Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance February 8 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 49 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee February 8, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 12:07 p.m. by Committee Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Sam Crawford Robert Imhof Absent: None DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 2 (AB2000- 067) Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson questioned whether the funding for the Black Mountain project last year was for tools implementation, and where they are in the program. Roger DeSpain, Parks and Recreation Director, stated it was. They are in the process of setting up their displays. They will have a program going this year, for the summer season. It is moving ahead. Nelson questioned whether there is a Parks Department program this year that will tie in with the project. DeSpain stated there is. Crawford questioned whether the buildings have been moved up. DeSpain stated they have not yet, but probably will by next week. COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SOLE SOURCE VENDOR SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE OF THE COUNTY'S HVAC AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS, IN THE FIVE -YEAR TOTAL AMOUNT OF $73,830, WITH THE COST IN 2000 BEING $13,900 (AB2000 -080) Crawford questioned which buildings this covers. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is for the courthouse, jail, and Northwest Annex. It doesn't include the Olympic building. They will determine Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 whether they want to modify the agreement to include Siemens when they get the building finished. Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT, TO PROVIDE REVENUE SUPPORTING VARIOUS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS, IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $690,267 (AB2000 -081) Nelson stated the amount is $52,000 less than last year. He questioned the impact on specific programs. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated there is no direct impact on any specific program because the money was part of the flexible dollars that come to the County and could be used for different things. They used these monies to purchase their new billing and program tracking software. They also funded the Medical Waste Task Force with these types of monies. It isn't that any program was impacted, but if extra programs come along they will be more limited. Nelson questioned whether the Health and Human Services Advisory Board will look at these funds in light of appropriations for the year 2000 or whether the funds have already been designated. Benjamin stated the year 2000 budget is okay. They knew the amount they were going to get. Some of the monies come through categorically and some of the monies were flexible. Crawford questioned whether this comes from County revenue. Benjamin stated it doesn't. It is all federal and state money. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND REGION 3 AIDS SERVICE NETWORK TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR HIV /AIDS EDUCATION, TESTING, COUNSELING, PREVENTION PLANNING AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE STATE FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $126,310 (AB2000 -082) Imhof moved to recommend approval. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 Imhof questioned how this compared with last year's program. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated there is no difference from last year. The Evergreen AIDS Foundation receives $21,000 of this money for case management. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR PHASE II OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAW AND JUSTICE PLAN IN THE AMENDED TOTAL AMOUNT OF $128,957 WITH THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $18,957 (AB2000 -083) Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they are finishing the law and justice plan. A series of committees are looking at the issue. Some of the money pays for the consultants, but most pays for committee staffing and printing the reports that will come forward. Crawford asked if the Northwest Regional Council submitted a breakdown of how they arrived at the total amount. Desler stated they did. He would provide that information. Brenner stated she didn't want to contract this out. This is a function Administrative Services Division should be doing. She was more concerned because this was less work than the work done in Phase I. She questioned why it could not be brought forward in Administrative Services. Desler stated it would from now on. This is the final portion of the entire program. There is a series of recommendations that will come to the Council about how to implement the plan and its components. Imhof moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE UNITY GROUP FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY PROPERTY AND BOILER AND MACHINERY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 20, 2000 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2001 (AB2000 -084) Brenner questioned how long they stay with one insurance company before they entertain other options. Group. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, introduced Barry Hanson of the Unity Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 Hanson stated they re- market every three years, absent any market changes. Next year they will market to every available carrier. Crawford requested clarification on what they are approving, and if they were being asked to approve the expenditure on Council packet page 313. Desler stated the administration recommends the Council adopts the renewal premium for the year of 2000 in the amount of $84,676, which reflects the additional values. The administration also recommends the additional hull coverage for the boats that the County maintains. That additional premium is $77. Hanson stated the letter that addressed the boiler machinery coverage had an error. That letter is on packet page 302. There are three sections where they address premiums. The typo appears in the fourth paragraph, which reads the current premium for 1999 is $3,788. That is actually the premium for the year 2000. That is the boiler and machinery coverage. The final paragraph is the coverage that the County is not currently carrying regarding hull coverage. That amount is $77. Imhof moved to recommend approval of the premiums in the amount of $88,541, which includes the $77 for the additional vessels. Crawford questioned whether the $2,500 deductible applied to the hull insurance. Hanson stated that was correct. Crawford questioned the value of the boats. Hanson stated the values range to a maximum of $40,000. Brenner questioned why there is a different value limit for the earthquake and flood coverage than the regular coverage. The value of the buildings and contents should be the same for both coverages. Hanson stated the premium is the driving factor. Prior to June 15, 1999, the sub -limit on earthquake was $20 million. The County has a total property value of $74 million. Earthquake rates are expensive. The Council had options to increase its coverage value to either $30 million, $40 million, or $50 million. The County Council chose a sub -limit of $40 million. Brenner questioned whether the deductible was $10 million before insurance payments would kick in. Hanson stated the deductible for earthquake is a two percent deductible. That is two percent of the damage done, with a minimum of $100,000. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson question when the last evaluation for replacement costs was done. Desler stated it occurred this year. The County's risk manager and Barry Hanson go through every year and adjust property values. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 48 49 50 51 Hanson stated that was correct. That is how they came up with the increase this year. The increase in property values this year was $1,160,630. They also increased the values for construction costs and bumped up the building cost by three percent. Nelson stated that compared to the cost to remodel the courthouse seven or eight years ago, construction costs have doubled. Hanson stated the actual replacement value was a number provided to him by the County. Nelson stated they might want to look into. The replacement cost seems R: ', OTHER ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE RECONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE DOG LICENSE FEES (AB2000 -078) Nelson stated the full Council changed the Unified Fee Schedule in December so the multiple dog license fee was eliminated. The full Council should be having the discussion, not the Finance committee. Brenner stated the Council's decision to eliminate the fee was a 4 - 3 vote. Three of the councilmembers wanted to see that working farm dog owners can have a multiple dog license. The majority decided there would be a single license for every dog. She questioned why they should allow a multiple license for kennels. People who adopt animals from the humane society don't get any special treatment, so businesses should not either. Businesses are making a profit. They are breeding dogs to sell. This is a cost of doing business. In the Right -to -Farm Ordinance, the Council said they want to protect farming practices. She questioned why they would want to allow a kennel license for everyone. There was one letter the Council received from someone who was a farmer and a kennel owner who wanted the multiple dog license fee reinstated. Dawson stated they can't determine what a farm animal is. People who adopt animals to save them from euthanasia usually live on farms and like to have a lot of dogs. Greg Rustand, Preferred Animal Care, stated they requested an increase in the multiple dog license fee from $50 to $65. The Council instead eliminated the fee so that everyone was treated equally. That was okay with them because it has many benefits. One of those benefits is that the kennel owner has to license each dog, which makes it easier to reunite a lost dog with its owner. There are 32 licensed kennels in the county, which amounts to 267 animals. Out of those 267 animals, 154 animals are not altered, which means there is a lot of population growth. Out of the 32 owners with kennel licenses, none of them are farmers. Doug Maier, 810 Van Wyck Road, stated he has a multiple dog license. Rustand stated Maier was the only farmer that had a license. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 48 49 50 51 52 Imhof stated Maier also breeds his dogs and for sale. Susan Donato, Preferred Animal Care Administrator, stated that the license is not a kennel fee, it is a multiple dog license that applies to anyone who chooses to license their multiple animals if it is more economical for them. In the research she had done on the kennel license owners, most of them are breeding the animals. There is nothing wrong with that, however she questioned why they should have a discounted license fee. The second and third generation of those animals that have been bred eventually end up on her doorstep. Maier stated he owns a goat and sheep farm and he uses his dogs to protect his goats. They are like a piece of equipment. They are not pets. They live with the animals full time. Now he is being forced to license these dogs as if they were pets. His number one predator problem is other wild dogs that harass his goats. Since Rustand took over the contract for animal control services, he has come to his farm 21 times for animals that are harassing his dogs. None of the dogs who are harassing his dogs are licensed. He questioned the purpose of the licensing ordinance anyway. Imhof questioned whether he also breeds and sells dogs. Maier stated he also sells dogs because these dogs are hard to find. He sells them all over North America by people who are raising livestock. Brenner stated there are two operations going on. The farming purpose for the dogs is okay. There should be a multiple license available for that. For breeding purposes, no one who is making a profit should be subsidized by people who are not in the business. They should make the distinction. Imhof stated they can't make the distinction when the same dogs are serving both purposes. Maier stated their primary purpose was protection of his livestock. Brenner stated that the dogs he is selling are the ones that should have the individual licenses. Any working dogs should have the multiple license. Dawson stated that anyone who has a farm, large or small, would say that his or her dog is a guard dog. Brenner stated they should give the people the benefit of the doubt if they are actively farming. Crawford questioned whether the dogs' primary function was to protect the sheep and goats from predators. He also questioned whether there are other uses for working dogs. Maier stated there are herding dogs. Crawford stated it all deals with farm animals. Imhof stated a corn farmer could use dogs to keep people from driving through the field. This issue opens up a Pandora's box. Nelson questioned the impact if they had not changed the fee. Donato stated the impact would be that people with many dogs would have to pay less than the standard public. According to her records, of the people who have Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, 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 49 licensed their dogs with Preferred Animal Care, only Mr. Maier would qualify for an exemption. No one else has come forward to say they should reinstate the license. Maier stated there are a lot of people farming like he is. They don't have licenses because they haven't been taught. Donato stated that if anyone deserves a discounted fee, it should be for people who rescue animals. Nelson stated they may have to explore the idea of an exemption process. Donato stated that would be an enforcement nightmare, but an exemption could be granted to those multiple dog owners whose dogs are spayed or neutered and will not procreate. 2. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE 1999 NOOKSACK SALMON RECOVERY ENFORCEMENT TEAM SUMMARY REPORT (AB2000 -068) Nelson stated the questions are whether they should continue the program at current levels or expand the program, and whether they should extend the program over three years. Dawson questioned whether they would get yearly updates if they extend it over three years. Nelson stated they could review it through the budget process. His concern was that an enforcement program should have some continuity. There was a request for additional question. They need to get specifics from the enforcement folks. Enforcement will be critical for salmon protection. The committee agreed to discuss this during the next Water Resources work session. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Committee Chair Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 2/8/2000, Page 7