HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance July 27 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
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Finance and Administrative Services Committee
July 27, 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. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
TRAVEL AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022 K)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Imhof absent.
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)
(Imhof arrived)
Nelson stated the correct dollar amount was $224,000.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that was correct. The number is
also correct in the contract itself. The request from the Council was that the
Planning Unit membership be polled to determine whether they believe in moving
ahead or delaying activity relative to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
The Council should have received the responses. At this point, staff didn't know
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
47
what positions the land development caucus and the Port Authority were taking.
Unless the matter affects the Port directly, he didn't expect a response from the
Port. Clearly, the Planning Units still need to become fully functional and engaged
in the process. The Planning Unit needs to become more educated about the
scope, to focus on developing a longer -term scope, and to implement the contract
so they can confirm that the USGS data will accomplish the long -term goals. That
is a process that will be done between USGS and the Planning Unit membership.
They don't want to spend money gathering data if it won't be useful.
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Dawson asked the amount of variance in terms of the amount of water and
allocation. Monsen stated he didn't have any idea. That is an exercise of the
contract.
Dawson asked if the County could establish a desired variable, given a
certain amount of money. Monsen stated they could. The expectation is the
Planning Unit will establish the level of accuracy and make those suggestions. This
scope of work is to gather existing data. This contract does not create new data
with that level of accuracy.
Dawson asked if it was possible to get the initiating governments to agree to
take an average of the variance. Monsen stated that is generally understood and
accepted by the initiating governments already. Joint decision - making with the
Planning Unit will have to occur, data gathering and gaps will be identified, and
evaluation will occur.
Nelson stated the current request is only to gather current data. Monsen
stated that is the next step.
Nelson stated there is nothing in there that talks about the assessment of the
accuracy of the data or how it will formulate models for the future. They need to
have an idea that is the next step in the objectives. Language of that nature will
make it clear they want that type of data.
Brown stated the end project is to identify and construct a hydrologic model.
He questioned the amount of accuracy of the model as a finished project. Monsen
stated he couldn't answer that question. Procedurally, the early part of the project
will be to determine the level of accuracy and what questions they need to answer.
As soon as that occurs, they could answer Brown's question.
Brown stated he didn't see how they could be off +/- 5 %. That is a large
amount.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated this is an important process that
needs to go forward. He was not sure they could determine the level of accuracy of
an unknown. The administration understood the Council's concern. There is
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
47
substantial documentation showing this is the wish of the majority of the caucuses
and entities involved.
Sutter stated correspondence from Steve ]ilk expected those issues raised by
the Planning Unit would be addressed by the USGS first phase of work. She
questioned what those issues were.
Pat Jones, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated the development
caucus had been unable to meet and formulate an opinion. The BIA, as one
member, formulated some recommendations. Their issue was regarding the
definition of the precision and accuracy that would be expected, desired, or
mandated by the decision - makers for the models that would project flows and
volumes of water. Their understanding is that is a management problem and a
policy issue. As an engineer, they are capable for some cost of delivering whatever
that precision requirement is. It seemed to them that it would be inappropriate to
move forward with any program until they define the goals and output. It is a
management decision, not a technical decision. Minimally, they should set forth
what the accuracy and precision requirements they would expect out of the model.
Nelson stated much of the material in the first objective is currently available
or existing. Any model proposed from that material would be reflective of the
accuracy of the current data. Jones stated that was correct. An assessment could
and should be made about what that number is.
Sue Blake, Whatcom County Water Resources Planner, stated she was
present at the meeting and it was difficult to know what ]ilk was talking about
because a number of issues were raised. This contract doesn't push the County
into making a decision on the valid issues that Jones is raising. Those are issues
that do need to be addressed. That is not what they are doing here. They are
collecting information upon which to have that discussion. Part of the way to
answer Jones' question is to look at what is already out there, then identify what
they want on the ultimate level of accuracy. Part of the dilemma with the process
is that this is a discussion the Planning Unit will need to make. It is important for
the County Council to have input and understanding, but if it is truly to be a
Planning Unit /Initiating Government process, then the issue on the accuracy of the
modeling unit is a decision by the Planning Unit.
Hoag requested clarification regarding the scope of this contract. Two of the
items are directly related to Mr. Jones' comments. She questioned how the
Planning Unit interfaces with those items. The Council had not heard from the
Planning Unit on how they will identify the additional data or what criteria would be
used for the USGS regarding accuracy and precision. The County Council is a bit
ahead of itself. All three proposed items are a part of what the contract covers and
includes more than data gathering. She questioned how the Planning Unit
interfaces with that and how the accuracy and precision will be set. Blake stated
the Planning Unit is still in the process of discussing how they are going to be
interfacing and working together on issues. She can't answer how that coordination
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
will take place. The data is the substantial portion that sets the stage for the other
two areas. Items two and three would really define phases two and three.
Hoag asked if there is anything in the contract that requires the interface
with the Planning Unit on setting up the parameters for the hydrologic study and for
going into phase II. Monsen stated the contract between USGS and County will
require an ongoing relationship, as the work is occurring. The role of the County is
to interface with the Planning Unit.
Nelson asked if there is anything that prohibits the Council from asking that
an analysis of the accuracy of the current data and any proposed models be
requested at any type of formulation of future planning, phase II, so the Council
can feel comfortable that will be accomplished. Blake stated the Planning Unit
wants and expects that direction.
Nelson stated it is not specified in the contract.
Brown stated they ought to move ahead for now because everyone is
generally in favor of it. They have raised their concerns about accuracy. What they
are doing is finding out the data that exists. Out of that, they will set a degree of
accuracy.
Nelson moved to amend the language on objectives, on Council packet page
17, "4) Analysis of the accuracy of current data and the proposed models."
Sutter stated it was not necessary to specifically name the Planning Unit.
This Council will require there be recommendations from the Planning Unit
regarding any further funding projects.
Brown stated they need to get the Planning Unit up and running.
Sutter stated the Planning Unit needs to be given a job to do to get up and
running. They could take this funding and begin determining what they would
require under phase II. It is not necessary to name the Planning Unit in the
contract. That is a part of the County's process and responsibility.
Blake stated the Planning Unit chose not to meet until later on in the year.
This needs to be resolved to get federal money from USGS.
Hoag stated she preferred to modify objective 2) Working with the Planning
Unit, identify the additional data needed to quantify the water resources of the
WRIA using a hydrologic model developed to the standards of accuracy set forth by
the Planning Unit." That way, the USGS would know they need to work directly
with the Planning Unit and develop a hydrologic model that is set to the standards
of the Planning Unit.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Brown stated he was skeptical of tying the County's decisions with those of
the Planning Unit. He will not say he will agree with the Planning Unit if they make
outrageous recommendations.
Nelson did not accept Hoag's friendly amendment.
Brenner questioned how Nelson's amendment is different from item #2.
According to #2, they have to analyze the current data to determine what
additional data is needed.
Nelson stated he is specifically asking for the accuracy.
Hoag stated Nelson's amendment doesn't set a requirement, it only
quantifies the accuracy. They are not setting an accuracy level. The County is
trying to ensure the USGS is working with the Planning Unit so this functions the
way it should. In terms of the final cost, the people on the Planning Unit, other
than the Lummi Nation, are all taxpayers. The County Council has to approve the
final costs. Her suggestion was to allow the Planning Unit to set the threshold for
accuracy.
Nelson stated the accuracy is not in the data that is currently out there.
They just don't have that available.
Hoag stated the accuracy of the data out there was not her concern.
Sutter stated that is all this contract deals with. They can't make a
requirement of the accuracy of the data that has already been collected.
Wareing stated either amendment is acceptable to the administration.
Hoag's amendment provides additional flexibility in checks and balances. It does
create a problem in that the initiating governments have not delegated that
authority to the Planning Unit.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, stated the process of giving the instruction and
the layout for collection of additional data should be accurate. As an experienced
engineer, Task 2, as written, would take that as an implied natural condition.
Regarding the proposal, she supported moving the contract forward. The data
must be consolidated into a manageable package, which is one of the objectives.
Skip Richards, citizen, spoke about the water systems caucuses. He did not
agree with their approval. However, that was a minor issue. His caucus presented
a number of concerns regarding the scope of work. He would provide that memo to
the Council. In addition to addressing the scope of work, he suggested adding an
item to the contract, "The final form of the scope of work of the project shall be
subject to review and approval of the WRIA 1 Planning Unit, provided, however,
that modifications and additions to said scope provided by the Planning Unit shall
not result in any additional project costs."
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Hoag stated Richards' language about not increasing costs would eliminate
any concerns that should be met but would cost more. Richards stated the Council
makes the ultimate decision, not the Planning Unit. What they are doing is not
committing these people. They can always change the agreement in the future.
His amendment locks them into the contract today. The process is a phasing and
sequencing problem. The contract was set up before the Planning Unit was ever
established. If the Council had the actual approval by the Planning Unit today, then
they would not be concerned about this.
Nelson stated his concern with the contract is that it would have to go back
for approval if they changed the contract.
Nelson repeated the motion before the committee, "4) Analysis of the
accuracy of current data and the proposed models."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson asked if there were any reason why Richard's language couldn't be
included and whether the contract releases the funding.
Wareing stated it did not release the funding.
Monsen stated that, if approved, they would move ahead with the work and
authorize the expenditure.
Wareing stated the summary is an exhibit to the contract. It is not agreed to
by the other party at this point in time because of the amendment by the Council.
It doesn't necessarily impact the contract. They may say it is not agreeable. The
exhibits are a part of the contract.
Monsen stated the USGS needs immediate assurance the County intends to
move ahead.
Wareing stated the contract and supporting documentation provides enough
protection. The administration can address that issue with the USGS.
Sutter stated she would like to require the Planning Unit's approval of this
contract, however there is a problem limiting the cost of additional modifications.
Nelson clarified that the request is for $224,000.
Brenner stated the language, "the final form of the scope of work of the
project shall be subject to review and recommendation by the WRIA #1 Planning
Unit." She didn't think anyone would have a problem with that. It would give
ownership to the Planning Unit.
Motion to recommend approval as amended carried unanimously.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CHARTER, TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, REGARDING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT (AB99 -191)
Imhof stated Exhibit A is the change as recommended by Council. It would
set the salary at $20,000 for the next two years, 2000 -2001. It would take effect
after everyone has gone through the election process.
Brown stated he couldn't accept anything that would give a pay raise to
sitting Council members. This raises the pay substantially. He suggested a change
to the language on Exhibit A to strike the proposed language. He would then
support putting it out to a vote of the people. As it is, they are giving all sitting
members a pay raise at the first of the year.
Imhof stated they are not giving Council members a pay raise. By a vote of
the public, the public is giving the Council members a pay raise.
Brown stated they are making it possible for the Council members to get a
pay raise, which is self- serving.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brown stated they should instead do a charter review. As it stands, he
proposed to amend item (b) by deleting the wording between expenses and three
lines down, thereafter. "...expenses,
that thereafter, no Council ..."
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brown in favor.
Motion to approve carried 2 -1 with Brown opposed.
"CONSENT" ITEM
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE NORTH SOUND
REGIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK, TO PROVIDE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AND COORDINATION, AND FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS OF WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $223,902 (AB99 -273)
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Nelson stated there is one element that hadn't been decided in the
negotiations between the Tribes and the County. The same agreement they are
signing is the intent of the Tribes in providing liability protection.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Director, stated the County
houses Regional Support Network (RSN) employees in Whatcom County facilities.
This compensates the County for the administrative costs of providing housing and
clerical support. It also includes the local planning for mental health resources.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY ROAD PROJECT
NOS. 999017 AND 999018 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE
LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDER CONSTRUCTION
CO., FOR THE GRANDVIEW ROAD STRUCTURAL OVERLAY FROM I -5
TO ENTERPRISE ROAD, AND THE MAINTENANCE OVERLAY OF
HANNEGAN ROAD, BEARD ROAD VICINITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$196,150 (AB99 -274)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Nelson asked about the $8,000 in engineering and requested clarification.
Michael Roberts, Public Works Design Construction, stated the contract is for
$196,150.
Imhof stated they are approving the contract, not the preliminary
engineering.
Brown asked to have the answer to that question at the evening meeting.
Dick Prieve, Public Works Maintenance and Operations Manger, stated they
are approving two contracts. One has two separate jobs rolled into it. The total is
$196,150.
Imhof moved to recommend approval of $196,150.
Hoag stated the bidder bid well, but there are strange things happening with
the engineer's estimate. On packet page 75, item #20, she questioned the
difference of the engineer's estimate and the bidders' cost. Roberts stated they
may have missed the estimate. The County engineers get their prices from past
bids. The engineer's estimate is a rough yardstick for budgeting and determining
where they think the prices should come in, especially the big items. What is
important is what the bidders bid and to ensure they are not over the engineer's
estimate. There are a variety of factors that affect each bidder's price. It is difficult
to be right on when estimating.
Brown asked if they use a bid tabulation book. Roberts stated they have
records of every past bid and the prices of each unit.
Nelson suggested Hoag go to the department and review the bid process.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Motion to approve carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC AND BICYCLE
SAFETY EDUCATION; MOCK DUI CRASHES; SEATBELT COMPLIANCE
CHECKS; AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH TO ATTEND DRUG AND
ALCOHOL PREVENTION CONFERENCES TO HELP REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF PREVENTABLE TRAFFIC INJURIES AND DEATHS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE REVENUE FUNDING SOURCES
AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB99 -275)
Imhof moved to recommend approval.
Dawson questioned which service organizations would be used to monitor the
outcome.
Chuck Benjamin, Health and Human Services Manager, stated he will get her
the names of the agencies and list of participants.
Nelson questioned whether this program had been done before. Benjamin
stated it had been done for a long time.
Nelson stated he would, in the future, like to see if the objectives and goals
have been met.
Brenner asked about who would analyze the number of people wearing
seatbelts. Benjamin stated some analysis is done by law enforcement and
volunteers do some.
Brenner stated someone is stopping people on bogus charges to accuse them
of not wearing their seatbelts. Benjamin stated this program does not issue
citations.
Brenner stated it is important to know who is out there making the decisions
on who is wearing seatbelts.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Wareing distributed a memo to ask the Council's direction on certain issues,
or to provide information.
On item #3 regarding District Court Probation, the administration
recommended approval to be considered within the budget process. If this is
acceptable, then administration would bring this before the Council during the
budget process.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
Brown asked if the person is supposed to be on staff until the end of the
yea r.
Fred Thompson, District Court Probation, stated they would ask the Council
to increase the position to full -time and they could recruit someone. They have the
money. They requested an increase in position.
Brenner asked if it is more money. Thompson stated it would not be for the
end of the year. It would be an added cost next year.
Wareing stated the person would generate more money for the County.
Nelson moved to approve the $20,794 contained within the department to
increase the position for the remainder of the year.
Thomson stated that so far this year, that position has brought in $42,000
more. Nelson asked for a summary of the revenue generated.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wareing spoke to item #1 regarding the fuel storage tank replacement.
They've tried to break down the costs. They had five tanks that were
decommissioned. Three tanks were known. One of the tanks leaked some fuel.
They are working with the insurance company to total the final clean -up costs, then
hope to recoup some of the costs. The total estimated cost is $126,000 plus at least
$7,500 for monitoring the Northwest site for up to two years. The geological
consultant, Burke Purnell, thinks that problem should be resolved by that time.
Brown asked for what they are monitoring.
Harry Skinner, Facilities Maintenance Manager, stated they will monitor the
groundwater. They need three consecutive quarters of good reading using the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) guidelines for chrome. It could take up to
two years.
Wareing stated the administration was just providing an update at this point.
Brenner asked where the chrome came from. Skinner stated there was a
paint shed in the area. One of the colors the County uses is yellow. There is
chrome in yellow. He speculated it came from some of the early paints, from the
1940's and 1950's.
Brenner stated the ground is so permeable in that area, that kind of pollution
would have dissipated by now. Skinner stated chrome hangs on.
Hoag asked for clarification on the insurance. Wareing stated the County had
to specify what they are insuring. There were two tanks the County didn't know
existed. They were found on an archive list with the State Department of Ecology.
Another possible source of the chromium could be from used motor oil.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, 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
51
52
Wareing stated the next item was the jail building demolition. They believed
it would cost about $50,000, based on the initial estimates. One of the most
significant cost increases is the fuel that has leaked. Another cost increase is due
to the concern about demolishing the building during the day and the effects of the
dust and the noise to people working in the area. Demolishing the building after
business hours would increase the costs significantly. They are apprising the
Council of the costs. If the Council wants the administration to go forward with the
project based on the costs, then they are able to do that. Taking the generator out
also drives the cost up. They are sizing a generator to meet the needs of that
facility, and also installing it.
Skinner stated the electrical service for the main building comes through the
jail building and into a switching situation for the electrical. The generator is in the
jail. All of that has to be taken out and relocated. That is a $30,000 item. In
addition, they are purchasing an enlarged generator for $160,000, which includes
an emergency generator.
Wareing stated the current generator had not been adequate. Also, they had
to replace the roof.
Brown stated he would like to see the County receive a receipt back from
where the demolition material was disposed of. Skinner stated that is part of the
specifications.
Brenner questioned why they have to demolish the building. Wareing stated
they have to spend the money to put the generator in anyway. The actual
demolition would take about 10 days.
Brenner asked what happens if they don't demolish the building and just
replace the generator. Skinner stated the building is unsafe.
Council gave direction to proceed.
Wareing stated another item is the Courthouses south parking lot, which is
always full. They need to decide to hire a person to enforce the parking lot or do
an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham to install meters.
Brenner questioned whether they can give Facilities Management the
authority to issue citations. Wareing sated they are too busy.
The committee concurred to not allow meters. They would rather contract
with someone to become an attendant.
Wareing stated they want a lot attendant to make sure people using the lot
are on County business. They will bring more proposals forward.
Wareing stated they've compiled information in I -695. There is a strong
belief it will pass. Washington Association of County Officials (WACO) is
recommending the counties develop budgets. Whatcom County would potentially
lose almost $2 million. At this point, they are not looking at creating two budget
proposals. There is indication this may be challenged constitutionally.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 7/27/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:27 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, 7/27/99, Page 12