HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance November 14 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
November 14, 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
Robert Imhof
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR FERRY
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PARKING AREA (AB2000 -382)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated a letter is a result of discussions at
the staff level with the Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC). This carries out
discussions with the Council earlier in the year regarding ferry services. He asked
for general support to continue moving in this direction, understanding that the
actual agreement and specific dollar amounts would come back to the Council for
discussion in executive session and approval.
Nelson moved to recommend generally supporting the discussions. He asked
how they came to the lease agreement amount. He questioned how that is done
without disclosing executive session information. Monsen stated they looked at a
couple of transactions regarding properties here in Bellingham that are used for
open space parking purposes now. He also looked at appraisals regarding the
Lummi Shore project.
Nelson asked they if will have an evaluation process for the final agreement.
Monsen stated yes. He hoped to receive an initial reaction from the Lummi Nation,
knowing that this was the first number they've put on paper.
Dawson asked if the property is trust property. Monsen stated he thought
so.
Dawson asked if the Interior Department would be a party to the lease.
Monsen stated he would contact the Interior Department as they move forward.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
101, RENTAL EQUIPMENT RATES, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
APPROPRIATE VENDER, BASED ON EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY AND
SUITABILITY, IN AN AMOUNT THAT COULD EXCEED $35,000
(AB2000 -383)
Nelson stated this was a roster of people with equipment available for the
County to hire as needed.
Crawford stated didn't see Henifin on the list.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated Henifin had not put
his name forward. Mr. Henifin had neglected to put his name on the list in the past.
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Nelson questioned whether the initial request was for $35,000, even though
the cost could exceed that. Prieve stated it was.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND PAUL SCHISSLER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR COORDINATION AND
ASSISTANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS
ACQUISITION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT OF $52,866 (AB2000 -384)
Nelson asked how this developed.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated the Council approved a
hazard mitigation grant of $450,000. This is the contract with the consultant to
implement that grant. Staff identified three pieces of property. The contractor
works with the owners and County to do work such as setting up the appraisals,
coming up with demolition plans, and doing the entire implementation other than
what the County has to do.
Nelson asked if they went out for a bid. Cooper stated she went out for a
request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
Nelson questioned how many RFQ's were received. Cooper stated they
received two responses. Paul Schissler has done this exact type of work for Skagit
County.
Nelson questioned whether a particular type of expertise was required.
Cooper stated yes.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Crawford questioned whether a 20 percent contingency is normal with these
types of contracts. Cooper stated they put them in sometimes, depending on how
indefinable things are. One of the limitations is that the County has 90 days to
remove the structures once it acquires the structures. If something comes up, they
won't have time to amend the contract.
Crawford questioned whether Mr. Schissler gets that contingency. Cooper
stated he has to have authorization.
Nelson questioned whether any of the materials would be used in recycling
efforts. Cooper stated she would contact the REStore and get them to take
whatever they can use.
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND URS CORPORATION FOR THE DESIGN AND
PERMITTING OF A SEDIMENT TRAP AND PREPARATION OF A
MONITORING PLAN IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $49,752 FOR A
TOTAL AMENDED AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $84,752 (AB2000 -385)
Nelson questioned the problems on this.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated the consultant prepared a
management plan. From the plan, they were able to get permits to do the first
phase of the construction, which was channel excavation in the area most at risk.
Those permits were conditioned on constructing a sediment trap, which they need
to get designed and permitted now.
Nelson stated amendments two and three were to extend the duration of the
agreement due to delays in the project outside of the consultant's control. Cooper
stated that was for staffing limitations. One problem was in getting the surveyors
there to collect the data. Another problem was that the drainage district needed to
call a meeting and adopt that plan. Things they didn't anticipate cropped up
throughout the process. There were no problems with the consultant.
Nelson stated the agreement is for additional work and catching up, in the
amount of $49,752.
Crawford questioned what this is. Cooper stated Saar Creek is a watershed
that drains into the Sumas River. For several years, the drainage district has not
been able to get permits to do maintenance on the channel. It got to the point
where they were flooding as late as June 13 last year. They came to the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee a couple of years ago and asked for help
on creating a management plan, which this consultant completed. That is what
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Fisheries wanted, a plan so they don't have to dredge the channel every five years
or so.
Crawford questioned whether this pays for analysis, design, or to do the
work. Cooper stated it pays for design of the sediment trap, permitting assistance
for the sediment trap, and preparation of a monitoring plan, which is called for in
both the management plan and permits.
Crawford asked if this actually puts anything in. Cooper stated no.
Nelson stated the diking district would do this. Cooper stated the Flood
Control District did an 80/20 program with the drainage district to design phase I.
Now they need to design and permit phase II, which they hope to construct
sediment trap next year. To do that they need to get going now.
Crawford asked what a sediment trap is. Cooper stated it is widening the
channel so the velocity is reduced and the material drops out. It is a big basin.
Nelson asked if they would plan to clean it out periodically. Cooper stated
the monitoring plan includes guidance on when and how to clean it out.
Crawford questioned whether the County's role is to help them come up with
a design and solution, and the drainage district would actually do work. Cooper
stated the Flood Control Zone District already voiced support because the drainage
district needs some assurance from the County to provide insurance to the
permitting agencies so they can consider participating.
Nelson moved to recommend approval with the understanding that this will
get through phase II of design and permits.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO CONDUCT SOURCE
WATER ASSESSMENTS ON GROUP A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $27,600
(AB2000 -386)
Nelson asked if this is for the geographical information system (GIS).
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated yes. This is work
they planned to do next year, but they got funding now.
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
S. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE
THAN ONE YEAR OLD (AB2000 -387)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked to pull the name of one person, Lynn Barton, who wants to
receive the money. He spoke with her, and she apologized for not taking care of it.
Nelson asked if people could still come back, and if the County could still
approve the warrants.
Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, stated people could.
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -
NUTRITION EDUCATION TO PROVIDE GRANT FUNDING FOR
NUTRITION EDUCATION CLASSES TO FOOD STAMP ELIGIBLE
PARTICIPANTS AND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLICATION OF A
RECIPE BOOK THAT INCLUDES RECIPES WITH FOODS AVAILABLE AT
THE FOOD BANK, IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $17,024 (AB2000-
388)
Crawford stated this program is funded through the state Department of
Health.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WHATCOM COUNSELING &
PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE ONE -TIME GRANT FUNDING FOR
"INNOVATIVE CO- OCCURRING DISORDER SERVICES" TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF THE MOST AT -RISK MENTALLY ILL AND CHEMICALLY
ABUSING ADULTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $43,726 (AB2000 -389)
Nelson asked if they are continuing a contract from last year.
Andrew Burn, Human Services Manager, stated it is new funding from the
North Sound Regional Support Network (NSRSN). It goes directly to the County.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Nelson questioned whether they had the same contract last year with APN
and substance abuse dollars at the Whatcom Psychiatric Clinic. Burn stated there
was a separate contract. This is a different program entirely.
Nelson questioned how they are different. Burn stated the contract from last
year was to provide consultation to Whatcom Counseling Clinic from a substance
abuse and chemical dependency professional about the work that Whatcom
Counseling was doing with that population. This project is grander in scope. The
RSN gave money to hire a specialist, who has dual credentials in chemical
dependency and mental health, to start a program of service delivery for those
individuals who have both chemical dependency and mental health issues.
Nelson stated there is a program working with young women on co- occurring
disorders. He questioned the number of these programs in the community that are
being attempted. They are more effective if done collectively. He questioned
whether the Health Department is working on a collaborative effort to make the
programs work more effectively. Burn stated there are other small projects out
there. It is difficult to separate people who have chemical dependency problems
from those people who also have mental illness difficulties. It has only been within
the last year or two that the two separate systems have begun working together,
but they have not put a concerted effort into using what they know from both sides.
Now, they have specialists with dual credentials. This project is unique because it
is hired staff looking only at this population and doing cross training between the
two.
Nelson asked if the hired staff is on a contract basis. Burn stated the
contract Councilmember Nelson may have seen in the Substance Abuse Advisory
Board meeting was for money out of this particular pot from the NSRSN to go
toward training substance abuse professionals in mental health issues. A portion of
this money is to train mental health counselors in chemical dependency issues. The
two projects within the Human Services Division work hand -in -hand out of the
same pot of money and are contracting to the same organization, but one is the
mental health lead and the other is the substance abuse lead.
Nelson moved to recommend approval. This is a valuable program.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE REGARDING THE 2001 BUDGET WORK SESSION HELD ON
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 (AB2000 -363)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the appropriate place to begin
was to reexamine the budget changes made at the previous work session. He
listed the proposed changes, as listed in his memo to the councilmembers dated
November 14, 2000 regarding budget changes pursuant to the work session (on
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
file). There are some minor technical adjustments, also listed in his memo, such as
changes to the cost centers.
Nelson stated the total of $63,712 is not out of the Current Expense fund.
Desler stated it is the total of all funds. The General fund is totaled at the top third
of the page. The Public Works budget is in the second third of the page. There are
some technical corrections. The difference to the General fund is $3,000
Hoag questioned whether the Northwest yard waste facility is part of the
Public Works Department.
Nelson stated it comes from the Solid Waste fund.
Hoag stated they must look at the funds separately. The majority of the
$63,712 is from the Flood fund. Desler stated it is, from the addition of $152,750.
The final total gives the Council a numerical reference. It doesn't relate to any
particular fund.
Nelson stated the amount was for their information only. Action would be
taken at the full Council meeting.
Nelson moved to recommend approval of the technical corrections.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked if the yard waste funding is dedicated or if it provides extra
funding to the General fund. Desler stated stays in the Solid Waste fund.
Crawford stated the Executive endorses the starling program. The
Conservation District did not get the request in on time.
Hoag stated they are trying to expand the starling program in order to do
trapping for more months of the year and baiting in the winter. They would like to
have $15,000 instead of $10,000 for that reason. They also asked for that amount
last year. She would recommend that change. The motion from the work session
was to approve funding for the starling program at $10,000 and to expand the
program next year, for the 2002 budget.
Crawford stated he asked the Executive about that additional request. The
Executive endorses $10,000, not $15,000.
Desler stated he spoke with Henry Bierlink, who said that $10,000 is fine. It
is always worth reviewing the success of that program. It would be useful to have
a report to the Council on the success or weakness of the program.
Nelson stated they don't want to get into the practice of taking in late
requests. He was not receptive to increases without full understanding of the
benefits and impacts.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Hoag stated she would explain at the regular meeting why she wanted to
expand the program.
Nelson stated it was not appropriate at the last minute. While it may be a
noble and just cause, the councilmembers need time to see how it fits with the
entire budget.
Hoag stated they brought this forward last year. Farmers are not well
organized and are putting a lot of their own money on this. She asked the other
councilmembers to hold their opinions until she explained it at the regular Council
meeting.
Imhof stated the original request was for a one -time expense of $10,000 to
get them started, but it keeps coming back.
McShane stated that if the program is expanded beyond $10,000, there
should be some monitoring of the outcomes.
Crawford stated Mr. Bierlink said the Audubon Society supported this effort.
McShane stated they do, but if they are going to expand the program, they
should also have some coordination with the Audubon Society to make sure that, in
fact, they are not having collateral damage.
Hoag stated accountability is important. There is a person they've hired to
make sure the other birds are released.
Crawford stated Jeff Monsen and a gentlemen from the Information Services
Division gave him a tour of the Public Works facility at the shop to talk about
computers. He got to look at everything. This is in regard to the $168,000
upgrade request. They do have a ragtag assembled bunch of computers over
there. Many are obsolete. He is more comfortable with that expenditure. The life
expectancy in the realm of computers is four years. The department has 111
computers, and is looking to replace 30. The departments are interested in taking
a longer term, comprehensive look at all the County's computer systems and will
come forward with more specific proposals for other departments. Reinvestment in
computer upgrades and new computers is going to be a substantial cost to the
entire County over time. He mentioned an area to Mr. Desler about an opportunity
to take a harder look at the upgrades to Windows and Office 2000. The department
has 111 computers, and is replacing about 30. The question is whether the other
computers can support Windows 2000 and Office 2000. If not, he questioned why
the County would buy the upgrades. There was some question about the licensing
with Microsoft for future upgrades.
Nelson stated he understood there is a reduced cost for the millenium edition
if one already has a system.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Crawford stated the upgrade cost is $200 for Windows and $200 for the
Office. That totals $400 per machine. If they only pay for the machines being
replaced, the department would have a $12,000 cost rather than a $44,000 cost,
which is about a $30,000 differences.
Desler stated the longer -term work is being done by the Computer and
Technical Advisory Committee, which is made up of representatives from all
departments in the County. Mr. Reid indicated that there are some issues with
Microsoft, because Microsoft will no longer support older software platforms
including the Windows 95 and Windows 98 versions. The administration wants to
convert all computers to Windows 2000 over the next two or three years. Public
Works would be the first to implement the change.
George Reid, Information Services Manager, stated there would need to be
upgrades to existing equipment to support the Windows 2000 platform, which are
basically memory upgrades that are cheap. When the County spends the TR &R
money, the new machines would be ordered with the new software so the County
doesn't have to replace the systems on each machine. The staff will have to do
some of that, without a doubt.
Desler stated the Road fund and Public Works Department are not a part of
the TR &R system. That is why the administration approves the memory upgrades
for the old computers, the new computers, and the software upgrades.
Crawford asked if it is also a question of processor speed. Reid stated yes,
but the newer computers will replace most of the old processors. The others will
support the 2000 platform.
Crawford questioned the next processor size above 75 megahertz. Reid
stated the next step up is the 100 - megahertz processor, and then the 166 -
megahertz processor. A processor speed of 100 megahertz would run Windows
2000, but not to optimum performance. The minimum he recommended is 166
megahertz. Once they replace the 75 megahertz machines, the next step is to
replace the 100 megahertz processors.
Crawford stated he wanted to be sure they are doing the right thing by
investing $400 in a 100 - megahertz computer. Reid stated that Microsoft will not do
any more fixes or patches to the Windows 95 and Windows 98 platforms.
Nelson asked if they are charging $200 for the Millennium version. Reid
stated that is the upgrade price he's heard. It might be reduced. The County will
get the upgrades off the state contract when it does the physical purchase.
Desler stated the software would follow the new computers purchased in the
future. The County won't lose the investment in the software it purchases today.
Crawford questioned whether Microsoft would allow installing software from
an old computer to a new computer.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Nelson stated that when a person buys the software, he or she is the
proprietor of it. Many new machines have the software already included.
Reid stated the County has an end use or lose agreement (EULA) so that, if
the County buys a Microsoft product, it encompasses their three top operating
systems. They can order a computer with Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows
2000. Microsoft doesn't care which version is used, as long as there is a Microsoft
license.
Crawford stated he was not clear on how licensing works. Reid stated that
licensing is very complicated at times.
Crawford asked if the County has an opportunity to look at the upgrade of
the software and pull back on it this year. He questioned whether they want to see
that Windows 2000 and Office 2000 are purchased for every computer. Reid stated
that was correct, over the next two to three years, but not over the next year.
There are over 700 computers in the County. They can accomplish upgrading the
111 computers in the Public Works Department this year.
Desler stated the administration recommends this request. If the Council
does not approve it, the administration could forego the software purchases for the
older machines. They should buy them for the new machines. It would save
money this year, but they would end up spending it next year. The purchase gives
the County an opportunity to test out the implementation. The administration
intends to move forward with this software platform.
Crawford asked why they would buy Windows 2000 for a 100 megahertz
computer, when the minimum speed is 166 megahertz, and they would end up
giving away that computer over the next year.
Imhof stated the staff would take out the software.
Crawford questioned whether they really do that when the County gets rid of
the computers. Reid stated yes.
Nelson asked if the primary reason for going to the Windows 2000 was so
they would not have both Windows and NT. Reid stated that was correct.
Nelson stated the networking capability is much improved. Reid agreed.
Nelson stated there was a request for two additional deputies to be paid for
through the Road fund. He questioned whether the revenue generated would or
would not pay for the expense. Desler stated they are currently transferring
$496,000 from the Road fund to the Sheriff's Office. Each year, the Sheriff needs
to certify to the County Road Administration Board (CRAB) that the money was
used for traffic policing.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Nelson questioned whether it is typical to use Road fund money for traffic
enforcement and if so, how much. Desler stated it is typical. He didn't know the
typical amount.
Imhof stated the legislature keeps saying that if there are transfers out of
the Road fund to pay for deputies, a county should not ask for more Road fund
money if it can afford to transfer it out. The legislature looks at the transfers when
it looks at Road fund money.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Imhof continued to state that the legislature would cut back on the Road
funds. They have done that in certain counties that have used a considerable
amount out of their Road fund for other ventures. It is a balancing act. The
legislature hasn't said they can take out a certain amount, but they look at it
whenever it is taken out.
Nelson stated $500,000 comes from the Road fund to pay for traffic. He
asked how many deputies that equates to.
Imhof stated it is about nine officers.
Desler stated he'd look it up. The administration recommended that the
Council consider it over the next year, and provide direction to implement in 2002.
While the administration is in favor of additional deputies to respond to calls, a 20
percent increase in one year is enough to accomplish within the current
administrative structure of the Sheriff's Office. The administration doesn't
recommend bringing on more deputies.
Crawford stated the County is currently contributing $500,000. The proposal
is to increase the amount by another $200,000, but CRAB doesn't want the County
to push that amount.
Imhof agreed. The legislature is also saying that. CRAB just gathers the
information, and has to justify it to the legislature's Transportation Committee.
Crawford asked how Whatcom County compares to other counties with its
$500,000.
Imhof stated Whatcom County is a little higher than average of other
comparably sized counties.
Desler stated the County spends $4.1 million in the patrol division. About 12
percent of the budget for 2001 comes from the Road fund to support that division.
Imhof stated the administration has done a good job on the budget.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Nelson stated the departments did a good job establishing goals and
standards.
Crawford asked about status of caucus money. Desler stated the total
amount is now $50,000. The staff is putting together the application process.
Dawson stated Councilmember Brenner was concerned about the Solid Waste
Specialist position. Quite a few accomplishments have been listed by the
administration. She had asked if they could eliminate the concern by taking some
direction.
Nelson stated it would be brought forward at the evening meeting if someone
brings forward a motion.
Hoag asked if there was a response to her question about increases in
benefits. Desler stated he handed out information during the work session that
showed that virtually all of the increases were due to medical insurance increases.
During the meeting, a report was prepared that showed, by department, the
salaries and wages and each core component of the benefit plans for 2000 and
2001. Each line item showed a percentage increase.
Hoag stated she understood that not all of the increase was due to medical
insurance increases. She had questioned why the percentage varies from
department to department, and was told that the administration would get back to
her on that. She got a copy of the paper that had the medical information
highlighted, but it wasn't the whole increase. It varied from department to
department. She had believed the administration would still get back to her, but
she didn't see anything come back.
Desler stated he would be happy to meet with her and go over it in more
detail. He had also indicated it would be useful to know the questions related to
which departments she referred to and the changes she was most concerned about.
Hoag stated she asked a clear question on three different occasions. She still
didn't have an answer. She has meetings all day, and would not be able to meet.
They need to vote tonight.
Nelson stated he was clear about it.
Hoag stated she would have liked the answer the first time she asked for it.
Nelson stated Mr. Desler got them the answer.
Hoag stated he didn't.
Nelson stated that if she didn't understand it, then she should meet with Mr.
Desler and get that understanding.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
McShane asked about the Council of Governments (COG) Legislative
Specialist position in the amount of $13,000. He questioned whether that position
was beneficial to the County. He wanted to explore that item at some point.
Desler stated all cities and the County contribute funding to the position, which is a
legislative liaison on behalf of all the local governments in Whatcom County. This
amount is the County's portion of that cost.
McShane stated it was described as transportation funding. Desler stated
that is primarily what their monetary impacts are on.
Nelson stated the person worked last year on getting federal dollars for
cross - border issues. More grants are available for transportation needs that the
small cities may use. If they put the resources together, someone would be in a
position to get these dollars to the community.
McShane stated that goes beyond being a legislative lobbyist, as described.
Desler stated there is some monitoring activity and some advocacy activity.
Basically, it is a link between the daily and detailed issues that are going on with
those items that the Council of Governments has chosen to work on, and linking it
back to the local legislative officials so there is communication with legislators and
other relative state officials about the issues as they would affect Whatcom County.
McShane asked if Mr. Desler had ever spoken to the individual. Desler stated
he had once. Executive Kremen primarily does that.
McShane asked if Mr. Monsen had ever spoken to that person. Monsen
stated he also had once.
Desler stated they are using the COG as the vehicle for that activity. The
relationships with the COG members are more intense than with the County
officials, even though it doesn't preclude the County from seeking a meeting. It is
a good idea to do that more frequently.
OTHER BUSINESS
Desler stated one other technical correction came up. Planning and
Development Services wanted a change in the ordinance adopting the 2001
Unified Fee Schedule (AB2000 -374).
Nelson asked the reason for the large fee increase.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Manager, stated she asked for the change earlier,
but it wasn't included in the earlier budget document. The Open Space application
fee is $30. The County spends approximately two to three hours doing a staff
report, then the staff has a Planning Commission public hearing that involves staff
time, then it comes to the County Council for ordinance, and then there is
considerable follow up. She estimated that the staff spends four to five hours for
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
each Open Space application, and then the staff still has to deal with the recording
office to get them recorded. A fee of $250 would barely cover staff time for the
more routine applications.
Dawson asked how much she charges per hour for the time. Goodwin stated
it works out to be about $50 including salary and benefits. That is what the
department charges for other services.
Nelson questioned what other counties do. Goodwin stated that other
counties charge up to $350.
Crawford moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked administration to bring to the evening meeting an answer to the
questions she'd asked regarding the final budget of Whatcom County for the
year 2001 (AB2000 -363). She wanted clarification about why the medical costs
rise in different percentages between departments. She asked what is kicking up
the cost of benefits besides medical costs.
Brad Bennett, Finance Manager, stated one of the problems is that they have
to look at it on a case -by -case basis. There is a variation between the different
departments. They have to go through each department. A change could include a
mistake in last year's budget or that some employees didn't have medical insurance
for a period of time. There are many variables.
Hoag stated she asked about this during the first budget session, and was
told that it would be deferred to look at them all together. That never happened,
so she brought it up again. During the work session, she pointed out the
differences in increases for the salaries and wages and the benefits. She went
through, department by department. The administration said it would get back to
her and explain it. She didn't have any explanation. Before she voted to approve
the budget, she would like to know. Logically, with a medical increase, there
should be the same percentage increase across the board. That is not what she
sees.
Desler stated he would be more than willing to devote whatever resources
are necessary to answer Councilmember Hoag's questions by going through to
answering the questions from the minutes or to meet.
Dawson stated they already talked about that, in terms of some employees
having more dependents than other employees did.
Hoag stated that was one explanation originally, and then the administration
said it wasn't a reason.
Nelson stated it would affect the cost.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Hoag stated she was told by staff in the Finance Division that it doesn't. She
asked that draft minutes be provided to Mr. Desler that afternoon, because she
would not have time to meet with Mr. Desler. During that meeting, she listed many
of the departments. She asked for an explanation of the differences by the evening
meeting.
Desler stated he would do his very best to give Councilmember Hoag the
answer.
McShane stated the budget presentations were outstanding. Complicated
questions were asked and answered.
Nelson stated that if any reasonable person asked a question, this budget
could provide a reasonable answer.
Desler stated the administrative staff appreciated working with all of the
councilmembers as they prepared the document. The Finance Committee met
many times. The Council held a six -hour work session. A number of questions
were raised by all councilmembers, which the administration has done its best to
answer. This is a conservative budget without a significant number of changes that
require new policies.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 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, 11/14/2000, Page 15