HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance July 13 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
July 13, 1999
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:
Tom Brown
Robert Imhof
Absent:
None
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER, TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT (AB99 -191)
Brown understood the logic, but it needed to be amended so that it won't
take effect for a Council member until such time he or she has been elected or re-
elected.
Imhof stated it was written the way it is because it will take effect January 1,
because the people vote on it. He would not support Brown's amendment.
Brown moved to amend to add language to mimic the State Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) regarding the pay raise not being granted until the Council
member has gone through the election or re- election process. "No Council member
will receive benefit of the above proposed salary adjustment until such time they
have been elected or re- elected."
Hoag asked for clarification on that also. The Home Rule Charter says people
in office will not benefit from the ordinance.
Imhof stated it is not covered in the Charter. The Council members cannot
increase their own pay. This is a charter amendment that supercedes the regular
pay increases and does not require the Council members go trough an election
because it is voted on by the people.
Nelson clarified the section Hoag referred to pertained to the Council's
legislative authority. The Council can't increase their own pay via their legislative
powers, and have that increase take effect during their own term of office.
However, the people hold the power of the charter.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
Imhof stated this Home Rule Charter amendment is an elective power of the
people, not an act of the legislative process. The Council does not have the power
to legislate themselves a raise.
Brown stated the Council can't benefit from a pay raise given to the
Executive, for instance, until they've been through the elective process. That is
what the section of the Charter is referring to. The amendment is needed so the
people will give correct consideration.
Hoag questioned whether, if the proposal were approved by the voters, it
would come before the Council in the form of an ordinance to pass the increase.
Imhof stated it would not. It would automatically become a part of the
Charter.
Hoag asked for a legal opinion.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated she wasn't sure that
was the only way they can do it. She questioned whether there is some other
provision that limits the Council members' ability to increase their own pay.
Nelson stated the only way is by ordinance, but the Council members can't
benefit from it.
Hoag stated in order to accomplish an increase, they have to change the
Charter, because the Charter limits the pay to 15% of the Executive's salary. There
is no other process. It has to be a Charter amendment.
Imhof stated Hoag is citing their legislative authority. The Council doesn't
have the ability to change their pay scale without going through an elective
process. These are two different processes.
Hoag stated the Charter says that no Council member may receive a salary
increase. That is exactly what the Charter is talking about.
Frakes stated that is when the Council is adopting an ordinance.
Nelson stated the Council's pay is based on the Executives salary. If the
Executive comes forward and requests a change in pay, then the Council decides
that by ordinance. That is their legislative power. If that should occur, the Council
doesn't benefit from that until the following elected process.
Frakes agreed.
Nelson stated the amendment would resolve the differential in pay in the
elective cycle.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
Hoag questioned why they would get paid differently if they were doing the
same job.
Brown stated the pay raise should be for the people not on the current
Council.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with Brown in favor.
Hoag questioned the changes in Exhibit A.
Imhof stated the change is in Section 2.20. They are striking 15% and
adding 25 %. Everything else can be removed from Exhibit A, because it does not
pertain to this ordinance.
Brown proposed a friendly amendment to remove sections 2.10 through 2.14
from Exhibit A and include the entire section 2.20 in Exhibit A.
Imhof accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag stated she had mixed feelings regarding the proposed change. There
does need to be more pay for the work that is done. There also needs to be
compensation for mileage and other expenses that are related to carrying out the
duties of the office. She had concerns on changing the wage from 15% to 25 %,
regarding whether or not it is enough to attract qualified candidates. There are
many people who would not run for election because they needed to support their
family. If the pay isn't enough to support a family, then a large population is
eliminated that could do an excellent job serving in these positions. What the
Council ends up with can tend to be elitist. The Council ends up with people who
are either independently wealthy or are working very hard to support their families
in addition to being a Council member, thereby not giving the position sufficient
attention. The median income in Whatcom County is $48,100 for a family of four.
The Council should consider raising this above 25% to approach a median income
and to attract qualified candidates. She was not sure the County can afford it, so
she had mixed feelings. Something needs to be done. They need to adopt
something within the Charter or within policies so that Council members are
compensated for mileage and other expenses.
Brown stated for a part -time job, they shouldn't be in the $40,000 bracket.
In the future, there can be a Charter review.
Motion to amend with friendly amendment carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
49
50
51
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A JOINT
FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS TO
COMPILE AND ASSESS AVAILABLE HYDROLOGIC DATA FOR WRIA #1 AS
OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK, WRIA #1 WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROJECT, AND IDENTIFY DATA NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT A
HYDROLOGIC MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE WRIA, AND A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP
THE MODEL, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $244,000 WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S
SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,000 (AB99 -243)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Committee, stated his role would be answering
questions of a procedural /process nature. There are others present who would
answer the technical questions.
Brown asked how they would be dealing with the overlap.
Nelson stated the Public Utility District was present and lead agency
regarding water quantification for water rights. The County is the lead agency
regarding the Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and this program.
Monsen stated that was correct.
Nelson stated the first question is how to balance the overlap regarding
quantification.
Tom Anderson, PUD #1 Manager, stated between the work proposed by the
United States Geological Service (USGS) and work being done by the PUD has no
overlap. They are complementary efforts. In the big picture, the effort is about
whether or not water is available. It is analogous to an formula of "X - Y = Z" The
proposed USGS work is primarily about the total amount of water available, which
would be the "X" component. To make that work, they need to look at each
individual area at different periods of time. The proposal is to do that on a monthly
time step. The piece before the Council now is just the very beginning of that
work.
Nelson stated the PUD's concern would be with what is currently taken as
water rights. Anderson stated that was correct. He was dealing with a portion of
the "Y" component, which is the State's rights piece, not the federal reserve's piece.
Anderson stated one of the reasons these two elements are important to
begin now is because they can't do anything without knowing "X." They also expect
they are missing some data, and it will take some time to fill in the missing data. It
is important to get USGS started early. One of the first things they are going to
determine is where the data holes are. It is important to start the rights' work
early just because of the workload involved. There are 8,000 files involved, at a
half a day each, is 14 years of work.
Brown questioned whether they plan to determine in half a day whether a
water right is being used. Anderson stated no. Of those 8,000 files, there are only
2,000 that are water rights certificates. The majority of those files are claims,
which are a single sheet of paper, which will only take them 20 minutes to look at.
Some of them will take two or three days. Going on -site and determining what will
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
be used and what is not being used will be the final phase of what they are doing.
Also, the process the PUD is going through has phases, which haven't been
explained well. There are three phases. The first phase is to sort the wheat from
the chaff in the database. They did that with the Ag Preservation Committee for
the California Creek sub -basin a couple years ago, as a test. They found about
30% of the files are dead paper for various reasons. For all the chaff they will find,
they will verify it is chaff. They will do at least a cursory investigation of the
current property ownership.
Brown stated that clears up all of his questions.
Nelson stated he had a question regarding the County becoming a party of
the second part in this relationship. He questioned whether the County would have
to buy the written materials from the USGS. Monsen stated, as a public entity, the
material they are generating is for the County's purposes. They are the contractor,
as an entity, so they hold some title to the information. In this case, they
understand the information they would be generating is for the County's purpose,
not the USGS's purpose. They will release all of that.
Anderson stated one of the reasons to use USGS is because they have a very
extensive review process they go through on reports. They don't release a report
as a public document until they've gone through a peer review and other review.
Nelson questioned whether the report comes to the County or to the WRIA.
Monsen stated what they will ultimately release will be public documents.
Anderson stated the reason for the language in the contract is that they
won't release it to the public until they are done with it.
Nelson questioned how long the process will take to get the full
documentation.
Jeremy Freimund, Lummi Nation Water Resources Manager, stated how long
it will take depends. It will be released as provisional, and then will be finalized.
Hoag questioned why the County is the only entity paying, since there are a
number of initiating governments that are paying. Monsen stated, in this case, as
in the vast majority of the contracts the Council will see, the watershed project at
this point is being financed through the flood funds. The reason for that is because
the flood funds are generated countywide, regardless of jurisdiction.
Nelson questioned whether the Lummi non -fee lands contribute to the flood
fund. Monsen stated, in that case, there is no federal money, other than grants,
directly allocated to this project and to this fund. The County does receive federal
contribution in lieu of taxes in the amount of approximately $350,000 annually.
That goes directly into the general fund.
Imhof moved approval of the USGS agreement.
Monsen stated the contract's correct amount is $224,000.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, Page,-;
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
Nelson stated the motion is for the correct amount of $224,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, TO PROVIDE
FOR IMPLEMENTING LOCAL OPTION FOR RETAINING SALES AND USE TAX
(AB99 -250)
Nelson stated this is an ability for counties to pick up additional funding as
legislated by the State.
Imhof stated they originally thought the money would not come to the
County until January 1. They found out they can pull half of it in right away. After
sending it through the administration, there are three corrections. One is on
Council packet page 35, line 24, "...economy by providing Whateem Geunty financial
assistance...," amend on page one of the Ordinance, line 39, "...after beginning
January 1, 2000...," and on the next page, line 6, "...amended to include Chapter
3.34, Public Utili Capital Improvement Fund, as..." That would be carried
throughout Exhibit A.
Imhof so moved.
Hoag stated she was concerned about the amendment to strike Public
Utilities.' The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) refers to public facilities. She
would still like it to say "Public Facilities Fund." That is what the RCW calls for. The
RCW says it should be used for certain purposes including criminal justice.
Imhof stated they changed it to Capital Improvement' for those reasons.
Hoag stated it still doesn't match the RCW.
Imhof stated it will be used per the RCW.
Nelson asked Brad Bennett to describe what the County's Capital
Improvement Fund does.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager, stated that section
of the ordinance only names the Capital Improvement Fund, which will be created
in the Whatcom County system to account for this money. They will still be subject
to all the provisions in the RCW about what the money is spent on.
Nelson questioned whether there is a reason the administration wanted it
named the Capital Improvement Fund.' Bennett stated that seemed the most
logical. It is the Council's preference, as long as the names don't conflict with other
funds.
Nelson asked if the Capital Improvement' fund is a new fund they are
creating. Bennett stated it is.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Nelson questioned whether there is a reason it isn't called the Public
Facilities' fund. Bennett stated it can be used for roads. That was the Executive's
concern.
Nelson stated the Capital Improvement Fund's use will be defined by the
RCW. Bennett stated the County will be held accountable for spending the money
in accordance with the law.
Brown read from section 3.30 about what the funds are to be used for. He
believed Cherry Point would be the recipient of the funds. He had concerns.
Nelson restated the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned whether the County currently has a fund titled Public
Facilities.' Bennett stated the County does not.
Hoag questioned whether there would be confusion if the Council named the
fund Public Facilities.' Bennett stated there wouldn't. The only thing that could be
confusing is whether a road is considered a facility.
Hoag stated that hadn't been spelled out in the RCW. She didn't think it is
correct for the Council to limit the fund. It should be limited strictly by the RCW.
The RCW says, "public facilities in rural counties." Naming the fund as it is named
in the RCW makes it very clear. She also recommended the name also be changed
in the Exhibit.
Imhof moved to change the fund name to Capital Improvement District' in
the title and throughout the Exhibit. In section 3.34.020, they need to add the
same language that is in the bottom of the ordinance to page one of Exhibit A,
beginning on line 14, "The rate of the tax imposed by this ordinance on each
taxable event shall be .04% through December 31, 1999 and .08% beginning
January 1, 2000 through July 31, 2024, applied to the selling price or value of the
article used, as the case may be."
Nelson questioned whether this was by ordinance of the State legislature, to
clarify the time limit.
Imhof stated that was correct.
The committee concurred.
Bennett questioned the correction needed on Council packet page 32.
Imhof stated there needs to be a change to amend page one Exhibit A,
beginning on line 32, "...which is hereby created, te be maintained by the Whate
Bennett stated that is statutory language that is different in Whatcom
County.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
49
50
51
Nelson restated all the amendments for Exhibit A
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson continued to restate all the amendments to Exhibit A.
Motion to approve all amendments carried unanimously.
Imhof moved to recommend as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TRAVEL
AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022 J)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. LETTER OF PROPOSAL FROM THE NOOKSACK SALMON ENHANCEMENT
ASSOCIATION PROPOSING A JOINT VENTURE WITH WHATCOM COUNTY TO
FINANCE AND SUPERVISE A WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS CREW IN
THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB99 -253)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the County should become
involved in this cooperative venture. It brings substantial resources to a number of
salmon recovery activities, especially maintenance activities that benefit the
community. Procedurally, it makes more sense for the County enter into the
agreement directly with the State. The Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association
(NSEA) only needs the County to provide the local share of $50,000. The
agreement the County could execute with the NSEA is for the management of the
work crew itself.
Brown stated there is one team already in effect. He questioned why the
citizens are paying for these people to go work for the U.S. Forest Service, who is
charging the citizens of Whatcom County to go and use their parking places. He
saw how Whatcom County is going to begin funding Olympic Pipeline's recovery of
Whatcom Creek through taxpayers' dollars. Just because there are a bunch of
funds coming in doesn't mean they should jump on the bandwagon.
Fork.
Nelson questioned whether this was primarily directed towards the South
Brown stated that it is not. It says Whatcom Creek.
Monsen stated any expenditure to Whatcom Creek regarding recovery will be
reimbursed from the Pipeline.
Wendy Shearer, NSEA Director, stated the letter of support was an old one
which testified to the crew's abilities. They will work only in lowland areas, not on
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
49
50
any Forest Service federal land projects. Currently, they are working in the lower
Whatcom Creek areas, not the areas that were burned. They work every Thursday
as training. NSEA has a policy against putting crews and volunteers on projects
that other companies pay for in a mitigation type of way. They do maintenance,
monitoring, and habitat assessment. They are working on streams in lowland parts
of Whatcom County for which projects have been identified. They want another
crew of 18 - 22 year olds.
Brown stated this is an attempt to grab flood fund money. He didn't see the
impact of it. People shouldn't be working in the area of the burn at all. The
pipeline company should pay for that.
Nelson asked if they could amend the scope of work. Shearer stated that
was possible.
Monsen asked for a resolution to be approved that would apply the
committees and Council's condition.
Nelson proposed to include wording that the projects not supplant projects
that are required by law or for mitigation to damage.
Brown stated they won't know until the process starts.
Nelson stated Monsen would review the projects to see if they are already
required by law or will be mitigated for.
Brown questioned how they would know what would be a result of mitigation.
Nelson stated that is why Monsen suggests this go through the County, so
they could review the projects prior to the release of the funds.
Hoag was concerned about the proposed language. Mitigation to damage
could be interpreted very broadly. The reason the County has to restore habitat is
because of damage of all sorts and types.
Nelson stated that is what he intended. Taxpayers should not pay for
mitigation.
Hoag stated almost everything out there could be interpreted as mitigation
for damage.
Imhof stated mitigation is legally required.
Hoag suggested language be added to indicate the mitigation was associated
with a particular action. Also, NSEA and different groups are short of people. This
is important and should be supported.
Brown questioned whether there was some opposition to the NSEA including
their records in the County database.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
49
50
51
Steve Seymour, Whatcom County, stated there was a segment of the County
that wanted NSEA's records to be mitigation for future development. That made
NSEA uncomfortable. Their records are part of the public process. Most of their
work is grant- funded. They do an annual report that could be made available to
the Council. The word mitigation is clear in the case of the Whatcom Creek,
however he wants these crews to work on other things that could be considered
mitigation. It is critical for the success of the re- vegetation projects to do the
maintenance. This crew is a small part of trying to address that factor. The County
will also utilize prisoner labor to do some of this work. If the County can offer some
of the labor to do the long -term maintenance, then the farmers and community will
buy into it later.
Brown asked about the Whatcom Park celebration. Shearer stated it is an
end -of -term celebration for the end of the project.
Nelson suggested alternate language, "These projects will not supplant
projects that are required by law or contract." Then, they are not talking about
mitigation.
Brown suggested removing all reference to Whatcom Creek at this time.
Imhof suggested letting Monsen work with the language. He knows what the
committee wants.
Shearer stated they could cross out the reference to Whatcom Creek. They
also intend to work closely with the County to plan all the projects so they identify
the high - priority projects and to work with the County on various projects.
Imhof stated they could bring the list of projects forward for review.
Seymour stated NSEA had a crew for a few years who accomplished a
tremendous amount of work. It gives the young folks a foot in the door of a new
career and a $3,500 stipend to attend college. It is part of the AmeriCorps
program.
Nelson withdrew his proposed amendment.
Imhof moved to recommend approval as it is. Monsen will ensure the
projects are in the County's best interest.
Monsen questioned when and in what form the committee wanted him to
return. He intended to come back with a resolution granting him the authority to
make the formal application as well as execute the agreement with the State. This
is a draft scope of work. As far as the resolution goes, he can make sure the scope
of work does not include work in Whatcom Creek.
Nelson stated the committee's recommendation is to not include Whatcom
Creek.
Monsen requested the understanding that it is worthwhile to pursue the grant
application, and he could bring something forward.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Nelson moved that Monsen will come back to the committee with a resolution
regarding the grant application.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL "CONSENT"
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF
WHATCOM COUNTY'S ANNUAL SUPPLY OF VACCINE FROM THE BINDLEY
WESTERN DRUG COMPANY, UTILIZING THE WASHINGTON STATE
CONTRACT, IN THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF $47,985 (AB99 -254)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS A CONTINUATION OF A GRANT THAT HAS BEEN IN
EFFECT FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, AND WILL ENABLE PARTIAL FUNDING OF
THE MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL NARCOTICS TASK FORCE PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $119,760 (AB99 -255)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned the match amount and whether it is in the budget.
Deane Sandell, Undersheriff, stated the grant amount is set.
Nelson stated to get the grant, they have to match it with funding in the
amount of $362,838. Sandell stated they don't. They just have to show what they
actually spend. They wouldn't have to put in nearly that much to get the grant.
Nelson questioned whether the County is required to have an audit.
Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manger, stated the State
Examiner looks for federal grants over a threshold amount and audits them. The
County pays for the audit. It would be difficult to break out the audit cost, which
would be about $40,000 per year altogether. It is already budgeted.
Hoag asked if this is in the budget. Sandell stated it is.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SEAMAR
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SUBSTANCE
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES TO INDIGENT AND LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES
AMOUNT OF $204,711 (AB99 -256)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSING HOME VISIT SERVICES TO FAMILIES WITH BABIES AND
YOUNG CHILDREN AT RISK FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT THAT ARE
REFERRED BY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
REVENUE SOURCES AMOUNT OF $18,578 (AB99 -257)
Imhof moved to recommend approval
Imhof questioned the dollar amounts listed on Council packet page 122.
Kay Guirl, Health and Human Services Personal Health Services Manager,
stated there are two separate contracts.
Nelson stated they are approving the funding for the child protective
services.
Brown asked about the passports. Guirl stated it is for foster children's
health records.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
HEALTH NURSING SERVICES TO ASSESS HEALTH INFORMATION ON
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
SOURCES AMOUNT OF $27,956 (AB99 -258)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Nelson stated foster care is sometimes court - ordered. Guirl stated that was
correct.
Nelson questioned whether that is the case sometimes in divorce. Guirl
stated it could be.
Nelson asked whether the funds go after court - ordered insurance payments.
Guirl stated this position was just for assessment, not case management.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/13/99, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999001 AND THE
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF HAXTON WAY -
BALCH ROAD TO KWINA ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,952 (AB99 -259)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Nelson asked the mileage of the project.
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering, stated it is 3.3 miles.
Brown asked what "class G" is for. Mills stated "class G" is used to fill in the
ruts before the paving is done. It is a pre - leveling.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL'S TRAVEL /EXPENSE POLICY (AB99 -218)
Imhof announced this would be held for two weeks, pending receipt of more
information from County Auditor.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 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, 7/13/99, Page 13