Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance July 11 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 50 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Finance and Administrative Services Committee July 11, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Committee Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: Sam Crawford Absent: Robert Imhof COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A $30 PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -HUMAN RESOURCES (AB2000 -252) Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, stated the money is for the United Parcel Service (UPS) or any other similar expense. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING, PROVIDING CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN AGES BIRTH TO THREE, AND THEIR FAMILIES, CONSISTING OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL TRAINING AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION THERAPIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,984 (AB2000 -258) Nelson stated this is an ongoing contract. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND HOLLY COMMUNITY SERVICES, TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,706 (AB2000 -259) Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Nelson questioned whether this is a new contract or if it is additional funding on the old contract. Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, stated all these contracts are dedicated funding. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner questioned the Whatcom Center for Early Learning and what is in place for those children after the age of three. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services, stated they go into the school system. Brenner stated that sometimes children with developmental disabilities who are at the age of seven, eight, or nine, for example, have a learning age of one, two, or three. She questioned why they aren't put into a program like this, a center for early learning, when they are at that learning age. Benjamin stated they are the school's responsibility. Nelson stated the state takes over. 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES, TO PROVIDE PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES CONSISTING OF TRAINING AND PAID EMPLOYMENT IN BUSINESSES THAT ARE ORGANIZED AND DESIGNED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $268,749 (AB2000 -260) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson stated these are expanded dollar amounts, and there may be additional allocations by the state for more resources. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated there is a mixture. Some are displaced clients from Vanguard's closure. Those monies follow the individual to a different location. There are other instances in which they are renewing contracts. They are all continuing. Nelson questioned whether all who received benefits before are still receiving services. Benjamin stated they are. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING, TO PROVIDE AGE - RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SENIORS, RETIREES AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE LIMITED IN THEIR ABILITY TO ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,180 (AB2000 -261) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Brenner stated she was concerned. She thought this was for seniors only. The contract seems as if the term 'other participants' includes those with other mental or physical disabilities. If that is true, her concern is that there are fewer services for more money. If the Council on Aging administers this, it should target only seniors. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated no. Even if the people are not seniors, but are going to the senior center, they still have to qualify under the eligibility criteria for developmental disability. Brenner stated this is a small amount of money. It will provide fewer services because they raised the rates. They have other programs to help the developmentally disabled. She was concerned about pulling funding that should be targeted to seniors to other individuals. Benjamin stated an individual would not receive services unless he or she meets the eligibility criteria for being developmentally disabled. Brenner questioned whether the individual has to be of a certain age. Benjamin stated he or she does have to be of a certain age. Brenner stated that the document says it is age - related; however, further into the contract it lists seniors, retirees, and other participants who may not be seniors. She questioned whether all participants have to be seniors. The language she is referring to is on packet page 77 in sections A and B. It is not just for seniors the way it is written. Nelson stated the confusion is because it is based on Medicare eligibility, which is not always based upon age. Benjamin stated that is where the other disabilities come in. Nelson stated that those people are classified with seniors because they are Medicare eligible. Brenner stated there is other funding for the developmentally disabled. Nelson stated they couldn't discriminate on funding. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Benjamin stated those people wouldn't receive services in the senior center. Brenner questioned whether only people above a certain age could receive services at the senior center. Benjamin stated that on page 80, there is a listing of the participants without identifying the names. Brenner questioned whether a 35 -year old physically disabled person would qualify for this program. Benjamin stated that he or she would have to ask the Health Department for approval. The Health Department would have to identify funding. That person could get services through this program if he or she met all the eligibility criteria. Nelson stated they couldn't discriminate. Brenner stated they need to clarify that the service is not age - related. Nelson stated that is how the federal government defines it. Brenner stated the request needs to be restated to identify that it is for anyone with these types of disabilities. Benjamin stated the language is adequate and appropriate for the service they are providing. It is part of the eligibility criteria. Nelson stated it is a Medicare funding definition. Brenner stated the language in the title of the item on the agenda specifies that the service is only for seniors and retirees. The service is not just for seniors and retirees. The way it is written is misleading. S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES — COMMUNITY ACCESS, TO PROVIDE AN INDIVIDUALIZED PROGRAM FOR PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO IMMEDIATELY ACCESS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,718 (AB2000 -262) Crawford moved to recommend approval. Nelson questioned whether this is a new program. Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated it is state and federally funded. It is new in the sense that it is a community service access contract, which means that the state and federal governments are putting more money into community access to get those with disabilities more into the community. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Nelson questioned whether they expect this program to go on beyond 2002. Benjamin stated they do expect it to go beyond 2002. Motion carried unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 900910 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF SLATER ROAD INTERSTATE I -5 TO NORTHWEST DRIVE (AB2000 -263) Nelson stated the reason for the project was listed as truck traffic, but he has not seen that much truck traffic on that stretch of road. Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated the road is deteriorating. It was chip - sealed a few years ago. They wanted to do both sections of Slater Road. They are waiting because the City of Ferndale is putting in a signal next year. At that point, they will overlay that section also. He decided to go ahead with this section this year because the workload is a bit light. Nelson questioned whether only an overlay of the current road without any widening would occur. Mills stated that was correct. Crawford moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE JAMES STREET ROAD /EAST BAKERVIEW ROAD SIGNALIZATION PROJECT, TO BE FULLY REIMBURSED BY THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, CRP 998010 (AB2000 -264) Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated this item is tied to the next time. It came to their attention as they let out the contract that the City has plans to update and extend the sewer line. If the County waits to get the roadway done before the sewer line goes in, the City will rip up the road and have to overlay the road. The contractor agreed to do it all at once. The contractor and the City negotiated the amount the City would reimburse to the contractor for performing the sewer line work. The contract is still being run through the County, but the City will pay 100 percent of the share for the sewer line. Nelson stated the amount is $61,000. Brenner stated that when they talked about the traffic light, she was told the County had no right to negotiate a better deal with the City. The intersection is an island within the Bellingham city limits. She wished the County didn't approve the light. This is a perfect opportunity to renegotiate with the City to pay for the light. This proves that the City wants to run the sewer line from Bellingham, through the intersection, and back to Bellingham. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Cape Powers, City of Bellingham Project Engineer, stated the sewer runs up James Street, continues across Bakerview, and continues up James Street. It does not run from Bellingham to Bellingham. Brenner stated this is strategically a good time for the County to have a hammer in the negotiation. It is a $500,000 light. The County is not paying the full cost. Mills stated federal share is $303,000 and the County's share is $188,000. Brenner stated there is no incentive for the City to take that intersection into the city limits. The City must pay for the light because it is an island between two parts of Bellingham. Once the sewer line goes in, there will be even less incentive to take the intersection in. Nelson asked if the intersection goes to King Mountain Road, which is in the County, with the City to the east side and the County on the west side. Mills stated there is an island, created when the City annexed Irongate. Nelson stated the concern is putting in the light fixture and spending a lot of money. Under the interlocal agreement, he questioned whether the City is responsible to reimburse the funds spent for the light. Mills stated there is a ten - year straight light depreciation. Brenner stated that in five years, the City only has to pay for half the County's share of the cost of the light. In ten years, they don't have to pay anything. Nelson stated that if there is sewer access, it increases the zoning potential. He asked if there is water. Mills stated the water serves the County residents in that island area. Nelson stated the choice is for the County to move forward if the County develops the area at a different urban development zone, or for the City to annex the area. Brenner stated the County couldn't develop it at an urban level. The County is not allowed to do urban development. Nelson asked if the intersection is in an urban growth area (UGA). Mills stated it is. Nelson stated the County could do urban development. Brenner questioned why the County would develop it at an urban level. It would not provide the County any more revenue to develop it at an urban level. Nelson stated that an industrial development provides a tax revenue base. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Brenner stated King Mountain is not going to be industrial Mills stated this is not the most appropriate time to change the terms of an interlocal agreement. If they attempted to change the terms, it would hold this up for a month. Nelson suggested that they not hold this up, but find the answer to Councilmember Brenner's concern. He understood from the interlocal agreement that when the County upgraded the sewer and water, the City has to look at it for annexation within a certain period of time. Brenner stated the County can't force the City to annex the intersection. Mills stated that residential areas are not a revenue - generator. Nelson questioned whether this would be an appropriate area for a different zoning. The intersection does create an additional cost. Mills stated it is a pass - through area for traffic. Nelson stated the concern is that the County pays the $180,000 for the traffic light. If the area is not annexed in ten years, then the County pays for the entire light. However, a certain amount of revenue is generated in ten years to compensate for the investment. The County is dependent upon a level of density or zoning that returns an investment. Residential zoning never returns enough for the investments. There is industrial development occurring across from the Irongate Industrial Park. He questioned whether the County can change the type of development occurring along Bakerview to justify the expenditure for the light. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they've tried to address this problem through the interlocal agreement. They County can consider different zoning within areas of the County. It must be done so in consultation with the City, as they just found out with Birchwood Hearings Board case. It depends on fair resolution and the good will of all. The County cannot force a fair resolution. Brenner stated it is blackmail that the Council has to approve this or it will be held up. This is an important thing to do. She questioned why it came late. Nelson stated it is not late. The staff just found out about it. Mills stated the City came to the County at a late hour and told them about the sewer line they wanted to put in. Brenner stated that is a perfect ploy by the City. She suggested that the County make the City reimburse the County for its share of the light in order to be allowed to put in the sewer at this time. Nelson stated that Brenner would then be blackmailing the City to do certain things that benefit her. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Brenner stated she wouldn't call it blackmail to do what is fair to begin with. It is an island. She apologized for using the word blackmail. Nelson stated that is reason they did the interlocal agreement. If the interlocal agreement is not fair, then they can deal with it. It is not fair to constantly change their minds. They have to either use the interlocal agreement or not use it. McShane questioned whether this is coming out of the road fund. Mills stated the signal is. The City will pay for sewer out if its own funds. McShane stated the road fund money comes from gasoline and property taxes. The City people are paying into those taxes. Nelson stated the City people do not pay into the County's share. They pay into the state's portion of the gas tax. Nelson moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST BAKERVIEW /JAMES STREET ROAD INTERSECTION, CRP 998010 (AB2000 -265) Nelson moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES FOR RIGHT -OF —WAY USAGE (AB2000 -266) Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the U.S. Government Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is looking at the placement of a telecommunications line within County right -of -way for a portion of the distance of the project. Ordinarily when entities use county rights -of -way, they do so in a couple of different ways. They can obtain a franchise and negotiate those terms. Second, they obtain an irrevocable encroachment permit that allows them to do work in the right -of -way. There are certain inspection costs that the County occurs when someone works in the right -of -way. In this instance, the federal government is sensitive about obtaining permits from local governments. One can debate whether or not that is a justified sensitivity. The County is not insisting on obtaining permits. The County is saying that the right -of -way belongs to the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 County. Whoever uses it does so subject to reasonable conditions that will enable the work being done by whatever entity to dove -tail with whatever other that is already there, and then for the County to be reimbursed for its cost incurred in the course of inspection. That is what they've tried to do in this agreement. There are three issues that the U.S. government considers being unresolved to its satisfaction. The first issue is that the County has no need or right to use a contract format to grant permission for federal work of this nature in the right -of- way. The County's position is that it wants an agreement with the federal government so the federal government and County know what to expect from each other. That is not a revolutionary notion, to use someone's property pursuant to an understanding. They have tried to stand firm on the fact that if one is going to use the right -of -way belonging to another jurisdiction, there has to be a level of understanding by a way of an agreement. The second issue is regarding payment of fees. The fees that the County is asking for in this agreement are not permit fees. There is a permit fee for an irrevocable encroachment permit. The County is not asking for this fee. The County is asking for cost - recovery for the costs of inspection. County officials will do inspections to make sure the work complies with what the County needs to be done in the right -of -way. The third issue is a concern over the fact that the County provides for revocation of the contract in case the terms of the agreement are violated. They don't expect that to happen. If there is an agreement for use of County right -of- way, it should be reasonable and fair to both parties. If one party or the other steps out of line, the other party should be able to say the action was not per the agreement. That doesn't mean the U.S. government couldn't insist on another avenue to occupy the right -of -way, such as condemnation. The County is saying that, per this agreement, the federal government must abide by the reasonable terms and considerations. If not, then the agreement is terminated. The County wants very much to avoid a confrontational situation and wants to work with the U.S. government. If the U.S. government uses County property, it must do so pursuant to a reasonable understanding. Brenner stated she assumed that the County would do this to cover any liability that the County may have. It is the County's responsibility because it is the County's right -of -way. Gibson stated liability is addressed in other ways in the agreement. The County wants to have certainty from standpoints of both liability and safety. Brenner stated they talked about County rights -of -way and property. She was confused about the strip at the border and to whom it belongs. Gibson stated the right -of -way they are talking about is some distance from the border. The border itself is an extremely thin line. There are federally -owned enclaves within Whatcom County and adjacent to the border. Bob Anderson, David Evans and Associates, 119 Grand Avenue, stated he is available, with others, to answer questions. He introduced the police chief from Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 9 1 Blaine, Blaine Border Patrol Sector Chief Carry James, Blaine Border Patrol Assistant 2 Chief Keith Miller, and Chris Desler from David Evans and Associates. The project 3 has had considerable review to date. They are trying to put in a small fiber -optic 4 transmission line conduit. It yields 200 pages of detailed plans that have been 5 reviewed by County and are in the process of final approval. They've taken the 6 steps to work with the small cities that are affected by the project and with the the 7 County to make sure there is coordination. They are trying not to do it with a 8 roughshod or heavy- handed approach from the federal government. It is a national 9 security project. He did all the surveys of every wetland and stream along the 10 entire route with the intention of total avoidance of any environmental impacts. 11 They have a finding of no environmental significance. All of these things have been 12 done to have a compatible project for the local community and the federal 13 government. The local community will benefit in terms of law and justice support 14 systems through the surveillance system. They are at the point of determining how 15 to go forward with a project that would meet the standards that the communities 16 have, while still falling into the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, 17 which limits severely the kinds of things the local entity could do. If this were a 18 federal project to build a dam on the Nooksack River, for example, there would not 19 be an immunity exemption. There is a combination of the benign nature of the 20 project and similar projects that have been done elsewhere that creates a condition 21 that does not require formal permitting, even though they've matched all the 22 standards. They've evaluated the shoreline program, critical areas program, 23 zoning, coastal zone management consistency through the state Department of 24 Ecology, elements of the development standards, and the encroachment conditions 25 that would normally be used on a revocable project. They are waiting for final 26 approval on those elements. 27 28 There is 90 percent agreement on the document. The County can't evict the 29 federal government when there is a national security project like this. It is not 30 necessary. It is no different than AT &T's fiber -optic line, which is in the same 31 corridor. They don't see a need for a fee. That has been clarified. Earlier, there 32 was reference to a $.05 per foot revocable encroachment fee. If it is not that fee, 33 they will need to resolve the other inspection fees. Finally, they need to look at an 34 intergovernmental agreement that doesn't have the enforcement and punitive 35 actions that are set out in a contract form. He was asking that the Council not go 36 forward with this draft but keep the agenda open to receipt of an alternative that 37 will accommodate the things they've represented here. This is something that will 38 benefit the federal government, local government, and the local cities. 39 40 Hoag stated that she lives on Halverstick Road. She is familiar with the 41 border patrol. She appreciates what they do. She also appreciates Mr. Gibson in 42 trying to protect the County's interest. She supported his stand. She questioned 43 some of the things that they both agree to. 44 45 Nelson stated he wanted to finish the testimony before taking questions. 46 47 Gibson stated the County is asking for $.05 per foot or any other agreement 48 that fairly reimburses the County for its work. They are not giving that up. The Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 County is not asking the federal government to go through the permit process and charge the cost of the permit, but there are costs. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Gibson continued to state that there are costs they want to carry over into this context and only represent cost - recovery in terms of the time that is involved in being onsite and doing necessary inspection. Hoag stated that is appropriate. Andersen stated that the plans would be inspected by inspectors, who will document how they comply with the County standards and as -built drawings. The budget that is set aside to accomplish that inspection and any other work is part of the contract with the U.S. Government to make sure this is built according to the standards agreed upon by him and Mr. Gibson. If the County is going to assist them in accomplishing some of that work, it will not detract from the budget. If it is a duplication of services, they need to resolve them. Terry James, Border Patrol, stated the U.S. Border Patrol is the INS portion of the entity seeking to put this fiber -optic line in along the border. It is not a telecommunications line. It will be used to get video from the border area into the sector to monitor the activity crossing the border. When he began working at the Blaine border patrol sector, the working relationships with the border patrol and local agencies had deteriorated. He tried to turn that around. The border patrol worked most extensively with the Sheriff's Office. The benefit of what the border patrol does for the sheriff outweighs what the border patrol receives from the sheriff. They've never asked for anything back. This is over a right -of -way. He is quickly approaching retirement. He won't know who his successor will be. If this agreement doesn't go forward, the perception of the working relationship with the County will deteriorate. When trying to put the system in, they came to the County and all parties involved to do what is right. Federal money is not like state and local money. If he doesn't spend it, he and local area that receives the money loses it. They had a timetable and an agreement. They went to the city of Sumas, who was aware of the contract. They saved the City of Sumas about $15,000 on the right -of -way because they rode in on the shirttail of this system. It was brought to the attention of the County from the beginning. If there is a benefit for the County, he wanted to make sure the County received the benefit and the border patrol assisted the County. He then received a flurry from the County saying it also wants to put in a fiber -optic system. They didn't object. If they can save money to the taxpayer, it is a benefit to all. The clock is running. The money has been obligated. He can't hold it up any longer. This is a national security issue. They told the County that if it can get its money in place and be ready when they were ready, then they wouldn't object. From that point on, it all went downhill. Obstacles began popping up. The County was approaching them from every direction to stop the project. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 They are bound by law to adhere or conform to all County local, state, and federal laws when installing this thing. They are not going to interfere with someone's safety. They have done the environmental impact statements. Regarding liability, the federal government is self- insuring. The County has no liability whatsoever. If the federal government does something wrong, it is responsible. They are required to conform to County regulations. They've tried to do that and will continue to work with the County. They do not need obstacles. They cannot afford the time to condemn the property by eminent domain. They don't want to do that. They are trying to work with the County. They need to remove the obstacles and to continue the good working relationship. Nelson stated he is hearing two different things. One thing is that the border patrol wants to work with the County and the other thing is that there are red flags. He questioned what red flags there are. James stated they came to the County engineers with the intention to put lay this conduit. Brenner questioned when they started the negotiations and when they first came to the County. Andersen stated the initial contacts were a little over a year ago. In a formal context, they talked to the County in November 1999. Nelson questioned the red flags. James stated the fee and safety issues are being thrown at them. The federal government is self- insuring and the County has no liability. There are no safety issues. All these things have been addressed. The federal government is being required to conform to all the regulations of everyone else. The only difference is that the federal government should not have to pay. Nelson asked why the federal government would not compensate and create an unfunded mandate. James stated they could condemn the property. Nelson stated the federal government would have to deal with the property owners, which would be far more expenses. James stated the project was allocated a certain amount of money. None of the fees have been requested before. He's never asked the Sheriff's Department to reimburse him for anything he's done. Had those fees been known up front, they would have asked for those fees in their budget. He proceeded on the assumption that no fee was required. Nelson asked if that was Gibson's understanding. Gibson stated no. Agents made contact in November. At that time, the agents were told that they would need an irrevocable encroachment permit. The County is backing off of that and only asking for costs associated with the necessary inspection where there is construction in the right -of -way. They are not laying out a new cost beyond what could have been reasonably ascertained when the information was given, apparently by Gene Altman, in November that it would take an irrevocable encroachment permit. The INS has also been working with the state. What the state is asking for is more onerous by way of an agreement. It is not terribly different than what the County is asking for. The County is not asking for more than its costs associated with the inspection of construction within the County right - of -way. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 Nelson asked if the County is required to do inspection in the right -of -way. Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated that the County inspects anything that occurs in the right -of -way. Inspectors make sure that the work is compacted correctly and that there are proper signs and flagging. Nelson questioned why the County does that. Mills stated the County does that for safety for the public. Nelson asked if James had an objection to compensating the County for those issues. Andersen stated that if there are actual costs that the County has derived, they would not get to the $.5 per foot issue that was discussed if it were done in concert with the inspection the federal government is doing with licensed engineers supervising inspectors. There is a team that has to do the work within the budget constraint for the project. Regarding the other issues, the intergovernmental agreement would have a more cooperative arrangement. The revocable nature is a cornerstone. Nelson questioned whether they object to the work the County has to do to protect the public as an unfunded mandate. Andersen stated it is a mixed bag. They are asking the taxpayers to pay twice. The federal program is providing many more thousands of dollars of benefit to the local community. There might be an in- kind services equivalent that would substitute for some of those fees. Nelson questioned whether there was an in -kind service in the document. Andersen stated there is not. James stated it goes beyond that. The border patrol provides services to the County at no charge. Nelson questioned whether there is alternative compensation. Gibson stated he couldn't think of any, but there could if there was a quantifiable service in which the money could be deposited into the Public Works road fund coffers. He can't think of anything like that. Nelson stated they dealt with this issue regarding the stoplight in the previous item. It becomes a sticky wicket. They have a public responsibility to the citizens of the County that the service be paid for. Even though it is a double tax, there are also additional services that are paid within Whatcom County. Crawford questioned the nature of the project. He questioned whether it is going to be an underground, 45 -mile long fiber -optic cable that would connect a string of video surveillance cameras. He questioned whether there are towers. Andersen stated they are on new telephone poles. Crawford questioned how frequent the telephone poles would be placed. James stated they would be placed in certain infrequent and strategic areas. The Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 cameras will be at the border. They need the right -of -way to place the conduit to send the video signal. Crawford asked how the cameras would be used. James stated they are not interested in watching the United States citizens. The cameras are going to be focused on the border and points of entry for those who are crossing the border illegally. Crawford stated they could sometimes get into situations where the County accepts others' engineering. If they are willing to provide the things the County inspectors normally inspect for, the County could agree rather than duplicating efforts and incurring costs. Mills stated that David Evans and Associates is inspecting for the integrity of the line, not for the compaction of putting the road together. That could be a conflict of interest if the contractor is inspecting his or her own work. They are not inspecting for the same thing. James stated the federal government is required to meet the requirements of the County. If the federal government doesn't put it back, it is liable. Nelson stated it costs money for the County to go through a liable issue. James stated it wouldn't. They wouldn't contest it. Crawford stated his concerns are about being compensated for the appropriate inspection services. That is reasonable. He is also concerned about the entire concept of the federal government installing surveillance cameras that could potentially have other uses. Hoag stated it sounds as if the fiber -optic line will run along the road, but the cameras will be located at the border. James stated the fiber - optics will be run along the border where possible. In areas that conflict with the environmentally sensitive areas, they will use County right -of -way. They have obtained permission from private property owners to place the poles. Hoag questioned whether they have the consent of the property owners to place the poles. James stated he does. Hoag stated she was concerned because farmers in that area don't want additional obstructions to farming. James stated they've looked into that. Hoag questioned whether he has gotten the farmers' permission. James stated he has. Hoag stated she was concerned about the wording in section one on page 121 of the Council packet. It grants to the "United States of America and its successors and assigns if the same are agencies of the federal government of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 United States." The County is giving this right -of -way to any agency of the United States. Gibson stated that is correct. Hoag questioned why the County would not restrict it to just the INS so they know specifically what this is for. Later in the document, the language goes into that, but it contradicts what is said in this section. Gibson stated it wouldn't make that much difference to the INS. If it is the federal government, and they are talking about the same line, it doesn't make any difference to the County in terms of the conduit and the line. Hoag stated she recognized that in terms of Public Works. In terms of other concerns that citizens may have, and in terms of the County giving a right -of -way to the federal government for use, she would be more comfortable restricting it to the INS. She questioned whether there was any problem that the INS might have with that. Gibson stated he was looking at it from a Public Works standpoint. Hoag questioned whether the INS would have a problem with a language change to section 1(a) on packet page 121, "...is hereby granted to the USA and }� United States INS. This right of use...." Anderson stated they are talking about a layer of the Department of Justice, INS, and the border patrol. There might be other situations in which part of the duties could be transferred to some entity outside of the Department of Justice and that would perform the exact same thing. They are trying to accommodate not having to go back through this kind of a review. Hoag stated that if someone wants to use it for a use the County didn't anticipate and approve, they could come back and ask to amend this. Gibson stated he is respectful and sensitive to the argument that the County should not tell the federal government to what purposes they could apply this. The County is concerned about the Public Works aspect. They are not engaging in a policy analysis of whether this project is worthwhile. Hoag stated that is Gibson's perspective. Her perspective is that they are granting a Whatcom County right -of -way to the federal government for its use. She wanted to make sure that matches the policy the County wants to pursue and that she is protecting the citizens. Her second question is that the language says that the rights -of -way shall "include" instead of shall "be limited to." This is a good idea in light of the fact that planes have been taken away from the northern border. He likes the border to be protected. At the same time, the right -of -way is being given away. She wanted to ensure that the right -of -way is being given away for the reason she thinks it is. She questioned whether they can amend the language in section 1(a), "This right of use shall inelude be limited to the non - exclusive..." Nelson stated the County doesn't limit other rights -of -way. Gibson stated he didn't see it as a problem. Contrary to what Mr. James thinks, he has bent over backwards to accommodate the federal government. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 James stated there are cameras on the southern border. This is the first time this agency has put in fiber - optics. This is the first time this has happened. He is not an attorney. He doesn't have a problem with that language. He was just trying to do this within his budget. Gibson stated he is not concerned about that language. Dawson stated she understood that they have limited funds. She has a problem with the federal government saying it won't pay those funds. James stated the federal government is willing to pay fees, but there is no need to inspect every foot of the cable. In the wording of this, it looks as if the County is using this as an avenue to raise revenue. Dawson questioned whether he was willing to pay and whether it is a question about the extent of payment. She would be willing to waive the fees if the County can use the line at the same time. Brenner stated the County doesn't want to at this time. Gibson stated the $.05 per foot comes from the revocable encroachment permit, but it also says that if the project is out of the ordinary, they have to look at the costs the County incurs and that the fee has to be based on the cost. All they are asking for is cost reimbursement for reasonable inspection. Brenner stated the concern is that the roads are put back safely. Not all of the rights -of -way are roadway. She asked if it was okay if they only specify the roads and road shoulder. Andersen stated he heard concerns that they can incorporate into a revised document. He doesn't want to try to revise that document in front of the Council at this time. Nelson suggested that they work on the document. Brenner asked if they could postpone this to the next meeting to continue. Gibson stated the federal government is under a time deadline. He wanted them to get moving. Nelson questioned whether they could put it together by tonight. Andersen stated he couldn't do it by tonight. Two weeks will have to be okay. 2. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET TO FUND A LIFEGUARD POSITION AT LAKE SAMISH PARK (AB2000 -274) Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, 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 49 50 McShane stated he understood that there are lifeguards at Lake Samish now. He also understood that the administration would like to see the funding provided for those positions. Roger DeSpain, Parks Department Director, stated that was correct. They need to begin immediately before summer ends. The administration stated it would do it in the interim of days it would take to appropriate the emergency money. He had lifeguards there on Saturday and Sunday. They tried yesterday, but the problem is trying to get certified lifeguards. They've been borrowing lifeguards from others. McShane asked for the parameters. DeSpain stated the amount is not to exceed $19,000, which pays for four certified lifeguards seven days a week, to begin as soon as possible and go no later than September 11. Nelson asked if it would take four lifeguards and the costs. DeSpain stated they could employ many lifeguards. There may be some lifeguards that can only work a few hours. The total dollar amount is not to exceed $19,000. Hoag stated she is co- sponsoring this with Councilmember McShane. She asked if it is better to specify the dates. DeSpain suggested they specify seven days per week. Hoag asked about next year. DeSpain stated this will be in the budget for next year. Crawford stated they haven't had lifeguards there for many yeas. DeSpain stated it has been seven years. Crawford asked if the recent accident constitutes a changed condition. DeSpain stated there has been drownings when there were lifeguards. This is the first instance of a drowning without a lifeguard being present. There is no assurance that other incidents won't happen because of the presence of lifeguards. There have been many pullouts that don't get reported. This is a measure of safety for the public, but is no guarantee that there will not be any drownings. Nelson asked if this incurs additional liability on the County. DeSpain stated it doesn't. McShane stated this is a heavily used park for swimming. They have to watch carefully in a lake situation. Nelson asked if they explored a user fee for the park. DeSpain stated there is a user fee for out -of- county residents. The cost of collecting the money would be equal to the money collected. Brenner stated she would also co- sponsor it. Crawford stated he preferred to take no action. Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:30 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, 7/11/2000, Page 18