Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance April 4 20001 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 April 4, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 12:03 p.m. by Committee member Robert Imhof in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Sam Crawford Absent: L. Ward Nelson DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS RELATIVE TO THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN AREA, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENACT A MORATORIUM ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET THE AREA FOR A VOLUNTARY BUYOUT PROGRAM (AB2000 -114) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, distributed information on the expenditures made since the 1989 flood event. He believes that, with the status of the work and federal disaster programs, the County should expect pre- disaster expenditures to be financed from County dollars from now on. There is always the possibility of federal and state funding post- disaster. The disaster doesn't always have to occur at the site in which they will apply the mitigation money. The County will at least cost -share through the 80/20 program. The majority of the work of this type is accomplished through the 80/20 program. Eighty percent of the funding would come from flood district and twenty percent would come from the local sponsor. Brenner stated this could get expensive. She questioned whether they would tell the flood district that it has to pay. Monsen stated that financially, from a local standpoint, they expect bigger financial costs. Brenner asked if they expect the flood district to absorb 80 percent of the costs. Monsen stated no. The County should expect applications for cost - sharing work. The situation today, regardless of the $1.4 million already spent, is unstable and unpredictable. The range of options goes from doing nothing to doing aggressive, proactive restoration and protection. The level of effort could be from no protection provided, up to protection up from a high erosive, high debris flow situation. The staff review gets at some of the legal issues regarding obligations vs. discretionary decision - making. The County has lots of discretion in which direction they chose to go. The letter from The Logs /Glacier Springs has important information that describes unusual events and that the residents believe the County has already made some long -term commitments. They are dealing with a dynamic alluvial fan. Regardless of what the Council decides, he can't say it will be good enough or be done. They've only touched on the issue of the state highway. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 48 Regardless of the Council's decision, the County will have to make land -use development decisions. The Council has seen that the basic policies need to be in place for a voluntary buyout program. Based on previous discussions, Glacier Springs would be eligible for a voluntary buyout program of some type because there have been alternative analysis done technically and professionally. They have not gotten to the point of determining whether a buyout is less costly than the cost of protecting the land. That is a significant criterion used to decide whether or not to offer a buyout. Imhof stated the problem is that they don't know what the fix will be. Brenner stated they also don't know how long it will last. Monsen stated the discussion is not solely for Glacier Springs. It is a policy matter that applies to the balance of the county. They can make decisions exclusive to this area, but he wants to address long -term policy matters. They've discussed a number of options and argued them through. The recommendation is that the County can't walk away from the problem because the existing levy needs to at least be demolished. In its current state, it is a greater risk than if they make adjustments. He is not suggesting repair because they won't get a permit to do that. They need to at least undo the present risks. The recommendation, which is consistent with the advisory committee, is to pursue at least a voluntary buyout when state and federal dollars are available. Those two things are minimum recommendations, to take down and minimize the current risk and do whatever they can for a voluntary buyout. They need to decide if they will supply County money on the front end or wait until after a disaster. Hoag stated the westward relocation of the dike is estimated to cost $1 million. She asked if those funds would come from outside of the county. Monsen stated they would not. It would be local money. There is a small chance to find other money. Hoag stated she didn't hear a discussion about the people who live in the area. Part of the issue is the money. The buyout program would purchase property but the river could move if they are not protecting it at all. They could end up endangering other properties. The cost is $1 million to relocate the dike and $2,100 in annual maintenance costs, which is not high to protect people's investment, and it affords protection for the highway. Monsen stated the difference is local funds vs. federal and state assistance. Regarding the buyout program, the County has to assume there is federal or state money available, and that it is available for those types of acquisitions. That money may be limited to improvements and not purchase of bare land. The $2.9 million may represent fair market value. To put it in place takes local dollars. Hoag asked about Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) money available to buy out the land. Monsen stated certain post -event mitigation money for a buyout would be available. Mitigation money can be available if there is a declaration in this region of the state. If the county is declared a disaster area, Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 48 then money is available for general application based on County priorities. The declaration has to be a presidential declaration. The governor has to request the President to declare an emergency. Imhof asked about the process of repairing what is there to remove the danger, and what it would cost. Monsen stated one approach is to lay the levy back against the bank behind it. There is a canyon between the eroded bank and the levy. It would involve large cat work for a week. Imhof asked if they need a Fisheries permit. Monsen stated they would, but getting permitting for undoing some of the work would be easier than trying to rebuild in place. Brenner stated they did the repairs in 1990 from the event in 1989. The repairs were blown out and $1 million went down the river. They keep sticking the finger in the dike and are not getting anywhere. She wants to do something permanent and not allow people to build there. They can't foresee everything. If they do buyouts, they should determine where flooding has been bad, not where it might go. She heard they are using a map that has a buyout area bigger than what has been flooded. They have had major floods. She assumed the floods covered everything in the last ten or twenty years that would be damaged. They should scale back to a buyout of areas that have been considerably damaged. Imhof stated it would involve state and federal funding of damaged property. Brenner stated the advisory committee recommended the acquisition of all riverside property and acquisition of all potentially at -risk property. She suggested they scale it back to the acquisition of all riverside property that has had damage, and acquisition of high -risk property in the long term. Imhof stated the alluvial fan is at risk. They need to prioritize. As money comes available, they make offers to people within the zones. The question is whether they put in a moratorium on building on that alluvial plain or a portion of it. Brenner stated they could scale back the moratorium to areas that have had damage in the past. At risk property is anywhere in the alluvial fan. In the alluvial fan, there are high -risk and minimal -risk properties. Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated the old moratorium does not exist. Imhof stated they discussed getting an idea of where to consider a moratorium. Monsen stated a moratorium is a limited exercise. If they want to prevent building, the only way is to acquire the right to build. Practically, the cost to build is prohibitively high, but it is not absolute prevention. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 Imhof asked if they could rezone the area to recreational use. Middleton stated the lots are nonconforming and can still be built upon. It is all platted out now. Imhof asked if regulations could be made to only allow temporary buildings. Middleton stated Whatcom County has the most open non - conforming use policy in the state. It would probably still allow the residences to be built. Hoag questioned whether the recent lot consolidation ordinance addresses this. Middleton stated it does not. Hoag asked if the lot consolidation ordinance would address it if the Council changed the zoning. Middleton stated it would. Hoag questioned whether the lot consolidation ordinance would apply if they downzone the area. Middleton stated he would have to look into it. Brenner stated hazardous areas were included in the lot consolidation ordinance. Imhof stated few of the lots would be owned by the same person. They need to ask staff to bring back a recommendation for a short -term moratorium so they can look at options. Also, they need to give staff time to see if lots can be converted to recreational use. Brenner wanted a temporary moratorium, but they should still consider a moratorium on areas that have been damaged. Also, if they do an acquisition, it should be focused on high -risk properties. Imhof stated they have to prioritize the areas for buyout. If the money becomes available, all the property on the alluvial fan is considerably at -risk. Brenner stated the major floods have been in last ten to twenty years. They would know which areas are high -risk areas. Imhof asked how much they are going to spend to protect it. He questioned whether they would continue dumping money into it. The question is how much would be at risk if they continue to put money into the levy. They have to balance it out. Hoag questioned whether the County would still be obligated to protect property if it offered to buy out that property, but the owner didn't choose to be bought out. Monsen stated the County would not be obligated to protect the property. Hoag asked if a voluntary buyout releases the County from obligation. Monsen stated the County has no legal obligation right now. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is no legal obligation to do any protection. In 1994, when the County built that levy at considerable expense, there was no legal obligation to do so. Hoag questioned whether the County is obligated if it allowed the property to be platted and developed. Gibson stated it is not a black and white issue, but generally the County is not obligated. People are generally aware of the risk by seeing what is in an area. Unless the County is creating a special relationship by urging or promising, there is no obligation. The County has not been urging people to build there or promising people anything. Hoag questioned whether allowing people to build does not legally obligate the County. Gibson stated that is correct. Brenner stated there was a case in California where homes were built on a cliff. The sites were permitted and the people were allowed to build their houses. Then, the land was sloughing off and it became dangerous. The owners were required to install pipes to keep the water from undermining the property. The people didn't keep up with that; it was their requirement. Property was lost. The county was held liable because the county permitted structures there in the first place. In 1994, the County Council was told there is a liability because it was permitted in the first place. Gibson stated, generally speaking, the County does not traditionally have an obligation to save people from doing something. People have chosen to voluntarily put themselves in harms way. Brenner questioned whether people assume it is safe enough to build because the County issues a permit. Gibson stated there are people who make that assumption. Monsen stated historically the County, including pre- and post- creation of the flood district, recognized where the County sits legally, but has aggressively helped people to protect themselves. They are not recommending that the County run away from that role. In this case, the dollar amounts that will be required make it an opportune time to reconsider the policy. Imhof stated the County did its best effort, but its best effort is not up to Mother Nature. Hoag stated she was not in favor of purchasing more public property. This flood was caused because of a debris flow that was blocked. When it let go, they had a much bigger problem. In terms of general policy, FEMA chooses to buy a place that gets flooded regularly instead of keep fixing it. That is not what they have here. There are fewer County dollars required to relocate the dike. It is only $2,100 in annual maintenance costs. If they compare that with almost $3 million for buyout, the $2,100 will go a long way. Then, they will protect the people that are there. Rather than the County buying more and having more in County Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 ownership, it would make sense to move the dike, protect the properties that are there, and have a smaller investment of public dollars in it. Imhof stated that is where they are going, to pull the dike back, do maintenance, and then do the voluntary buyout program when an event occurs and dollars are available. They are continually going to get debris blocking up the creek and blowing it out. Monsen stated the recommendation is to demolish the levy to make sure they minimize the present risk. He is not recommending that they build a new, $1 million levy. Pulling it back does not create a new levy. Hoag stated she is talking about option three. It is only option that will give a high level of protection to the people and protect the highway. Monsen stated he is not recommending using $1 million in County dollars to do option three. He is also not recommending spending $2.9 million of local dollars to do the buyout program, either. Tom Cosgrove, The Logs Resort owner, stated he hadn't heard anything about demolishing the existing structure to make it safer. He provided pictures of the dike. It is off base to say that they are going to keep sinking money into something that Mother Nature is going to rip apart. Dikes, by nature, sustain damage. The dike performed as it should have. It saved properties from water. Even though it is a dangerous alluvial fan, the properties have sustained little damage even before the dike was built. To consider buying out everyone on the fan, which is what the July report from Inter -Fluve recommended if they are going to let the dike go, would cost $10 million for properties that have not sustained damage. Brenner asked about the idea of voluntary buyout for property that has sustained substantial damage. Cosgrove stated there are four properties. If he owned property that washed away, he would participate. In the Inter -Fluve report, it identified a short -term buyout and a long -term buyout. One property on the short -term, at -risk, immediate buyout list was built on last summer. The owners had a geo- engineering report that stated their property was at a low risk. Inter -Fluve says it is high risk. He was allowed to build with no mitigation. Middleton stated the property in question is on the edge of the ancient fan and the active fan. To say that the properties have never been damaged by water is extremely misleading. To point a shotgun to your head and say you're not dead yet is at about that same risk level. He was there two weeks after it happened. There were still rocks and boulders in the trees. There are some properties substantially at -risk and others at -risk. It is a very large fan. A large portion of the ancient fan is not at -risk. Where the dike is, there are several at risk. Talking Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 about properties in harms way is different than properties that have already been chewed out. Hoag asked about removing the dike to make it safer. Middleton stated the concern is about a weak area that might blow out behind the dike. If it does, it will not come back into the stream. It will continue to go out and make that bend even larger. It will take out a substantial area. If they leave the dike in and allow the holes, it will channel itself up and around. Hoag asked if there was a cost associated with removing it. Monsen stated there is. Removing the dike and laying it back to minimize the risk is not that costly. It is not like building a new levy. He is not saying that trying to protect the people isn't important. They will continue to help people across the county. The issue on the financial sheet is that to date, the County has put in less than nine percent of the $1.4 million that has gone into that area. Now, any proactive work done will be funded 100 percent by the County. Cosgrove stated the first point is that FEMA wasn't put in place to do repairs on the dike. Also, when they place a moratorium on properties, because they are on an alluvial fan, they already undergo the critical areas assessment and have to have geo- engineer reports stating the risk factor. Imhof stated it is an option they have. Joan Thompson, Canyon Creek, stated her house went down the river. She wanted to clarify what is at risk. She lived there for 25 years. There were floods and high water, but she never had a problem. Logging was done. The first flood was in 1989. They lost one house. At that time, a temporary dam was installed. Everyone agreed to install riprap, but one party pulled out at the last minute. They weren't allowed to release the dam to let water through. When the flood came, that small dam broke above the houses. Because the work was never completed, the riprap rolled into the creek, which blocked the water. The water started to cut behind. When the house above hers went in, more debris was added to the river, which diverted it again. Imhof questioned what the County should do. Thompson stated they need to fill the hole. The riprap that was put in front of her house and the logging debris is the reason it happened. Sue Ann Croft, Blaine and Glacier Springs, read a letter from her brother, a geologist, who has property in Glacier Springs. The Inter -Fluve report is weak on the history of the alluvial fan. Damage from the 1989 -1990 season was outlined, but failed to make any mention of the clear- cutting activity that pre -dated the flooding. An influence was the damming of Canyon Creek with clear- cutting debris. There should be discussion of annual rainfall and discharge rates. During seasonal rainy seasons of 1988 and 1989, there was no damage to the alluvial fan. There is now stability in the lack of upstream logging activity. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 John Harrod, Glacier Springs, stated that if the County changes the use, the covenants will not allow recreational use. The toe of the dike has been undermined. They've contemplated other options because Fisheries does not want to fix the hole because of the Chinook issue. It is insane that they would need to get permission to take the entire dike down when they can't put a Band -Aid on one small portion. If the dike is breached at the dogleg, it is unlikely that the dike will hold the water. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Harrod continued to state that, when there was no dike, it stayed along the cut by the roadside. It didn't try to work its way back up toward the mountain. If the dike does get breached, removing the dike won't do much but spend a lot of money. The water scours and eats up the lots. They placed the dike so that wouldn't happen. The properties at risk are gone and were scoured out. Now, one can have a piece of property that is twenty feet away from destruction and has never shown any damage. At the next flood, that piece of property may completely disappear. He wanted the second option explored more, in which they try to repair the toe of the fill and contemplate whether the lower portion, by The Logs, is at- risk. That may be a losing battle. For the amount of damage suffered on the upper portion, they can still repair that for very little money if Fisheries will allow them. Patty Wilson, Maple Falls, stated her father built the Log Resort. She lived there for 35 years. During that time, the resort never suffered any damage. One hundred years ago, when the highway was built, Canyon Creek used to go through Glacier Springs, across the Mount Baker Highway, and into the river. They decided they didn't want to build two bridges close together, so they made the creek make the turn out of the canyon to go underneath the north fork of the Nooksack River bridge. With all the logging done in the sixties, the Forest Service admitted in a letter to her family that they'd hauled in gravel to make the roads and that was what was coming down the creek and causing the problems. People have been messing with the creek for 100 years. They need to fix the dike. She expressed her concern that they were choking the creek when the last dike was put in. They went ahead and did their way. They can't choke the creek. It has to have boundaries, but it has to be allowed to do what it is going to do. Her recommendation would be to fix the dike. Otherwise, they will put a business out of business that has been in business for 30 years. Kelsey Bingham, resident, stated he purchased property on lot five. They are not talking about summer homes. These are permanent residences. He grew up on the Skagit River and the dikes there aren't nearly this size. The money to maintain and fix the dike is considerably less than trying to buy people out. Imhof stated they need to have more discussion on the options. Crawford questioned whether there is an objective way to compare where the County was financially when it expended money in the 1990's vs. the financial situation today. The County is stretching its money today. He asked about the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 budget situation. Monsen stated that in the early 1990's the County allocated $100,000 from the general fund. Since the creation of the flood district, resources have increased dramatically. The issue is if the County can still match 10 percent on a project of this size. It can. If the County has to fund 100 percent, it is going to drop a lot of other activities. Crawford asked if the County knew in the past, when it was platted, what it knows now. Monsen stated he couldn't say. Gibson stated it is likely that platting occurred prior to the level of zoning that exists today. Crawford asked if the downzone could occur with no financial consideration to the County because of the new, changed condition that they understand now what the hazard is. Gibson stated the question is whether one can downzone in a way that prohibits people from using their property. They would be making a non- conforming use. The questioned is whether the County could remove the ability to do what the owner previously had the ability to do. That has not been a favored policy in the County. Crawford asked if there would be a public use to the property if the County were to buy out the properties. He questioned what happens when the County owns these properties. Monsen stated that if the property is expected to go downstream, the County would not develop improvements, but that doesn't negate a public use. Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated they could clear a trail. There would be no structures. Uses include bird watching, a trail system, and other low impact uses. Crawford questioned whether the potential exists for some level of public use. DeSpain stated that was correct. Crawford asked if there are other areas in the County in which people could come forward and say they are in a hazardous area, and ask to be bought out. Monsen stated the potential is there, but it depends on how carefully the Council wants to make sure that this is a unique situation. Hoag asked how soon they have to start option three, if the County were to pursue that option, to have it in place for the next flood season. Monsen stated there is no way to finish it this year. It is viable to do it next year. Permitting issues are easier when relocating it away from the stream, but not non - existent. Imhof stated this would be held in committee. Brenner suggested putting it into Public Works Committee. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION CANCELING UNCOLLECTIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY (AB2000 -147) Crawford stated the Town Perk is now a different business. He questioned whether the new owner inherited the liability. Steve Oliver, Chief Deputy Treasurer, stated all the assets of the Town Perk were leased. There were no real assets owned by the business. Crawford asked about the tax liability. Oliver stated they are property. Crawford stated the building still exists. Oliver stated that, with the exception of the mobile homes that are listed on pages three and four of Exhibit A, the rest are personal property taxes. They are not real property. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO JOIN WHATCOM LAND TRUST TO PURCHASE THE TIMBER RIGHTS FROM THE GOODYEAR NELSON HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY, INC. UTILIZING CONSERVATION FUTURE FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $750,000, WITH $500,000 BY AN ANONYMOUS DONOR FOR A TOTAL OF $1,250,000 (AB2000 -133A) This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BLACK MOUNTAIN FORESTRY CENTER, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR SERVICES UNDER THE GRANT AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN OCTOBER OF 1999, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000 (AB2000 -148) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND THE SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREOF PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2000 -149) Imhof stated this only sets the date and the sale of the surplus property. He moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 48 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BLAINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB2000 -150) Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, requested to postpone this for two weeks. 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RIDDELL WILLIAMS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RELATED TO I- 99, AS APPROVED IN SUPPLEMENTAL #3, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000 (AB2000 -151) Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE TO PROVIDE REGULATORY AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF ESA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COUNTY RELATED TO NOOKSACK CHINOOK SALMON RECOVERY ACTIVITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,618 (AB2000 -152) Brenner stated Councilmember Dan McShane couldn't attend this meeting. However, he has concerns about this item. He was concerned it was more about giving the County political cover than doing things that need to be done, and it is a lot of money. Other than that, she didn't know what he was talking about. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he talked with Councilmember McShane just prior to this meeting. Mr. McShane said that most of his concerns have been resolved. Crawford asked if this is fully funded. Monsen stated the grant receives money; $85,000 of the $118,000 is covered. The balance is local funding in the amount of $33,000. Crawford asked if the $33,000 is budgeted. Monsen stated it is. Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 8. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 900901 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 GRANDVIEW ROAD - JACKSON ROAD TO BLAINE ROAD, AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AWARD TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO. AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $348,655 (AB2000 -153) Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PACIFIC SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE SURVEYING SERVICES TO ESTABLISH PRE -MARKS FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING FOR SANDY POINT, IN THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $6,792 BRINGING THE TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT AMOUNT TO $20,608 (AB2000 -154) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, distributed informational material that would go out to the property owners, presuming the Council approves this, so the property owners would understand what the situation is. The property owners are dealing with some conflicting information. The staff proposes to proactively resolve that conflict, rather than putting the burden on the property owners themselves. Imhof questioned whether this is like the 100 -year flood maps that the County produced because the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) money wasn't as plentiful. Monsen stated it is similar. It is some of the best information available to deal with flood plain mapping. In this case, the elevation difference when building a home along the shoreline makes a difference. Imhof questioned whether this is to clarify the discrepancy in elevations. Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated the FEMA maps, the County's official maps, are very vague. They rely on some old historic maps that show one elevation. There is a new study that shows a different elevation for Sandy Point. This is to clarify that discrepancy. They are using good information to better the FEMA maps and to lessen the flood damages in the county. Monsen stated this is a not a situation in which the staff is exercising some discretion. If something is considered the best available information, there is some obligation under the national flood insurance program that, without exercising due diligence, it protects all insurance holders in the county, not just these individuals. Imhof moved to recommend approval. Dawson asked if they would send the letter to property owners and when. Monsen stated they would send the letter tomorrow, if approved. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 Crawford asked if the letter is okay with Dawson. Dawson stated it is. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE HIRING OF A GROUP TO IMPLEMENT ON -LINE PAYMENT OF COUNTY TAXES AND FINES (AB2000 -163) Brenner asked how much it would cost. George Reid, Information Services Manager, stated there would be no cost for the first year. It is the EzGov.com program that was presented to the committee two weeks ago. The County has to contract with them. There will be 20 counties nationwide to be pilot counties. Whatcom was picked as a pilot county. The initiation fee and first year maintenance fee are waived. It gives the County a chance to see if the program will work prior to making an obligation. Crawford stated that in this week's National Association of Counties (NACo) newsletter, the center spread is about a different company called Egov.com, who is willing to go into it for free. He wanted to be cautious that, if there are a number of companies that do this work, the County looks at all the companies because of the per transaction fee they receive, which is charged to the consumer. Also, Riverside County, California, where he used to live, has EzGov.com. He looked up information on his old houses. He asked if all that information is public record anyway, or if the County is opening the door to any issue of confidentiality. The access to that information is great. Brenner stated a person could now get that information by going into the Assessor's Office. Imhof stated Egov.com was at the NACo conference, but they weren't up and running anywhere. EzGov.com is already up and running elsewhere. Also, the County is looking at picking up the transaction fee. does. Crawford asked if this is a contract with a set timeline. Reid stated it is not. Crawford asked if the County always has the option to get out. Reid stated it Imhof stated there is only a 30 -day notification requirement. Crawford stated he was impressed with Riverside County's EzGov.com. It was neat to use and fun. The citizens will enjoy it. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, 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 Reid stated the County has an option to set up the security and the required access to a higher level. Brenner stated the users should pay the user fee. All the County residents should not pay the cost. Crawford stated Riverside County pays fees for the first thousand or so users who pay their property taxes through the program. Brenner stated she could live with that. Imhof stated that when this comes up in the budget, the Council will review how the program is doing. Reid stated this gives the County the opportunity to put the program through its paces. It gives the County the opportunity to look at how it works before putting forward any money. Dawson stated the County would make money on interest if the citizens pay before the due date. 2. RECEIPT OF INFORMATION REGARDING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (AB2000 -145) Imhof stated they haven't received the information. Brenner stated the Council is supposed to give the administration direction. The administration already has the information. They are willing to take the employer's portion and have the councilmembers pay their own portion. Councilmembers were not made aware of their ability to be in the program. However, they've always been eligible. Imhof stated they would address this further with Mr. Desler at the next meeting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:23 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Robert Imhof, Acting Committee Chair Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 4/4/2000, Page 14