contract summary sheet.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL — COMMUNITY
ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS
WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $45,000 FOR AN AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $104,000 (AB2001 -242)
See item eight.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
48
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES — GROUP
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $100,740 FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $196,258 (AB2001 -243)
See item eight.
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES AND CASCADE VOCATIONAL SERVICES —
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT
FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $136,800 FOR
A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $217,033 (AB2001 -244)
See item eight.
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES —
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR
TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $22,500 FOR A
TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $48,331 (AB2001 -245)
See item eight.
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING TO
EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $41,040 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $102,444 (AB2001 -246)
See item eight.
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND CURRENT INDUSTRIES TO EXTEND THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $168,960 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $357,330 (AB2001 -247)
See item eight.
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, Page 18
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
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES — CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES TO EXTEND THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $12,129 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $108,208
(AB2001 -248)
See item eight.
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES (DSHS) — DIVISION OF ALCOHOL &
SUBSTANCE ABUSE (DASA) TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR OUTPATIENT
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES AND MANAGE CONTRACTS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,222,950 (AB2001 -249)
See item eight.
17. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES — PASSPORT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSING SERVICES TO ASSESS HEALTH INFORMATION ON
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE IN THE AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $12,441 FOR A TOTAL THREE MONTH EXTENSION AND AMENDED
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $110,989 (AB2001 -250)
See item eight.
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND HOLLY COMMUNITY SERVICES TO EXTEND
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $10,800 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$34,551 (AB2001 -251)
See item eight.
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED — GROUP
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $45,600 FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $87,075 (AB2001 -252)
See item eight.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
47
48
20. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED — INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE
MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $153,600 FOR A TOTAL
AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $311,777 (AB2001 -253)
See item eight.
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND LOCAL FOCUS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL
CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF
$85,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $181,712
(AB2001 -254)
See item eight.
22. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND MT. VIEW GROUP HOME — COMMUNITY
ACCESS TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS
WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $13,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $31,260 (AB2001 -255)
See item eight.
23. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO EXTEND THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $184,320 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $452,099 (AB2001 -256)
See item eight.
24. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTH SOUND REGIONAL SUPPORT
NETWORK TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR SIX MONTHS
WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $69,158 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $345,785 (AB2001 -257)
See item eight.
25. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND O'BRIEN RESOURCES TO EXTEND THE
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, 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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $13,500 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$28,828 (AB2001 -258)
See item eight.
26. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND SEQUOIA HILL, INC. TO EXTEND THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED
AMOUNT OF $27,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$72,587 (AB2001 -259)
See item eight.
27. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR WA, INC. —
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT
FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN AMENDED AMOUNT OF $144,000 FOR
A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $229,525 (AB2001 -260)
See item eight.
28. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING TO
EXTEND THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH AN
AMENDED AMOUNT OF $108,108 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $216,216 (AB2001 -261)
See item eight.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, asked the committee to recommend to
the full Council amending the supplemental budget request pages that refer to the
burn ban program to be the burn permit program.
Crawford moved to amend all references on Council packet pages 11, 13 and
15, "burn ban permit...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Committee Vice -Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/24/2001, Page 22