HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance June 29 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Committee of the Whole
(Acting on behalf of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee)
June 29, 1999
Due to a lack of a quorum of the Finance and Administrative Services
Committee, a Committee of the Whole meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.
by Council Member Marlene Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue,
Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Absent:
Robert Imhof
L. Ward Nelson
Dawson asked for consensus that the Committee of the Whole meeting act
on behalf of the Finance and Administrative Services Committee, and that Council
Member Brown assumes responsibilities of the chair, and the committee be able to
make recommendations to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that he wanted to address items
#16 through the end of the agenda, then hold items #1 through #15.
COUNCIL "CONSENT"
16. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR) FOR A BATHYMETRIC STUDY
OF LAKE WHATCOM, FOR THE TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTER OF THE
USBR TO PROVIDE STAFF AND EQUIPMENT TO DETERMINE RELATIVE
DEPTHS IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAKE TO ASSIST IN
DETERMINING INSTREAM FLOW, IN THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
OF $69,300, WITH WHATCOM COUNTY'S SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19,300 (AB99 -242)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, gave background information and stated
the bathymetric study of Lake Whatcom by the Bureau of Reclamation is one of the
activities identified as early work in the watershed planning process. It is related to
the watershed planning process because of the connection between Lake Whatcom
and the middle fork of the Nooksack River. It is work that will directly benefit the
Lake Whatcom stormwater effort as well. It is work that needs to be accomplished,
and this is the most convenient place in which to accomplish it under the watershed
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
planning process. The Bureau is bringing the majority of the money to the activity.
The Bureau is prepared to begin the work, if this is approved, next week. The vast
majority of the work will be accomplished in the next two weeks.
Brown questioned whether the City of Bellingham was participating in any
way. Monsen stated that the County has a contract to perform a general study.
The City and Water District #10 are also performing studies. This $19,000 is
outside of that relationship. It is more significant to the middle fork and to deal
with what happens to water quality in Basins 1, 2, and 3, if the middle fork
diversion operation were to change.
Hoag questioned whether they are using State funds. Monsen stated that
they will look at the $250,000 grant from the State and apply as much to these
activities that they can. They may be reimbursed from the State grant. The
$250,000 will be expended on this project, but they will allocate it first.
Hoag questioned why they do not spend the money directly. Monsen stated
that supplemental was approved for $800,000. Of that, $250,000 was State money
without any specific allocation of portions. They will allocate the portions
administratively to ensure the money is expended from the State, rather than
returning any to the State. They didn't try to allocate the State money to any
specific activity.
Hoag questioned why they are not taking it out of the funds directly, instead
of using County money and then being reimbursed. Monsen stated the County
already has the cash. They can't tell the difference from an accounting point of
view whether or not they are using State or County money.
Wareing stated that they will look at this when dispersing the money, and
they may well disburse the grant money for this project.
Monsen stated that they want to disburse the State grant money first.
Sutter asked how a topographic map of the lake helps determine in- stream
flow. Monsen stated that the middle fork diversion has been operating with no
evaluation of in- stream flows versus diversion. No one is interested in changing the
operation of the middle fork diversion if it will have a negative impact on Lake
Whatcom.
Sutter was unclear about how the topography of the bottom of the lake
relates to that. Monsen stated he couldn't answer that.
Sutter stated that she was unsure of the application of the information they
will get out of the study. Monsen stated this work brings information forward to
answer her types of questions. If this is the only activity performed, then this work
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
is useless without the aerial studies and other studies. On its own, it is not capable
of determining in- stream flows.
Brenner asked why they are not working with the City of Bellingham and the
Public Utility District (PUD). She questioned whether there was an agreement that
the County would do this piece. Monsen stated that the information is not useful,
relative to the joint stormwater program, today. They don't know if the project
would be important to the stormwater program.
Brenner stated the Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) is more than
just stormwater. Monsen stated this information would be important to the WRIA
project.
Brenner asked if there was an agreement with the City and PUD that the
County would pay for this portion of the WRIA project. Monsen stated the entire
amount of financial commitment towards the joint effort is coming out of County-
wide flood funds. The flood funds generated by the County are collected regardless
of incorporation. This money does come from inside the City of Bellingham, as
well. The proposal is a joint proposal.
Brenner stated there is $115,000 of dedicated County money. She
questioned whether an aerial survey will be more than doing this bathymetric
study. Monsen stated it would. An aerial study would most likely be done in the
fall. It has not been determined who will do the study. If the Bureau of
Reclamation can come up with additional federal funding to apply to the future
aerial work, then he will ask for the Council's concurrence to extend the contract. If
they don' t come up with any federal money, then the County will find a cost
alternative that gets the work accomplished and also is a reasonable expenditure.
Hoag stated this is not going to directly benefit the joint WRIA activities. It
will benefit the City of Bellingham. It seemed odd that the County is financing it.
Monsen stated the work is directly beneficial to the basin. How the middle fork
diversion is operated has a direct relationship to all other basin water users.
Hoag agreed that it does, but she wasn't talking about that. She was talking
about the bathymetric study of Lake Whatcom, not the diversion modeling. Monsen
stated the bathymetric study is the first step in performing the analysis and data
gathering of information on the basin. It should not be viewed as a single activity.
It is the first step of a broader evaluation. This information needs to be gathered to
do that evaluation. This does not finance the future evaluation.
Brown stated, because of the implications to the middle fork and in- stream
flow below the middle fork, the study ties them together. He did not understand
how the study helps determine the in- stream flow.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Dawson stated it may have to do with total storage capacity. Monsen stated
there are two elements. One element is the alternatives to the operation of the
diversion. There is both total quantity and capacity of the basin, and how that
fluctuates over time. The bathymetric study would also input into modeling of how
the basin functions regarding pollutants. The bottom contours are important to
model that information.
Brenner stated that to do those measurements, it would take a lot more
effort than doing an aerial study. She questioned why that would be more of a
cost. Monsen stated that the basin is more in the dry than the wet. The
bathymetric test will use satellite GPS to measure depths at certain locations.
Aerial work requires a number of survey points to photography and computerize.
Brown moved to recommend to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wareing stated he wanted to address Consent Agenda item #1, and then
Discussion and Recommendation to Council item #2.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
THREE -YEAR LEASE BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FRIESEN
ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE RENTAL OF WAREHOUSE
SPACE TO STORE ELECTION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $11,460 PER YEAR (AB99 -227)
Hoag moved to recommend approval.
Brenner asked if the County has its own storage facility.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated the County may do that at
Smith and Northwest facility. At this time, there is some storage available. They
moved recently to a storage facility on Kentucky Street. Otherwise, the County has
never looked into its own storage.
Brenner questioned whether the Civic Building could be converted to storage.
Wareing stated that it could not.
Brenner stated she would like the County to do its own storage.
Terry Hinz, Chief Deputy Auditor, stated that this isn't just a storage facility.
It also has an office with restroom and warehouse with a loading dock. It is a
handy location to get to the various locations of the County. There are some
advantages to being at that location.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Brown stated they had to have space for moving large items around. Hinz
stated the movers are able to get to the trucks and move around efficiently at this
location.
Wareing stated it would cost the County around $150,000 to build a facility
similar to this one. It would need to be temperature and air controlled to store
records. They did look around for different locations with loading docks. It is a
pretty good value for the money.
Brenner stated she was not interested in building another building, only
seeing if there is room in current facilities.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB99-
221)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated the first item is for $63,752.75
for an expansion telephone system for the Forest Street Annex. As they've moved
the Water Division into that facility, there is the key system that does not have the
capacity to provide the phone system they need. They want to make an
investment into the future. The old system would be kept for the future if needed.
This system can be taken to the Civic Center building. It is expandable. It is a
digital system that works with the current phone system.
Hoag questioned whether it went out to bid.
George Reid, Administrative Services Information Services Manager, stated
this is a sole source purchase. They are restricted to what they can put on the
equipment, unless they want to put another key system installed. They want to
keep this system digital, which gives every extension a voice -mail box. They want
the system to be uniform.
Hoag questioned whether they contacted any other suppliers of other phone
systems to find out if they would be compatible with the Ericsson system. Reid
stated that he did not.
Hoag suggested he do that. She spent 10 years in the phone business and
they don't have to go with Ericsson. Reid stated this is a module of an Ericsson
phone system. There are four in the Courthouse and one at the Central Shop
Annex. They are all Ericsson pieces of equipment. He didn't believe they could mix
and match the equipment.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Hoag stated that she would like it looked into. Reid stated he could do that,
but would not recommend it, because of the service level they need.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated they want to keep the system
compatible for service reasons. They have complete support from one supplier.
The Ericsson system has proven to be a good system. They are able to upgrade it
into the future. They want to maintain that absolute compatibility and forward
transition capability into the future. Administration requests they use this system.
Any other major supplier would supply the components at an equivalent cost.
Hoag stated she wanted it looked into.
Sutter questioned the total price. Reid stated the $40,250 is the base price
of the main body of the phone system. The addition of taxes to that main body of
equipment totals the amount to $43,430.76, as referenced on packet page 382.
Dawson questioned the number of telephones. Reid stated the County is
getting 60 telephones and 64 lines.
Dawson stated that to get a guarantee or warrantee from the company, they
would have to stay with one company. Reid stated there will be problems trying to
get technical support if they mix and match equipment.
Brown agreed, but he would like cost comparisons in the future.
Wareing stated they have stayed with the IBM standards because they found
other systems do not work the same. If everything is compatible, everything works
uniformly. That doesn't mean there isn't other good equivalent equipment, but
they would then have two support structures to work with. The County does not
have the staff to baby several different vendors and pieces of equipment.
Brenner stated her concern was that they get locked into something that
doesn't work as well as something else might. They should be as flexible as
possible. She was concerned about getting dependent upon one company.
Wareing stated this company is one of the largest in the world. The County
has benefited by picking good suppliers and manufacturers.
Hoag stated they should be checking other costs to determine whether the
County is being overcharged. She was having problems with her phone and phone
lines. There are problems that need to be solved. Reid stated that the "fast busy"
problem Hoag experienced was with the phone company, not the County's system.
Regarding Hoag's problems with her call waiting, her model of phone does not
accept call waiting.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Wareing stated he will make sure her phone is upgraded. Also, if there are a
lot of people in the Courthouse making a lot of calls, then the system will run out of
lines.
The committee concurred to forward this item.
Brown stated the next item is the drug fund.
Wareing stated the building is a combination of boat storage and evidence
building to share between the Sheriff and Prosecutor. Different sources of funding
were used. This action enables the drug fund to pay for part of the funding that
was committed from the drug fund to this building.
Brenner stated this was voted upon last year. Wareing stated this was just
the financial transaction to make the money available.
The committee concurred to forward this item.
Wareing stated the next item is another transfer from the drug fund, based
on a proposal from the Sheriff's office that has been discussed and co-
recommended by the Prosecutor. It will place an additional deputy sheriff to the
Northwest Regional Drug Task Force, associated with the U.S. Customs Service, at
the border. The reason is that there is substantial drug trafficking and interdiction
of drug- funded resources and money. It is helpful for law enforcement to be able
to fund drug- enforcement on the backs of those who are creating the problem.
This would enable the County to work with customs, receive some of the money
that is seized by Customs at the border from the drug smugglers.
Deane Sandell, Undersheriff, stated there is a similar position with the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) that has been very successful. Customs has seen an
increase in marijuana smuggling cases, which impact Whatcom County
considerably. More than one of the couriers have been Whatcom County residents.
Brown stated there is a facility near the border that supports a lot of the
foreign people in coming and attending seminars. Some of the local people living in
the area have noticed the vans come in empty. When they leave, they are full of
people. Sandell stated they could talk later on that concern.
The committee concurred to forward this item.
Brown state the next item is the Conservation Futures Fund.
Wareing stated this completes a financial transaction between the Equipment
Revolve & Rental (ER &R) fund, which owns 'the pit.' It enables the County to
transfer the asset from the ER &R fund to the Parks fund, so it can be utilized by the
Parks Department.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Brenner stated, at one point, they discussed using that property for a
skateboard park. She questioned whether the skateboard park is still being
planned by the City of Bellingham. Wareing stated this area would not make a
good skateboard park now, because it has become a part of the Heritage Marine
Park. It has been filled in.
Brenner stated she wanted to make sure they don' t give up any of the
downtown assets that could be a skateboard park, if the City is not planning on
their skateboard park.
Wareing stated he would find out.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag questioned why they would take this out of Conservation Futures,
because it doesn't seem to fit that category, and whether the City of Bellingham
would reimburse the County when it is transferred to them. Wareing stated they
will find an exchange item with the City. Administration believes there is no
operational or functional value to the County. It does to the City, as a park. The
County is willing to trade something of an equivalent value.
Hoag questioned whether the City will trade something that would be
appropriately paid for through the Conservation Futures fund. Wareing stated
Conservation Futures is available to fund this, and make the exchange of converting
it to park property. It becomes a Park Department asset, rather than an ER &R
asset.
Hoag stated Conservation Futures is not the Parks Fund. She questioned
whether the property administration anticipates receiving from the City of
Bellingham would be considered appropriate for Conservation Futures. Wareing
stated they would do another transfer to reimburse Conservation Futures if it wasn't
appropriate.
Hoag stated in her opinion it wasn't a Conservation Futures item.
Sutter stated it is for the present time.
Brown questioned how the price was determined. Wareing stated there was
an appraisal done professionally. It is the appraised price of the land. They were
surprised at the appraisal amount.
The committee concurred to forward for approval.
Wareing stated the final item was to make up for an oversight in including
one full -time equivalent (FTE) employee for the Health and Human Services
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Department, as approved in the Budget Supplemental Request #4. It also includes
an increase of one deputy sheriff from the Drug Fund.
The committee concurred to forward for approval.
Dawson moved to recommend Supplemental Budget Modification Request #5
(substituted) to the full Council.
Hoag questioned whether the Council members would be able to vote
independently on each budget request item. Wareing stated the Council members
could make amendments to the ordinance, if they wish.
Hoag stated she was not comfortable with the property coming out of the
Conservation Futures fund. Wareing stated they could discuss that further.
Technically, they have the authority to remove that item. If the Council did not
want the money to come out of the Conservation Futures fund, then administration
would recommend taking the money from the unexpended fund balance in the
General Fund, to make that the source of the revenue.
Brown questioned whether any properties that would then come in from the
City of Bellingham could meet any category. Wareing stated they could go into the
General Fund.
Brenner stated she would prefer taking it out of the General Fund. Wareing
stated they could do that.
Brown questioned how many of the Council members would prefer to remove
the money from the Conservation Futures Fund.
The committee concurred that the funding source would be converted from
the Conservation Futures fund to the undesignated fund balance of the General
Fund.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
18. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999002
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER
CALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR VAN WYCK SHOULDER WIDENING,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,635 (AB99 -244)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Hoag stated items #18 through #20 are all road projects. Some of the
information in the bids is unclear. She questioned where the money amounts were
coming from.
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering Division, stated the reason item
Consent Agenda item #20 was so high was because of the length of the project.
These were the projects recently added due to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
regulations.
Hoag stated some things were odd. For instance, engineers' estimates on
hard goods are different than what people are bidding, Council packet page 322.
She cited the bid price for corrugated drainpipe. Mills stated for that item, the
County includes in the bid under the cost of the pipe, the cost to excavate for the
trench, place bedding material in the trench, and to backfill with select gravel
backfill material. He guessed this particular item was that one contractor did not
look at the specifications close enough and only bid for the cost of the pipe itself.
Hoag questioned the difference in cost for the installation of raised pavement
markers, and why one engineer's estimate differs greatly from another engineer's
estimate for the same thing.
Brown stated they are different contracts with different work locations.
Mills stated different volumes also make a difference. Bidders can get a
volume discount for a lot of materials.
Hoag stated the two projects don't differ greatly in volume, but the price
difference is phenomenal.
Brown stated engineers look at bid prices from previous years. They look at
quantities and projects, and make an estimate based on that information. They
aren't going out into the market and checking prices. They also look at what else is
going on in the contract. They need to discuss one contract at a time.
Hoag stated it looked very, very strange to her. She wondered what was
going on when she saw the engineers' estimate far off from what was bid. Mills
disagreed. The engineers' estimates for the total amount of the project are very
close to what was bid. Individual items can vary a bit because of contractors own
costs.
Hoag stated that doesn't explain a $300 difference on the price per hundred.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated the reality is that they are
dealing with different bid packages. Contractors may price different elements
differently. The County doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing different
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
elements from different packages. It is a total bid. The County bases its decision
on the bottom line of the total bid.
Hoag stated even the engineer is bidding different prices for the same item.
Brown stated she was not looking at the project and everything that is
involved.
Hoag stated it's a pavement marker.
Brown stated she must also take into consideration the traffic control and
other items that relate.
Dawson questioned what would happen if they had to accept the bid of the
company that did not bid properly. Mills stated, if they were the low bid, they
would have to absorb the cost. On a previous job, a contractor forgot to account
for additional installation costs. They withdrew their bid.
Brenner stated she saw a lot of different numbers on the bids, but it depends
on the contractor and where they're coming from. She thought the engineer's
report was closest to the right numbers, but the amount of the total package is
what counts. A lot of times, a contractor will write estimates that are lower than
they should be because he will be able to absorb the cost. She had questions about
different bid costs for a particular item that came from the same contractor.
Wareing stated a lot of different things are an issue. Some contractors will inflate
items that will be used early in the project, and cut the items that would be used
later in the project, so they can get their money earlier in the project.
Mills stated the difference between the Northwest and the Rainbow Road
projects is the fact that Rainbow Road is a further haul.
Motion to recommend approval carried unanimously.
19. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 998012
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF
RAINBOW ROAD — KICKERVILLE ROAD TO MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $327,629 (AB99 -245)
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Brenner questioned how long this project will take. She also asked why the
paint striping costs are different between this project and the project in Consent
Agenda item #20.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
Bruce Mills, Public Works Engineering, stated they subcontract that work out.
They hope to start this project during the third week in July. It should take about
five weeks.
Hoag stated people are not understanding her concern about the cost
difference for the raised pavement markers. This is almost $300 different from
what the County engineer estimated this item to be, on another project.
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated there is a general question of
relevance. The reality is they are dealing with bottom line prices from different
bidders. The specific elements are irrelevant to the discussion.
Hoag stated it is not irrelevant. She questioned whether the bidders see the
engineer's estimate. Mills stated they do not.
Hoag stated it was interesting they were close to matching the estimate on
the Rainbow Road and Van Wyck Road projects, but those estimates were hundreds
of dollars apart. That seemed very odd to her. It is not a matter of a couple of
bucks or of someone making it in one area and not in another area. It is the
County's engineer that is doing this. Mills stated the engineer's estimate for the
Kickerville Road project is $550. The bid prices vary from $400 to $675. The
engineer's estimate is within the range.
Wareing stated they could not provide any more answers. They've provided
all the answers they can.
Brown stated, having looked at a lot of bids for a lot of years, one can never
really explain why a contractor bids on certain items. The engineer goes by his own
criteria. The project could be spacing the lane markers differently.
Mills stated two different engineers put together these estimates. One
engineer may not have seen something recent. That is probably the difference in
the estimate.
Wareing stated they don't know that may be the case.
Sutter stated the Van Wyck Road project calls for a quantity of 150 markers.
On the other, it is 300 markers. Mills stated that was correct.
Sutter stated there was a difference due to volume purchasing. Having been
in the construction business, she knows there is a volume discount on certain
items. Then, one has to figure in how much work it will take to install, how much
traffic control will be required, and other things that go along with installing those
lane markers. She could see where there would be that much difference.
Motion to recommend approval carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
45
46
20. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 999016
AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO., FOR THE STRUCTURAL OVERLAY OF
NORTHWEST DRIVE — BELLINGHAM CITY LIMITS TO WEST AXTON
ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,007,175 (AB99 -246)
Brenner questioned when the project was starting and when it would be
done. Mills stated it would start July 12. It would go until almost the end of
August.
Brenner asked about the difference in traffic control costs between projects.
Mills stated it can vary.
Brenner stated there was also a difference in the paint striping projects.
Wareing stated she would have to ask the contractor.
Mills stated one contractor may have two different people doing their
estimates for their jobs.
Brown stated they could also have different people subcontracting the
striping.
Hoag questioned at what point the County engineer provided the estimate.
Mills stated the estimate is performed prior to bid. It becomes public at the time
they open the bids.
Hoag questioned what "LS" and "FA" are. Mills stated "LS" is a lump sum
item. "FA" is a force account item, where they are paid time and materials. It is
directed to be paid as needed. Usually, force account items are for items that are
hard to define in a specification exactly what is supposed to be done. It takes some
direction in the field. It is a flexible item in the bid.
Brenner questioned whether they are changing the width of the road. Mills
stated they are not.
Brenner questioned why they are doing landscaping, if they are not
changing the width. Mills stated the overlay raises the road. They need to blend
back into the yard areas with topsoil and seeding.
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #99-
66, FOR THE ANNUAL DRY DOCK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, 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
THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY, TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,
FOSS MARITIME COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,182 (AB99-
247)
Brown noticed some items were deleted to stay within the budget.
Mary Ewing, Public Works Equipment Revolve & Rental (ER &R) Manager,
stated there was a generator for $35,501 and channel supports that needed to be
rebuilt for $13,205 that were deleted. They are replacing the entire top of the
bulwarks on the ferry. Those items were deleted because they would have been
over budget.
Brown questioned what would happen if the generator goes out. Ewing
stated there is a generator on the ferry now, which is old and wearing out. She will
include that in the budget for next year. It keeps the ferry running. There are two,
a small one and a large one. The large one is getting beyond its life. They are
confident they can keep it going for this year.
Brown moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SEAMAR
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, TO PROVIDE OUTREACH SERVICES
FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS WHO MAY BE IN NEED OF DRUG
INTERVENTION AND /OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT, IN THE
FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $52,383 (AB99 -228)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated the next items are contracts
that have come to the end of the State's fiscal year. They are renewing the
contracts to continue on through the year.
Brenner stated she had questions that pertained to all the contracts. She
questioned how many requests the County gets, how many are accepted, and how
outreach is done to identify all the eligible people.
John Hooper, Health and Human Services Human Services Manager, stated
the developmentally disabled contracts were awarded to all the bidders. Two of the
bidders are brand new and don't have anyone that wants to go to them. The
County can't do contracts until they have dollars attached to the people and the
people want to go there. As individuals choose to go to those agencies, then the
County will initiate contracts with the new providers, who were accepted through
the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Brenner questioned how they measure success, and whether it was possible
to prioritize people with a certain level of a disability. Hooper stated they don't
count numbers. It is a first come, first serve basis. If a person is awarded funding,
then they have that funding for life.
Hoag questioned whether this item was within the budget. Hooper stated
they are pass- through funds, from the Housing Authority to SeaMar. There was a
supplemental budget passed several months ago. The contract with the Housing
Authority had also been approved.
Brenner questioned how they measure the success of the programs. Hooper
stated they look at different quality indicators for each type of service. Overall,
they provide a quality of life questionnaire and interview family members,
residential providers, and the individual to see if they're happy with the service they
are being provided.
Brenner had questions about the substance abuse programs and Consent
Agenda item #12. She questioned why they would allow 90 days for parents with a
drug problem. Hooper assured Brenner they are not waiting 90 days. They have
no waiting list for any services provided by Whatcom County. Those are guidelines
placed on the County by the State, and are passed through to the providers.
Sutter stated children who may be unsafe will be removed from the home
during the 90 day assessment period.
Brenner stated she was unclear about the assessment period. She believed
the assessment was done once the client was into the program, and questioned
how they do an assessment during the waiting period. She was concerned about
the interim waiting assessment. Also, she had problem with money being spent on
the Drug Abuse and Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program. It should be used
on other priorities. Hooper stated they are not currently funding D.A.R.E. It is not
one of their high priority programs to fund.
Brenner asked for an example of assessment services that might be done,
besides what is listed. Hooper stated assessment may change due to the service
not being completed.
Brenner questioned the meaning of "clinically selected," and whether it
referred to someone whose condition is worse and needs more treatment. Hooper
stated that was correct.
Brenner questioned the rate of recovery for people who go through the limit
of 90 days of treatment in two years. Hooper stated that refers specifically to
phase three, which is outpatient service. Phase one is inpatient treatment for 30
days and phase two is a recovery house for 60 days. A client would not just get the
90 days.
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brenner questioned the percentage of recovery during that timeframe.
Hooper stated, once a client has gone through phases one and two, they would
need to be stable before entering phase three. During the 90 -day outpatient
phase, they meet three to four times a week. It is rather intense. There has been
a study to show the success of the program.
Brenner questioned the purpose of paying clients a cash amount on a
monthly basis. Hooper stated they are not handed the money. They have a
protective payee who monitors their money. The amount is approximately $335
per month. The payee sees the rent and utilities are paid. The individual doesn't
get more than $20 or $30 at the end of the month.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brown moved to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Items two through
fifteen.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LOCAL
FOCUS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$95,580 (AB99 -229)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM CENTER FOR EARLY LEARNING TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
CHILDREN AGES BIRTH TO THREE AND THEIR FAMILIES, IN THE
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $105,984
(AB99 -230)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
COMMUNITY ACCESS SERVICES FOR PERSONS NOT ABLE TO ACCESS
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR
DISABILITIES OR OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $47,676 (AB99 -231)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUAL
SUPPORTED SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS
Committee of the Whole (afternoon) , 6/29/99, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $72,432 (AB99 -232)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CURRENT
INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$174,924 (AB99 -233)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KULSHAN
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUAL
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $127,716 (AB99 -234)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KULSHAN
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR GROUP
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $30,828 (AB99 -235)
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY
ACCESS SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $25,704 (AB99 -236)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CASCADE
VOCATIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR GROUP
SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $66,060 (AB99 -237)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GENESIS
II TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR INDIGENT AND
LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $44,968 (AB99 -238)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
CHAMBERS & WELLS COUNSELING, INC. TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT FOR INDIGENT AND LOW- INCOME CLIENTS IN
WHATCOM COUNTY, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/29/99, Page 17
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
AMOUNT OF $277,283 (AB99 -239)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY,
IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$32,594 (AB99 -240)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND VANGARD
NORTHWEST TO PROVIDE FOR PREVOCATIONAL SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CLIENTS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, IN
THE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $34,562
(AB99 -241)
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DISCUSSION OF BECCA BILL FUNDING AND IMPACT ON CURRENT
PROGRAMS (AB99 -225)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated it looks like the State will be
cutting the Becca Bill funding. The County could experience some funding loss and
associated positions. The good news is the County has the funding, with off - setting
revenues through the motor vehicle excise tax, that off -sets that loss and is not, as
yet allocated. The County has the ability to see the program through to the end of
the year until the Council has the opportunity to review this and make budget
decisions through the normal budget process.
Brenner questioned whether the State is going to reduce the Becca Bill
funding at this point.
N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Clerk, stated the State is going to reduce the
Becca Bill funding. The County's lawsuit for monies is alive and well. The increase
in the motor vehicle excise tax is supposed to offset the diminution of the Becca Bill
funding.
Brenner moved the Council send a letter requesting the Becca Bill funding be
used for intervention and other items it was intended for, and back off the truancy
aspect. Jackson stated the Criminal Justice Working Group, at the request of the
County Executive, arrived at the same conclusion. The at -risk and children in need
of supervision elements are extremely effective locally and statewide. The
considered decision was that those aspects not be diminished. The school districts
should handle the truancies themselves.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/29/99, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner asked how the school districts would handle the truancies. Jackson
stated the County expects to see an 80% reduction in the truancy petitions. Some
of them will come to court, but it is a significant difference.
Wareing stated there are models that work effectively.
Brenner questioned whether they are going to back off on pushing the
truancy cases through. Jackson stated they will not file them. The school districts
have the option to set up truancy boards, with a separate funding source for that
purpose. The courts will suggest they use that option.
Brenner stated that was great, and they don't need to send a letter after all.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
3. ANNUAL REVIEW OF WHATCOM COUNTY FERRY RATES, AS
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 89 -103 (AB99 -226)
Eric Schlehuber, Public Works Accounting, stated they are not proposing a
rate increase.
Brown questioned whether there anyone is looking at more frequent sailings.
Mary Ewing, Public Works Equipment Revolve & Rental (ER &R) Manager,
stated there can't be any more frequents sailing, and still allow for crew breaks and
lunches. Runs average 26 minutes each. She has met with the Whatcom
Transportation Authority regarding coordinating ferry service with bus service. The
people are going to have to get there earlier to catch the bus. Because of the
variance in loading and unloading times, people have to understand they may need
to catch the earlier ferry and wait ten minutes.
Brown stated WTA can't adjust their schedules. Ewing stated that is correct.
She is finding the riders need to understand it is up to them to get there.
Brown questioned whether they are still meeting the 55% requirements.
Schlehuber stated they are.
Sutter moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
TRAVEL AND /OR EXPENSES (AB99 -022 I)
Sutter stated she wanted to add to the request. She went to the
Government Council on Natural Resources meeting and the American Water
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/29/99, Page 19
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
Resources Association annual meeting the next day. She stayed overnight. She
has her mileage and hotel bill to add.
Dawson moved to recommend approval.
Hoag questioned whether it included her return mileage. Sutter stated it did.
Her first request did not include return mileage because she went to Olympia for a
meeting, which had been cancelled. She had not been notified, and did not do any
County business. Therefore, she only charged her mileage one way.
Brown stated that was kind of her.
Hoag stated it should not come out of her own pocket.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
17. 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)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated the United States Geological
Service (USGS), sent back a signed contract, but made changes. Since the County
last saw the contract, they made more changes. The administration would be
amenable to withdrawing this item for two weeks until the changes could be
reviewed.
The committee concurred to hold in committee.
Sutter stated a lot of the tasks are almost identical to the tasks identified in
the Public Utility District's (PUD) Water Rights Assessment portion that the Council
approved a few weeks ago. She didn't want duplicate work done. She wanted to
know how those two agencies would work together and, if so, whether some of the
funding could be removed from one or the other. The Council needs to look at
whether they are double- spending for the same information.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is not a duplication of effort.
The information will be consolidated to answer the central questions.
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/29/99, Page 20
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
Sutter stated the list on this item is almost identical to the scope of work
from the PUD. She understood they may cover different geographical areas, but
there may be overlap in the geographic areas they are examining. Monsen stated
he will make sure and find out the answer that question. He believed the USGS will
look at actual usage and the PUD will look at paper.
Sutter stated that isn't how their scope of work read.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL'S TRAVEL /EXPENSE POLICY
(AB99 -218)
Brown suggested postponing this item.
The committee concurred.
Brenner stated, regarding the discussion of Becca Bill funding and
impact on current programs (AB99 -225) she wanted to know the reduction in
the criminal justice system due to the 80% reduction in truancy cases. Jackson
stated they assign court commissioner duties to help absorb additional criminal
case load work as a result of the border drug interdictions and also to free up the
civil case load by adding additional trial days per year for divorces and civil cases.
Brenner stated they are going to be able to get people through the criminal
justice system because of the 80% reduction of truancy cases.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on August 10 , 1999.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Committee Chair
Finance and Administrative Services Committee, 6/29/99, Page 21