HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance October 24 2000 pm1
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
October 24, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. by Committee Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford Robert Imhof
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION REPORT, WHATCOM
SELF -HELP HOMES (AB2000 -358)
This item was not discussed because it is scheduled for the evening's
meeting.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #12 (AB2000-
359)
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated a revised substitute document
was submitted to add $16,000 for roof and gutter repairs on a County facility.
Nelson moved to recommend the substitute document.
Nelson asked how the roof and gutter repairs would be maintained if the
County does the improvements. Desler stated the County would purchase a long -
lasting roof for the building and work with the Board of Directors. There is some
activity to consolidate with the Lake Whatcom Treatment facility, so the County
would be working out a new lease. The County would also work with this board to
write a grant application for other improvements on the building.
Nelson restated his motion to move approve the substitute ordinance and
provide direction to administration to include this house in the capital facilities
program and have a maintenance program for all facilities, so expenditures don't
come up sooner than what is necessary.
Crawford asked if the tenant was interested in purchasing the building, or if
the County has any specific plans for the future of this building. Desler stated they
haven't discussed that option. A purchase would require a payment of interest and
principle. The tenants have a low- budget operation. The County is one of the
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
primary payers for the services that are going on. The County is reimbursing them
for some of the activities through the Health and Human Services Department.
Nelson asked about funding the .5 full -time equivalent (FTE) employee for
the Health and Human Services Department tobacco person. He questioned
whether it is a one -time request and is based upon availability of the tobacco funds.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated the position is
dependent upon the availability of the tobacco funds in the public health services
account of the state budget. In the next biennium, the County will know if there
are more settlement funds. If the County does not receive any more funds, the
department would put the position back to a half -time position if there is no more
funding.
Desler stated there was a new issue related to the employer contribution to
the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) for councilmembers. A
councilmember recently informed him of wanting to be included, which impacts the
employer portion to be paid. Six councilmembers originally wanted it, but one
wanted it only for a portion of the time, not earlier terms. The number of
councilmembers joining still remains to be six. At this point, it's the Council's
option to adjust the supplemental request. They could add the amount at another
time, with another supplemental request.
Nelson stated the total amount for the PERS item would be changed from
$27,385 to $38,219 for the employer contribution. Desler stated that was correct.
Crawford stated they could look at this issue as the County being financially
ahead because the County has had the use of this money the entire time. Desler
stated modest interest charges are due for the County to pay the Department of
Retirement Systems (DRS).
Nelson asked if the retirement earnings are based on the time that the
councilmembers should have been enrolled. Desler stated the councilmember
would receive the same service credit hours that they would normally have
received.
Nelson questioned whether there was consensus to amend this supplement
request to include the amended amount for the PERS employer contribution.
Crawford stated there was consensus to amend the amount of the employer
contribution to PERS to $38,219.61 for the retirement benefit.
Nelson restated and amended his motion to recommend approval of the
substitute supplemental as amended, for a total amount of $88,690.61.
Motion carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE WRIA CAUCUS SUPPORT
(AB2000 -377)
Nelson stated this item was brought before the Council at its work session a
week ago.
Bruce Roll, Water Resource manager, stated this issue came up months ago.
The Council provided direction for him to go to the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit
proposal requested an annual amount of support not to exceed $30,000, with
understanding that there is a 25 percent match for every dollar requested.
Conditions for support include identifying caucus constituency, developing
membership recruitment plans, posting semi - annual forums, and other activities.
Nelson moved to recommend approval for funding of $30,000 per caucus
from November 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001. Each caucus would be required to
provide matching funds of 25 percent for each dollar requested. That would be
done through an application process similar to the WA -CERT application process.
An inability to effectively represent caucus interest due to financial limitations would
be considered. A demonstration of an efficient and effective use of assistance
would be considered. A demonstrated commitment and financial accountability
would be considered. There was a concern about funding public entities that are
capable of having their own funding sources.
Crawford stated he supported the concept of caucus funding, but had a
concern about paying members of the community and interests in the community
to attend meetings. He couldn't think of another venue that pays people. He was
concerned about establishing a precedent for doing that. He supported this
request, but would remove from the second page the language, "remuneration to
compensate attendance at the Planning Unit portion of the WRIA." Preserve the
opportunities for caucuses to receive funding, attend, and be a part of technical
evaluations that require more professional assistance. Caucus meetings would not
be directly compensated, however the technical support would have compensation.
In addition, the County should fund the opportunity that helps the public relations
and informational distribution, which could be a component that is presented in the
application for funding. It is a valid point that water associations, well owners, and
certain other groups would have a difficult time getting information from their users
and disseminating information to people. If the only means that they have to
disseminate information is through the Bellingham Herald, then certain people
would not have an adequate understanding or opportunity to understand what is
going on. Their voice wouldn't be heard. Preserve the concept of funding caucuses
by not establishing a precedent that the County is going to pay volunteers for any
participation in government. Regarding the amount of funding, a decision should
not be made on this today. They need to continue the budget presentations and
hash out the budget. He is turning over every rock possible to find money for
caucus funding. He would continue to campaign for that.
Nelson stated he hoped the administration would put this together in a
package with a specific proposal up to $30,000. The County Council would review
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
each application. The County Council could change and review each of the
applications. He was not concerned about the wording of the amount, because they
are only specifying a ceiling. If, after the budget process, the Council decides to
limit caucus funding to $100,000, for example, it would limit the amount available
for each of the caucuses. There are other boards that receive compensation, such
as the Board of Equalization, the Whatcom Transportation Authority board, and
other boards.
Crawford questioned the amount of compensation those board members
receive. Desler stated the amount is very modest. They also provide
compensation for the public to serve on the jury.
Nelson stated there is a precedent of compensation. That is something they
need to look at. They want to be sure the caucuses are willing to participate.
There is an advantage for participation in this process.
Crawford stated $50 is not going to make a big difference given the caliber of
people at the Planning Unit meetings. He didn't want to insult them.
Nelson stated they are the ones who have to come back with proposals.
Crawford stated he would leave the door open. He wanted to be careful
about how this is worded. The County is asking these people to do something that
is highly technical, and needs to help them financially to resolve the technical
issues.
Nelson asked about facilities for caucus meetings. Roll stated the caucuses
don't have a place to meet. They have to find their own place to meet.
Nelson stated they may want to look at an amendment to cover the needs of
the councilmembers' concerns.
Crawford stated that, when caucuses put together their proposals, they
should understand the Council's intent.
McShane stated the area he has a problem with is the technical participation.
That is where the big money is. There is an inherent distrust of agency and County
staff people. He questioned at what point they accept a technical concept. He was
not excited about caucuses being funded to sit in on the process. He was not keen
on the division between entities who are a taxing authority and those who are not.
Another division could be considered between entities that can afford to do this
because they have a vested interest and entities that don't have any vested interest
other than the greater community good. His biggest concern was that the caucuses
are functioning in a way that the individual volunteer has a greater burden than he
or she ever thought. That extra effort also requires them to go out and meet with
their caucus constituent and disseminate information in a coherent manner. He
was also concerned that certain caucuses don't represent all of their people.
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
Roll stated the process is the Planning Unit, which are the caucus
representatives who make the big decisions. At the same time, a series of technical
studies are occurring with Utah State University (USU). A series of technical teams
were created to interface between stakeholders' interests and the technical groups,
so the layperson's interests could be shepherded into the technical pieces of
information and make sure the questions are asked of the scientists who are trying
to develop the decision support system. That is a huge burden of time and effort.
There are six groups now meeting consistently twice per month or more. They are
trying to give unified direction to USU to develop the models that answer the
specific questions they want. The caucuses have been screaming to have the
ability to participate in that. There is an issue of making sure those interests are
shepherded into the process. Right now they don't have the capacity to put a
resource in there because there are so many meetings.
McShane stated it is a matter of not having the time to be in the meetings.
He was not sure it was necessary to hire technical people and engineers to sit in.
Roll stated the support proposal that came out of the Planning Unit stated that
caucuses may request funds to reimburse representatives for involvement at
technical teams. They are asking for someone to represent their interest through
the process. It doesn't necessarily mean that that person is a scientist. He didn't
see a request for a $250,000 consultant to come in and play that role.
Nelson questioned whether other counties had a process like this, or were
not as sophisticated as this process. Roll stated he understood that Whatcom
County is, by far, the furthest along of any of the WRIA's, and also the most
complex. It is a wise choice to address all the issues in a comprehensive manner.
At the same time, it is an enormous burden on the people who are participating and
on the County to see it through.
Nelson stated the County could pay the cost up front and develop a package
that everyone agrees with, or at least the caucuses agree with, or go through the
process with limited resources and develop a package that has to be defended. Roll
stated the critical timing issue is that the County is teeing up phase III of the USU
group. They are in the middle of phase II. This is where the technical teams are
doing all the hard work and asking the specific questions so that USU will develop
the decision support system (DSS) during phase III that responds to all of the
caucus interests and the technical team pieces. He was concerned that, if they
don't engage this group during this vital phase II, they are not going to be able to
provide the direction to USU that they would need to provide to get the benefit
from the DSS later on. This is a critical time in the WRIA planning process.
Nelson stated he would like to see a guru of technical abilities that everyone
would accept. During the growth management process, the County brought in an
attorney from outside the county because the County wanted to get the work done
that would be defensible. The County spent far less money than many other
counties who are still trying to get their plans completed and approved. He agreed
that they don't want to waste money, but there is a point in which they could be
overly - frugal and not produce something that is defensible. If they are going to
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
produce something defensible, then they need the caucuses to agree. He didn't
know how much that would cost. He hoped the caucuses would be very responsible
and come back with an outline of what their specific needs are. It is important to
not ignore this step.
McShane stated he was concerned about the commitment of the caucuses to
remain at the table and in a consensus mode in the long run. It is only going to go
so far.
Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County,
spoke on behalf of the land development caucus, who did submit the $86,000
budget. The Council wanted a realistic picture of what it cost them. Regarding
their commitment, they've already participated for a year at their own expense.
Those are very realistic costs on her budget.
She wanted to respond about the inclusiveness of any of the caucus groups.
When the County Council puts a notice in the Bellingham Herald about taking
comment on a proposed ordinance, the County Council gets the general public who
are interested to show up. They do not hear every comment from everyone in
Whatcom County. This process works the same way. The County put out several
ads asking people to participate in the WRIA planning process. They got what they
got. On the land development caucus, they had the associations step forward,
including the BIA, the Associated General Contractors (AGC), the Whatcom Sand
and Gravel Association, and the Realtors' Association. That is the reality of the
caucus groups. The agricultural caucus is the same way, and include the
Agriculture Preservation Committee, the dairymen, and the berry growers.
McShane stated his concern was that this would be an ongoing effort for
years, and all the caucus would face that effort of constantly reaching out.
Bovencamp stated that is why they have the Public Involvement and
Education (PIE) team within the process. It is their job to continually specify the
process and encourage people to join. At this late date, it would be difficult to
catch up in this process. The land development caucus represents about 1,200
members out of all of those associations. That is a good representation, but
obviously does not include everyone in the county. If people want to be a part of
the process, anyone could step forward. The associations are the ones who showed
up at the table to play. It is like that with every caucus group. The well owner
caucus does not hear from every single well owner in the county.
They need the technical expertise. If the County is asking them to sit in on a
technical process, they can't adequately participate without the technical expertise.
She was comfortable with caucuses using $30,000 for technical expertise. They will
have a better process.
Regarding her concern about educating a caucus, she didn't want to fund
someone's newsletter with taxpayer money. If they are going to give funding to
the groups for education, there needs to be very specific criteria, because they do
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
have the PIE team. If a caucus is going to put out a newsletter, it should be in a
form that is specific to the caucus and does not fund a particular newsletter around
the county.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, summarized that the Committee is
interested in actively supporting various interest groups in this process; not
interested in creating a new standard of public involvement in a planning and
consensus building process because hundreds of citizens contribute their time and
talents to the success of County government; interested in developing a request for
proposal (RFP) process focused on public involvement and education; interested in
examining the capacity of existing organizations to support their own interests; not
interested in creating an advocacy or political action group; not interested in
creating an alternative engineer and design process. The Committee wants this to
be time limited.
Nelson stated the proposal currently is from November 1, 2000 to December
31, 2001.
Desler stated that the more criteria the administration has from the Council
about the direction, the clearer the responses they would receive.
Nelson suggested holding this item in committee one more time to work out
details and concerns. He questioned whether there was a time limit. Roll stated
many caucuses have expressed their concern. They are right in the middle of
phase II. The process would take a while to complete. The councilmembers have
to be comfortable about the criteria for judging the applications.
Crawford questioned whether Mr. Roll can bring something to the Council.
Desler stated the administration could create something like an application
process and criteria in two weeks.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Desler stated they would have to adjust fund balances.
Crawford stated that if a particular group pays for consulting time on its own,
and then suggests a method of engineering that would be better than what is
proposed by the County, the door should be left open for that. This isn't a trust
issue. An important part of the buy -in is that the caucuses have been able to look
at all of the information. It is not a matter of trusting or not trusting the Public
Works Department. It is an opportunity for additional analysis should the caucuses
choose to go down that road. It is not a duplication of money. It is a guarantee
that they get a product they can all live with.
Nelson stated they could put together a proposal with general guidelines and
allow caucuses to put together specific proposals. The Council could then modify or
change those specific proposals. He questioned whether that would be fair. Roll
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
questioned whether he was being asked to develop some criteria based on the
discussion and develop an application process that the caucuses could use in the
coming weeks. He would do that.
Desler stated the Council also want to look at this in two weeks.
Nelson stated he wants to look at the application before it is sent to the
caucuses.
Nelson moved approval of the funding cap of $30,000 per caucus, contingent
upon having a program in which the caucuses would submit an application and
contingent upon the administration coming forward with an application method for
the caucuses to apply for the funding.
Crawford agreed. They were in the same position a week ago.
McShane stated that is a potential of $330,000 that the Council is
committing.
Roll stated the Port has no intention of applying for any funds related to this
proposal. He supported the proposal for others.
McShane stated he liked the concept of the grant applicant. Caucuses could
get together when they have common ground for specific issues.
Nelson stated caucuses that come together to share resources would rate
higher in their application. Roll stated that would create a conflict of interest to
have certain tasks unified. It is difficult when each group is expected to represent
their own interests.
Nelson restated that the motion was to have administration work on a caucus
funding plan and to bring the application and criteria back to the committee in two
weeks. The funding cap would be $30,000 per caucus.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL "CONSENT AGENDA" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND DUKE
ENGINEERING AND SERVICES, INC. FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
THIRD AND FINAL YEAR OF MONITORING FOR THE DAVIS-
RIVERBERRY AND VANDELLEN PROJECTS AS REQUIRED BY THE US
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, IN THE
AMENDMENT AMOUNT OF $55,685 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $226,836 (AB2000 -365)
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO TWO
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES INCREASING
WHATCOM COUNTY'S ALLOCATION FOR BECCA SERVICES FOR AT-
RISK YOUTH (ARY), CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES (CHINS) AND
TRUANTS, IN THE TOTAL AMENDED ALLOCATION AMOUNT OF
$237,605.03 (AB2000 -366)
Crawford questioned whether this is funded.
Nelson stated it is.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE FEDERAL AND STATE
GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THREE FLOODPLAIN
PROPERTIES, AND REMOVAL OF ALL STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $450,000, WITH A COUNTY SHARE OF $56,250 (AB2000-
367)
Nelson asked for identification of structures.
Cooper stated the locations are not identified in the grant. Three people are
willing and ready to sell their property. The locations are at 1945 Marine Drive,
4606 Ferndale Road, and 7495 Emerson Road. She submitted the grant schedule
for the program (on file).
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND IT CORPORATION TO
CONDUCT SOIL INVESTIGATIONS IN AND ABOUT THE EASTERN
MAINTENANCE SHED AT THE CENTRAL SHOP FACILITY, REMOVE ANY
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND PROVIDE HARD SURFACE IN THE SHED,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,520 (AB2000 -368)
Nelson questioned whether this item went out for bid.
Finance and Administrative Services, 10/24/2000, 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
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Operations, stated the County hired a
consultant it has used in the past. It was done through an extension of a past
agreement. Emcon was the name on the previous contract. The company merged
with another company.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON
ENGINEERING, L.L.C. FOR PERMITTING, DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT OF THE LUMMI ISLAND VILLAGE POINT
SEAWALL PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,110 (AB2000 -369)
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
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, 10/24/2000, Page 10